Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 5/02/13 12:45 AM, "Anthony Hartin"  wrote:

> I wasnt very happy with the people who expelled us in 1995, but its
> silly to hold life-long grudges. They (life-long grudges) should be
> reserved for the ruling class (and maybe certain football teams) only.
> The main problem is that everything gets overheated. Blame it on
> Zinoviev, or blame it on human nature, I dont know how you make people
> stay calm.

It's pertinent that in recent informal discussions in Australia there's been
a lot more acrimony between Socialist Alliance members coming from the DSP
and RSP members than between the former and Socialist Alternative members.
Although there are starting to be outbreaks of civility between the the two
former factions of the DSP.

A few years ago on the Greeen Left discussion list Chris Slee relayed an old
split and its resolution which in the fact that the split and some of the
hilariously abusive language used was forgotten a few years later is also
encouraging. It'd be better to avoid the abuse and hyper-factionalised
exaggeration of differences in the first place of course. It's worth noting
that this re-unification pre-dated that of the associated factions of the
FI, which Barry Sheppard details in the second volume of his memoir.

Chris wrote:

> In 1972 there was a split in the Socialist Workers League (the name of
> the DSP at that time). It was linked to divisions in the Fourth
> International, of which the SWL was a sympathising organisation.
> 
> One of the most contentious issues of the debate in the FI was the
> question of guerrilla warfare in Latin America. This should not have
> caused a split in Australia, but it did. To a large extent this was
> due to the FI's concept of international democratic centralism, which
> led people to feel they should take a position on tactical questions
> facing revolutionaries in other countries.
> 
> In the aftermath of the split, relations between the SWL and CL were
> very acrimonious. As an example, I will quote from an article in the
> second edition of the Militant, the Communist League's newspaper. The
> Militant article is responding to criticisms made in Direct Action,
> the newspaper of the Socialist Workers League and the Socialist Youth
> Alliance, of the Palestinian commando attack on Israeli athletes at
> the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. The Militant article says:
> 
> "Direct Action, the Woman's Weekly of the Left, and mouthpiece of the
> centrist Socialist Youth Alliance, has done a characteristic "job" on
> the Palestinians with a black-bordered statement from something
> calling itself the 'Political Committee of the Socialist Workers (sic)
> League' - see DA 26. While of course allowing that the means to
> achieve "self-determination" is "entirely up to the oppressed people
> themselves", SYA would be "failing in its duty" if it "remained silent
> on this occasion". Then follows four columns of typical SYA "critical
> support" - 1% support and 99% criticism - the sort of unadulterated
> filth that offers comfort to the capitalists and their Zionist
> lackeys, that undermines and demoralises the struggle of the
> Palestinians, and leaves the Australian working class thoroughly
> confused and likely to remain as backward as ever. After this further
> evidence of SYA's continuing rightward momentum, following its attack
> on the IRA in DA 23, and its statement that the ALP can be reformed in
> DA 25, the Vietnamese can only be relieved that in the early
> "terroristic" period of their struggle, they did not have to tolerate
> the holier-than-thou carpings of bloated student parasites.
> Otherwise, we have no doubt that SYA would have advised them to put
> away the "conspiratorial and elitist" gun and get involved in mass
> action that the masses understand - like gay liberation demonstrations
> and high school strikes over long hair."
> 
> Eventually most people on both sides of the split saw the need to
> re-unite. By 1977 relations beteen the CL and the SWL (by then called
> Socialist Workers Party) had improved sufficiently for the fusion
> process to begin. It was completed at the fusion conference in
> January 1978.
> 
> This experience shows that it is sometimes possible to overcome even a
> very bitter split.
> 
> For the sake of completeness I should mention that the fusion was not
> without problems. A minority of the CL (I think it was about a third
> of the members) voted against the fusion. Some of these people were
> later expelled from the SWP on various grounds, and all or most of the
> rest of them had left within a couple of years.
> 
> Nevertheless the fusion was an important step forward for the left in
> Australia.
> 
> Chris




Send list submissions to: Ma

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Anthony Hartin]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Gary wrote
> Never disgust Tony. Never as in not ever. My predominant emotion is 
sadness

about all the  people who have been processed through Leninism. Where have
they all gone?


I know a lot of people who are former members. Most have remained 
marxists, at least as much as one is able to whilst trying to struggle 
along with life.
Once one learns about marxism and starts to incoporate it in ones 
thinking, its hard to remove it if one is intellectually honest. The 
debt I owe (as far as learning goes) rests largely with Mick and Sandra.


I wasnt very happy with the people who expelled us in 1995, but its 
silly to hold life-long grudges. They (life-long grudges) should be 
reserved for the ruling class (and maybe certain football teams) only. 
The main problem is that everything gets overheated. Blame it on 
Zinoviev, or blame it on human nature, I dont know how you make people 
stay calm.


Maybe one thing that makes it better for me out of our faction fight was 
that we built Socialist Alternative, which is still flying the flag and 
has some very good people in it (the only reason I'm not is because I'm 
stranded  in europe). I'm glad that other great comrades from "rival" 
organisations and who I've known about since my student days now are 
able to work together. That gives me a lot of hope


best wishes,
Tony

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis (SocAlt & SocAll)

[glparramatta]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Alan Bradley wrote:

>The other side of things is the informal discussion on blogs, Facebook and
so on. (And doubtless in the Real >World(tm)  as well...) While less
important at one level, it has the benefit of being continuous and
interactive, as well >as involving more people from both groups that in the
relatively closed leadership level discussions.

These discussions have opened up a dialogue between Socialist Alternative
and Socialist Alliance members at many levels, as Alan notes. Perhaps this
is biggest gain of the process. Of course they are often messy,
frustrating, confusing, send mixed messages, but also in many case sare
clarifying and constructive. Some us are more sceptical than others. But
the process is positive.

Discussions have began to explore the different organisations' positions --
on their attitudes to the Greens, to revolutionary organisation, the
transitional method, feminist organising -- among others.

These discussions, as well as being expressed in informal discussions, and
formal meetings, are also entering our publications. For example, recent
debates around our attitudes to "transitional demands" and organising
against violence against women can be found at http://links.org.au/node/3202and
http://links.org.au/node/3133.

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Ratbag Media]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Talking about  DIY...

As one Alliance member writes: "Constitutions never make riveting
reading, but I have been in quite a few leftist groups over the years
and this is the most democratic one I've ever been in."

Constitution of the Socialist Alliance (updated 2013)
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=1257


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Ratbag Media]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis Proyect WROTE: "Jim Percy used to stay at my apartment in NYC."

Well then, Louis, I hoped he cooked for you...

There was a strong  element in the DSP's rethinking that was driven by
an ongoing dialogue with Peter Camejo. During that eighties period
there were two  published critiques of the US SWP's sectarianism --
the DSP's and Camejo's.

I think Camejo's is better but I also think both are inadequate as
they don't 'explain'  sectarianism as a world wide phenomenon. Today,
hopefully, those who pursue that quest can do a better job but the
jury is still gonna be out.

That's because there is a world of difference between building parties
that  strive to follow  a non sectarian course  and criticising  those
extant sects that exist.

That's something 'The North Star' doesn't  get -- the DIY.

Probably the most disastrous sectarian consequence at the present time
lies at the feet of  the Greek Communist Party -- the  KKE .

But I'm sure they know nothing of James P. Cannon... or Paul Le Blanc..

In Australia the biggest sect, with the greatest consequent impact,
was always the local Communist Party -- until its implosion in the
late eighties.

So explaining  "Leninisms'" penchant for secthood has to be about more
than fingering its supposed icons.

While I think it's very clear today  that  our collective legacy was
mistaken in its historical  reading of Bolshevism, the complication is
that the actual coal face labour  of  arriving at a different course
was warped initially by the Cold War and later by the ultra leftist
penchant of the post sixties student radicals with their preference
for ideology over practice.

Of course there are other factors and the deployment of  toy
internationals is one of them. They were, despite their occasional
utility,  the vectors for the pandemic.

Where Louis  really gets it absolutely correct is in warning that the
major threat to the relevance of the Marxist left today is not
reformism -- which tends to be caricatured as so many universal
abstractions  -- but sectarianism.

As a mental side dish:  In the early nineties the DSP engaged itself
keenly in the genesis of the local Green party. How that could have
panned out( re Cannon, Joe Blogs or whoever) , if allowed to proceed
(as the party's further involvement was proscribed) , would have been
very interesting indeed ...

But then we'll never know.


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 4/02/13 10:09 AM, "Gary MacLennan"  wrote:

> If Mick and
> Sandra really have learned something they would be in discussions with the
> Socialist Alliance, but I know Mick and I know Sandra and I also know pigs
> don't fly.

Well they are in discussion with Socialist Alliance. I.e: They're had a
couple of meetings; Socialist Alliance and Green Left logos are now on the
material for the Marxism conference where there several Socialist Alliance
speakers now as well as those from the RSP (I'm helping a little for the
very innovate kids program for the conference, or have promised to); Mick
spoke at the recent Socialist Alliance conference and said pretty much the
same things about the period and what to do as Peter Boyle whom he followed,
except for running in the elections; and one proposal from the conference
was that the 2 SAs sit down and see if a common platform statement can be
developed. 

It's cautious and there's a quite long to work out, of culture and
organisational aspects as well as program and perspective, but it'd be mad
not to try it when SAlt has dropped state cap, opened up organisationally,
and with some growth seem much more than previously to have a layer of
experienced but still youngish worker activists in a range of unions and
campaigns which is probably a very good reality check for them.

On the other side I think Socialist Alliance has generally recognised that
the stick was bent a bit too far in the direction of broadness and a bit of
tightening organisationally and programtically is appropriate in the current
period when big breaks aren't on the cards, and conference decisions
reflected that (and that's been generally happening since 2010, as roughly
an attempt by the DSP after effectively dissolving of bringing the baby but
not the bathwater into SA in genuine unity with other forces such as
important migrant left groups and individuals like Gary). 




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/3/13 6:46 PM, Stuart Munckton wrote:

In the 1990s, with the closure of opportunities for broad left regoupment,
there was a certain turn back. I think Camejo picked up on this. I think he
also exaggerated it, but given the faction fight that broke out, it is
clear there was something to it. A section of the leadership were turning
back on a lot of the opening out and thinking in the 80s.



Well, I certainly applaud the direction you are going in and hope that 
it continues. I think that you are making a mistake by looking to Paul 
Le Blanc for insights on party-building however. So is Socialist 
Alternative. Anyhow, I will get into more detail on this when I take up 
her new article on Leninism.



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 4/02/13 10:27 AM, "Louis Proyect"  wrote:

> Munckton & Fredman, do you think I was born yesterday?
> 
> Jim Percy used to stay at my apartment in NYC. I know more about your
> movement than any other group on the left except the American SWP.

I know pretty well what you know and what you think, having followed, and
participated in, this list since 2001 (and BTW since you wonder having been
a member of the DSP since 1990). I've no idea know what point you're now
trying to make besides you know all about the DSP, which we knew. The point
me and Stuart were making, pretty clearly I thought, was that you were wrong
in asserting the DSP ever rejected Cannon in toto, as those from the DSP in
Socialist Alliance and others in SA I gather generally still see value in
Cannon, on party building as well as the interesting socialist and labour
history, useful lessons on fighting fascism and so on in his writings, even
if our views about party building and organisational forms have changed.

> Good on the Percy
> brothers to tell Barnes to take a hike--can't remember over which issue.
> Vietnam?

The initiating issue I understand was Afghanistan around 1980, somewhat
unfortunately, (the US SWP moving to oppose the Soviet intervention and
expected its colonial subjects to do likewise as previously), but it soon
became the mad turn to industry which the Australian SWP pretty quickly
realised was mad, fortunately.  




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Stuart Munckton]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I am sorry, but your view of how the DSP viewed itself is distorted by your
own views on what is essential and crucial. You view the question of
"Cannon" in a way it is simply not viewed here. This is the case *despite*
the fact that in the 1960s and 70s, the US SWP was used as a model.

On the break with Barnes, it was not just a break with Barnes, but a break
with Trotskyism.

DSP and the Fourth International 

There is another pamnhplet "The making of a sect" about the US SWP but it
is not online.


The point is not the finer points of the arguements in these documents, but
they mark a point of a tendency attempting to think anew and not be bound
by one tradition -- especially one that has not actually worked. Such a
thing is not smooth or clean and has played out over many years.

Regardless, my point remains the same: it is YOUR obsession with Cannon
that makes a view of Cannon central. The idea that the split was over
Cannon is not true. It has some basis in as far as the Percy faction wanted
the "old" DSP, which was interpreted as one that was strongly "Cannonist"
-- but in fact this was a throw back to the 1970s -- before the break with
Trotskysim. But it was not viewed as a either a fight for or against Cannon
for most comrades -- for the simple reason we were trying to graple with
what to do in the early 21st century in Australia, not judge things for
against what James Cannon said or did. This was not new. It was a minority
that seemed to want to turn the clock back a couple of decades.

In the 1990s, with the closure of opportunities for broad left regoupment,
there was a certain turn back. I think Camejo picked up on this. I think he
also exaggerated it, but given the faction fight that broke out, it is
clear there was something to it. A section of the leadership were turning
back on a lot of the opening out and thinking in the 80s.

Stuart

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/3/13 6:14 PM, Nick Fredman wrote:
 > I don't think Cannon ever featured very highly in public DSP 
discourse, but

on the other hand an article by Dave Holmes, 'An introduction to James P.
Cannon' was only posted online in 2010, not long after the DSP effectively
dissolved. So your head might have to spin a bit more:

http://links.org.au/node/1848



Munckton & Fredman, do you think I was born yesterday?

Jim Percy used to stay at my apartment in NYC. I know more about your 
movement than any other group on the left except the American SWP.


The Percy brothers started the Socialist Workers League as almost a 
carbon copy of Cannon's SWP. Furthermore, nobody would ever refer to 
James P. Cannon in "public discourse". Instead, he was the architect of 
the organizational principles of American Trotskyism and the groups it 
spawned, mostly in the English-speaking world. Good on the Percy 
brothers to tell Barnes to take a hike--can't remember over which issue. 
Vietnam?


Anyhow, here's what I am talking about. I have no idea if you were a 
member at the time.


From 2003: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/JohnPercy.htm



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 4/02/13 12:56 AM, "Louis Proyect"  wrote:

> Ten years ago I was telling the DSP in Australia that Cannon was all
> wet. They had the same reaction to me. That Proyect is a petty bourgeois
> talk shop clown. Now you can find no reference to Cannon in their
> literature, a big step forward.

Well we're still happy to corner the Australian market in selling the works
of Cannon, with 8 titles here:



I don't think Cannon ever featured very highly in public DSP discourse, but
on the other hand an article by Dave Holmes, 'An introduction to James P.
Cannon' was only posted online in 2010, not long after the DSP effectively
dissolved. So your head might have to spin a bit more:

http://links.org.au/node/1848






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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Gary MacLennan]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Tony wrote:

On the other hand its not impossible that Leninist organisations like Soc
Alternative/RSP can find a way forward also. Despite Gary's eternal shudder
of disgust, you may have to concede that Soc Alternative learnt something
through past faction struggles (Mick, Sandra, Jeff and Jill Sparrow and
myself were all expelled from the IST), and the last 18 years of slow and
steady building. I mean you have to take some hope from that fact that past
bitter rivals decided that they were able to get along after all - perhaps
there's hope for the rest of us as well.

My reply:

Never disgust Tony. Never as in not ever. My predominant emotion is sadness
about all the people who have been processed through Leninism.  Where have
they all gone? Does it ever occur to the "Leninists" to think of all those
thousands who have fallen by the way side?  Generally they are dismissed
with the comment that the ex-member has "moved to the right".

I have made this point before, but the weight of empirical evidence is that
the Leninist party builders are doing something wrong, because they have
failed miserably to build the party.

The crisis in the British SWP is of great significance to the Australian
Left generally and to the Socialist Alternative in particular despite what
John has argued.  Mick and Sandra etc have all as you say been in the IST.
Now I sincerely hope that the discussion with the RSP are legitimate and
help to build an impetus towards a larger and more open organisation.

But it could also be a maneuver designed to mop up a rival organisation.  I
have been through that process before with the Communist League and the
then SWP. the end of the "unification process" was that the Communist
League did not exist and most of its members were depoliticised.  My own
belief is that the organisation, which will form the embryo of the broad
organisation we so desperately need, already exists and it is the Socialist
Alliance.

But is say that in no partisan or sectarian sense at all. If Mick and
Sandra really have learned something they would be in discussions with the
Socialist Alliance, but I know Mick and I know Sandra and I also know pigs
don't fly.

comradely

Gary

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Stuart Munckton]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


>
> Ten years ago I was telling the DSP in Australia that Cannon was all wet.
> They had the same reaction to me. That Proyect is a petty bourgeois talk
> shop clown. Now you can find no reference to Cannon in their literature, a
> big step forward.
>

Well, there is no DSP and therefore no DSP literature. But in the education
school Socialist Alliance runs  there is still some Cannon read and you can
still find Cannon on the bookshelves. There is a lot more to the world than
a positive or negative reading, or a mixed reading, of Cannon.

Also, hard as it might be to believe, there is also more to worry about
building political groups in Australia than what that Proyect says -- it is
not somethig that really weighs on anyone here.


Stuart

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/3/13 1:31 AM, Nick Fredman wrote:

Incidentally the Mick Armstrong article was titled, 'From little things big
things grow', presumably after the Kev Carmody/Paul Kelly song of the same
name. I.e. While it presented a rather timeless "Leninism",


It wasn't an article. It was a book. It also seems to have disappeared 
from the Internet. Five years ago I told Mick he was wrong and I am sure 
that all the Socialist Alternative people viewed my criticisms as 
anathema. Now his idiotic book has fallen into the memory hole.


Ten years ago I was telling the DSP in Australia that Cannon was all 
wet. They had the same reaction to me. That Proyect is a petty bourgeois 
talk shop clown. Now you can find no reference to Cannon in their 
literature, a big step forward.


John Percy split with his comrades because they had abandoned Cannon. 
The next thing you know they join Armstrong's group that has abandoned 
Armstrong's organizational views that were pretty much in line with 
Cannon's arch-Zinovievism.


It is enough to make your head spin.

I have been saying the same thing for 30 years and have never retracted 
a single word. I won't be saying it for the next 30 since I am such a 
geezer. But I'll bet you that $100 that 30 years from now the sect form 
will be long forgotten. You can send the money to my wife who is a lot 
younger and will certainly survive me. She also has my instructions to 
put my comic book memoir online since that asshole Joyce Brabner will be 
dead by then as well.



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/3/13 3:09 AM, En Passant with John Passant wrote:

How many 'Leninist' sects as Louis describes small revolutionary
organisations were at Zimmerwald? I do know one at least led a mass
working class revolution 2 years later.



The Russian social democracy was not a sect. Here is what a sect is:

"The sect establishes itself on a HIGH level (far above that of the 
working class) and on a thin base which is ideologically selective 
(usually necessarily outside working class). Its working-class character 
is claimed on the basis of its aspiration and orientation, not its 
composition or its life. It then sets out to haul the working class up 
to its level, or calls on the working class to climb up the grade. From 
behind its organizational walls, it sends out scouting parties to 
contact the working class, and missionaries to convert two here and 
three there. It sees itself becoming, one day, a mass revolutionary 
party by a process of accretion; or by eventual unity with two or three 
other sects; or perhaps by some process of entry."


full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1971/alt/alt.htm


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

[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[En Passant with John Passant]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis says, in response to my point about the jewel in the Crown of the Second 
International, the SPD, in 1914 voting for war credits:

'Of course, it would be great if some "Leninist" sect ever got large enough to 
elect a parliamentarian who votes for war credits, as Peter Camejo once related 
to me with an ear-to-ear grin.'

That says it all really about the Second International 'project' Louis is so 
keen on. Build a working class party to vote for imperialist war or who knows 
what other anti-working class positions. 

How many 'Leninist' sects as Louis describes small revolutionary organisations 
were at Zimmerwald? I do know one at least led a mass working class revolution 
2 years later. 

John Passant , En Passant with John Passant (http://enpassant.com.au)

 

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/02/13 10:33 AM, "Louis Proyect"  wrote:

> [Coey Oakley's article]  seems to be close in spirit to what Le Blanc has
> said, which 
> of course is an advance over Mick Armstrong's "From Little Acorns"
> article that I critiqued a few years ago. It would seem that the ISO and
> SAlt are moving away from the old-school "Leninism" of those days. We
> shall see.

Incidentally the Mick Armstrong article was titled, 'From little things big
things grow', presumably after the Kev Carmody/Paul Kelly song of the same
name. I.e. While it presented a rather timeless "Leninism", it referenced a
special moment in Australian labour history, the late 60s stock workers
strike and land rights struggle of the Gurindji people - and the solidarity
movement with it, in which the CPA and and unions they led or influenced on
this played a leading role (see e.g. http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/11021
or a longer treatment Terry Townsend's book on The Aboriginal Struggle and
the Left not online but available from
http://www.resistancebooks.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=809)

The song goes:

Gather round people let me tell you're a story
An eight year long story of power and pride
British Lord Vestey and Vincent Lingiarri
Were opposite men on opposite sides

Vestey was fat with money and muscle
Beef was his business, broad was his door
Vincent was lean and spoke very little
He had no bank balance, hard dirt was his floor

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow

Gurindji were working for nothing but rations
Where once they had gathered the wealth of the land
Daily the pressure got tighter and tighter
Gurindju decided they must make a stand

They picked up their swags and started off walking
At Wattie Creek they sat themselves down
Now it don't sound like much but it sure got tongues talking
Back at the homestead and then in the town

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow

Vestey man said I'll double your wages
Seven quid a week you'll have in your hand
Vincent said uhuh we're not talking about wages
We're sitting right here till we get our land
Vestey man roared and Vestey man thundered
You don't stand the chance of a cinder in snow
Vince said if we fall others are rising

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow

Then Vincent Lingiarri boarded an aeroplane
Landed in Sydney, big city of lights
And daily he went round softly speaking his story
To all kinds of men from all walks of life

And Vincent sat down with big politicians
This affair they told him is a matter of state
Let us sort it out, your people are hungry
Vincent said no thanks, we know how to wait

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow

Then Vincent Lingiarri returned in an aeroplane
Back to his country once more to sit down
And he told his people let the stars keep on turning
We have friends in the south, in the cities and towns

Eight years went by, eight long years of waiting
Till one day a tall stranger appeared in the land
And he came with lawyers and he came with great ceremony
And through Vincent's fingers poured a handful of sand

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow

That was the story of Vincent Lingairri
But this is the story of something much more
How power and privilege can not move a people
Who know where they stand and stand in the law

>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow
>From little things big things grow





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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/2/13 3:31 PM, en.pass...@bigpond.com wrote:

I am not sure if that is mere description or involves some sort of
support from Louis, but I would have thought that 1914 and the vote
of the SPD for war credits might have shown the bankruptcy of that
course.


Adopting a "Leninist" party-building model is not a prophylactic against 
taking the wrong position on imperialism. Ted Grant's group backed the 
British war against Argentina's attempt to retake the Malvinas. Tony 
Cliff had a fucked up position on the Korean War. And so on. Of course, 
it would be great if some "Leninist" sect ever got large enough to elect 
a parliamentarian who votes for war credits, as Peter Camejo once 
related to me with an ear-to-ear grin.





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

[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[en . passant]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis says in a recent post:

'I think the momentum is shifting toward mass parties of the left that have 
much more in common with the Second International parties that the Comintern 
was meant to replace.' 

I am not sure if that is mere description or involves some sort of support from 
Louis, but I would have thought that 1914 and the vote of the SPD for war 
credits might have shown the bankruptcy of that course. As to momentum, Louis 
gives no examples, but presumably has SYRIZA in mind if his next comments are 
any guide.

Louis bags out Left Flank for raising legitimate issues about SYRIZA. He says 
in part:

'Has any of these ultraleftists at Ultraleft Flank read "Ultraleftism, an 
infantile disorder"? Lenin urges the German Communists, who were probably 10 
times larger than ANTARSYA, to vote for the Socialists, who killed Rosa 
Luxemburg. Imagine that...'

I don't know if Tad Tietze, one of the mainstays of Left Flank, has read 
Ultraleftism, an infantile disorder. I am sure that he has read Left Wing 
Communism: an infantile disorder. 

I think ANTARSYA's failure to call for a vote for SYRIZA was a mistake. 

That doesn't undermine the criticisms they have of SYRIZA and the illusions 
major sections of SYRIZA have and are creating among the working class in the 
capitalist state and its capacity to transcend the crisis of profitability 
without imposing massive cuts to living standards on workers and perhaps 
overseeing a huge devalorisaton of capital.

Having said that I am not arguing that participation in SYRIZA is off the 
agenda since it appears that those workers who are radicalising are turning to 
SYRIZA. However it does mean any involvement of the revolutionary left has to 
be acutely aware not only of the potential gains in the working class fighting 
against capitalism but also of the dangers of participating blindly in the 
political expression of that fight at the moment.


John Passant, En Passant with John Passant (http://enpassant.com.au)



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Einde O'Callaghan]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 02.02.2013 18:42, Manuel Barrera wrote:




Laurie Penney, not in the SWP, has been one voice that has spoken out and 
strongly on this crisis and its relation to Left politics, 
http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2013/01/what-does-swps-way-dealing-sex-assault-allegations-tell-us-about-leftand,
 in response to the debate, here is a response to Callinicos: 
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/deregulating-resistance


Just to be clear, this isn't a response to the current discussion, but 
to a previous discussion that took place at the end of 2010.


Einde O'Callaghan


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Anthony Hartin]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



I think we want to be a little careful not to turn "anti-zinoviesm"
into another schema that the left must adhere to in order to be guarenteed 
growth. I'm much more open to the idea that all types of left 
formations suffer or propsper according to the material conditions. To my 
mind thats the principle of why SYRIZA has enjoyed a spectacular step 
forward - it reflects the depth of the crisis amongst Greek workers, and 
not because SYRIZA understands the united front or "anti-zinoviesm" better 
than anyone else. The fact of that matter is that most of these type of 
formations (RESPECT, NPA, SocAlliance) have either imploded or treaded 
water.


On the other hand its not impossible that leninist organisations like 
SocAlternative/RSP can find a way forward also. Despite Gary's eternal 
shudder of disgust, you may have to concede that SocAlternative learnt 
something through past faction struggles (Mick, Sandra, Jeff and Jill 
Sparrow and myself were all expelled from the IST), and the last 18 
years of slow and steady building. I mean you have to take some hope from 
that fact that past bitter rivals decided that they were able to get 
along after all - perhaps there's hope for the rest of us as well.


solidarity,
Tony



On 2/2/13 11:01 AM, DCQ wrote:
Just finished reading this. I am honestly a bit confused by it. Not
the content (which is good), but how the debate is shaping up. In
response to the crisis, Alex responds to...Owen Jones? Then the
opposition posts a response--a quite good one ("Is Zinoviezism
finished?") and Paul responds to Alex and ... Louis Proyect (who
likewise only mentions one side)? It comes across as dancing around
the real debate.



Louis wrote:
Honestly I am growing weary of debating "Zinovievism". I probably will 
write a response to the Socialist Alternative article by Sandra Bloodworth 
but am not looking forward to it. At a certain point it becomes an 
exercise in futility. I remember back in 1969 how I felt about things as a 
young and enthusiastic SWP member. If anybody had approached me with the 
kinds of ideas I have now, I would have laughed in their face. I think 
the 
momentum is shifting toward mass parties of the left that have much more 
in common with the Second International parties that the Comintern was 
meant to replace.



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Manuel Barrera]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


" Lastly, I'll just pose an observation: that each of these contributions 
completely avoids dealing with issues of sexism and gender oppression. (Well, 
to be precise, Alex completely avoids it; Louis admirably mentions it, but only 
as a "match" that highlighted the *real* "Leninist" problem (could it not be 
the reverse?); and Paul doesn't because he's arguing for&against the first 
two.) Why is that? And why is that ok?"
It's not ok, Dave. It's an important observation and I am glad you made it and 
reminded at least me of it. I would say that many of the UKSWP opposition is, I 
am sure, clear about the gender (and indirectly, so, race/ethnicity) issues at 
the  base of these events. Indeed, I believe such issues--like the national and 
women's liberation issues of previous "Leninist" battles--are often ignored 
because so many of the people engaged in the debate are White men. To be fair, 
it's not really desirable for White men to make the connection between women's 
and national/race/ethnic oppression and the battles over the 
mis-characterization of "leninism" (which is not to say all people involved in 
this debate should not engage them). Women, in particular, should not be a 
"side show" in this debate; after all, it is women who have born the brunt of 
this "crisis", which is really a crisis of the revolutionary left historically. 
People of color have a direct interest in this crisis as well. I cannot imagine 
that a party of any revolutionary worth, including the UKSWP, would not have 
Black and Brown voices to have something to say. 

Laurie Penney, not in the SWP, has been one voice that has spoken out and 
strongly on this crisis and its relation to Left politics, 
http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2013/01/what-does-swps-way-dealing-sex-assault-allegations-tell-us-about-leftand,
 in response to the debate, here is a response to Callinicos: 
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/deregulating-resistance
Unfortunately, and it is a freely-admitted failing, I am not really all that 
familiar with other voices, including of women inside the UKSWP or of people of 
color. I truly believe that a significant contribution to this list and to the 
revolutionary left would be more attention to hearing the voices of women (just 
found Laurie's twitter and tumbr handle and have begun following it!) and 
people of color within and without the revolutionary and Marxist movement (Yes, 
David T., I also believe that so for LGBTQ voices as well). 


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Ed George]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis Proyect:

"Honestly I am growing weary of debating "Zinovievism". I probably will 
write a response to the Socialist Alternative article by Sandra 
Bloodworth but am not looking forward to it. At a certain point it 
becomes an exercise in futility. I remember back in 1969 how I felt 
about things as a young and enthusiastic SWP member. If anybody had 
approached me with the kinds of ideas I have now, I would have laughed 
in their face. I think the momentum is shifting toward mass parties of 
the left that have much more in common with the Second International 
parties that the Comintern was meant to replace."



*

If the foregoing has an element of truth to it [...] what conclusions 
can we draw?


First, in relation to the character of the period we are about to enter. 
We can surmise that we stand on the brink of a new long-wave cycle – the 
fifth under capitalism. The forthcoming cycle will be marked by an 
absence of global hegemony; or, rather, will form a interregnum between 
one global hegemon – the United States – and the next. Which the next 
will be, of course, we do not know, as this will be something determined 
by inter-imperialist competition between the declining power – the 
United States – and new, rising, ones, and overdetermined by other 
factors exogenous to the cyclical process. [...]


If it is historical analogies that we are looking for, then we can say 
that the coming long-wave will not have the political characteristics of 
the last cycle but those of the one before, i.e. that we will be moving 
in a period more akin to that of 1890-1945 than 1945 to the present. [...]


We can expect the ascendant phase of the coming cycle to be marked by a 
slower and more unstable rhythm of growth than we saw during the 
post-Second World War boom, and the descendent phase by qualitatively 
more turbulent than the post-1970 period: the descendent phase of the 
third long-wave cycle opened of course with World War One and closed 
with World War Two. But the supervening period was that single period in 
human history to see a genuine flourishing of socialist revolution.


What conclusions can we draw as socialists, particularly in respect of 
the type of political organisations we should be building? It should now 
be clear that what should not be on the agenda is the type of 
organisation that was being built in the late 1930s, as the few 
remaining socialist revolutionists struggled desperately against time 
and against seemingly impossible odds to construct parties that would be 
ready, in extraordinarily unfavourable circumstances, to deal with what 
was seen as an imminent struggle for power. We are in a period more akin 
to the end of the nineteenth century, in which the mass parties of the 
Second International were built. [...]


The only political current which today retains any filiation to the idea 
of socialist revolution is that emanating from Trotsky’s Fourth 
International, formed exactly towards the end point of that last period 
of revolution and counter-revolution. But the political practice of the 
organisations which trace their origins, however indirectly, to this 
tradition – "leadershipism" and leadership cultism, literary 
fetishisation of programmatic declarations, bureaucratic centralisation 
to the point of monolithism, catastrophism, extreme hyperactivism, 
vanguardism, "short-cut" substitutionism – are precisely a reflection of 
the fact that these groups still see themselves on the brink of a real 
collapse of the capitalist system and an actual and imminent struggle 
for power, as if the maxims of Trotsky’s Transitional Programme [...] 
were not conjunctural pronouncements contingent on the circumstances of 
the time but timeless and ahistorical programmatic ones (akin to the way 
in which Lenin, at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, characterised 
the approach of the young European Communist Parties to the resolution 
on organisational structure approved at the Third as akin to "hanging it 
in the corner like an icon and praying to it".


No: the parties we need to be seeking to build will be built much more 
in the way in which, for example, Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? was 
precisely not presented as a blueprint for a doctrinally pure and 
programmatically pristine centralised "propaganda group" but as a call 
to, and for, "revolutionary social-democrats", *all* revolutionary 
social-democrats, to build a party of the Russian working class 
movement, in close connection with and out of that movement; exactly in 
the same spirit as the Communist Manifesto, which declared its aim as 
the "formation of the proletariat into a class", could declare that "The 
Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class 
parties. Th

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/2/13 11:01 AM, DCQ wrote:

Just finished reading this. I am honestly a bit confused by it. Not
the content (which is good), but how the debate is shaping up. In
response to the crisis, Alex responds to...Owen Jones? Then the
opposition posts a response--a quite good one ("Is Zinoviezism
finished?") and Paul responds to Alex and ... Louis Proyect (who
likewise only mentions one side)? It comes across as dancing around
the real debate.


Honestly I am growing weary of debating "Zinovievism". I probably will 
write a response to the Socialist Alternative article by Sandra 
Bloodworth but am not looking forward to it. At a certain point it 
becomes an exercise in futility. I remember back in 1969 how I felt 
about things as a young and enthusiastic SWP member. If anybody had 
approached me with the kinds of ideas I have now, I would have laughed 
in their face. I think the momentum is shifting toward mass parties of 
the left that have much more in common with the Second International 
parties that the Comintern was meant to replace.


I have to get a chuckle, btw, over a polemic directed against Richard 
Seymour on SYRIZA written by a Greek IST'er for Left Flank, a blog that 
should really be called Ultraleft Flank. It concludes:


http://left-flank.org/2013/01/29/greece-politics-marxist-strategy
"For those who unashamedly situate ourselves in the revolutionary 
Marxist tradition, the building of revolutionary left organisations, 
like ,,, the SWP in Britain, is the key strategic task if we want a 
world without the catastrophes of capitalism."


I was inspired to write this comment:

"Yes, that is the primary task facing the Greek left. To build something 
like the British SWP. My advice is to bring Comrade Delta in as an 
outside consultant."


The gist of the article is a reprimand of Richard because SYRIZA is not 
fighting for a socialist revolution but a government that will do for 
Greece what Kirchner did for Argentina. Yes, what a bbbetrayal that 
would be.


Has any of these ultraleftists at Ultraleft Flank read "Ultraleftism, an 
infantile disorder"? Lenin urges the German Communists, who were 
probably 10 times larger than ANTARSYA, to vote for the Socialists, who 
killed Rosa Luxemburg. Imagine that...




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[DCQ]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Just finished reading this. I am honestly a bit confused by it. Not the content 
(which is good), but how the debate is shaping up. In response to the crisis, 
Alex responds to...Owen Jones? Then the opposition posts a response--a quite 
good one ("Is Zinoviezism finished?") and Paul responds to Alex and ... Louis 
Proyect (who likewise only mentions one side)? It comes across as dancing 
around the real debate.

That Alex did so in order to set up a straw man is obvious. That Louis did so 
is probably because to mention the possibility of the opposition succeeding 
might upend his certainty about the original Leninist sin. But why does Paul 
bring in Louis and ignore the actual opposition, the ones trying to be heard, 
and needing all the support they can get? 

Let me make clear that I agree with much of what Paul says. It's what he 
doesn't say, and who he doesn't address that I question. (And it's an actual 
question, not a pointy-finger-haha-gotcha question.)

Lastly, I'll just pose an observation: that each of these contributions 
completely avoids dealing with issues of sexism and gender oppression. (Well, 
to be precise, Alex completely avoids it; Louis admirably mentions it, but only 
as a "match" that highlighted the *real* "Leninist" problem (could it not be 
the reverse?); and Paul doesn't because he's arguing for&against the first two.)

Why is that? And why is that ok?


Soli,
DCQ

On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:52 AM, james pitman  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Nick Fredman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/02/13 8:01 PM, "Ratbag Media"  wrote:

 > How do you KNOW, Omar, that this was the case?
> 

Corey's potted history of the Socialist Alliance, as part of his article on
where to for the far left today, is a lot more accurate than that of most
critics. But not unproblematic and it pretty much stops at 2005 since when
there's been considerable development, and regrowth after crises of 2005-08.
I won't go into the gory details I posted at Corey's posting of this article
at http://www.facebook.com/tomjoad1917

But I'll repeat the positive conclusion: Socialist Alliance and Socialist
Alternative are converging on ideas on organisation and program, albeit from
different directions, and hopefully will continue to do so.   




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Ratbag Media]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I'm sorry but I can't leave this  comment go unchallenged:

Omar Hassan WROTE:  Because the "Socialist Alliance project failed to
live up to the expectation..., a considerable number of people
(including a number who had been regalvanised in the initial phase of
the Alliance) were lost to socialist politics."

How do you KNOW, Omar, that this was the case?

A  "considerable number of people" were lost?  Do you know their names
so we can check your assertion that they " were lost to socialist
politics".

If they had been 'lost', how do you know who they were since you were
never in the Alliance.

Similarly if they had been thereafter 'lost' , would they all have
joined Socialist Alternative rather than suffer further lostness?

Since I was among those who were  "regalvanised in the initial phase
of the Alliance" I've aways been  considerate of any subsequent
membership loss and demoralization. And since I knew many non aligned
SA members personally I'm more than a bit wary of your assertion as I
can NAME many of  those who subsequently left and WHO may not be
active today.

Loss? Surely. Over a ten year period especially in the wake of the
return to Laborism after the  demise of the Your Rights at Work
Campaign and the exit of the Marxist affiliates such as the ISO and
sundries.

But a 'considerable number'?

How many is that?

Tragically  a   major loss to activist socialist politics over this
period wasn't necessarily inside the Alliance itself, but  among those
who exited the DSP in the split that formed the RSP and  the
membership loss that flowed from the implosion of the International
Socialist Organization (the local IST affiliate).

 It is easy to quantify how many left the DSP at the time to form the
RSP-- but how many of these recently joined Socialist Alternative?

My hope is that the RSP's recent fusion with Socialist Alternative may
"regalvanise"  some of them who have dropped out .

 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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Ratbag Media]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Omar Hassan WROTE: "Attempts to overcome this situation – driven by
entirely understandable motives – led to various get-rich-quick
schemes, all of which ended in disaster. The International Socialist
Organisation (ISO), from which Socialist Alternative originated, was
wracked by a bitter split in the 1990s over debates about how to build
in this new periodThe long term result was the collapse of the ISO
and the loss of hundreds of  committed socialists to the revolutionary
movement. The other main far left organisation, the Democratic
Socialist Party (DSP), which was in fact considerably bigger than the
ISO, was wracked by a split a decade later when the Socialist Alliance
project failed to live up to the expectations set for it. Again, a
considerable number of people (including a number who had been
regalvanised in the initial phase of the Alliance) were lost to
socialist politics.'

I'm not so sure that this is the correct reading of these succession of events.

Are all attempts to break out of the far left ghetto, "get-rich-quick
schemes"?

While I logged on  a bit  after the dispute  started, the split in the
DSP may indeed have been about Socialist Alliance project failing to
live up to the expectations -- but that's according to the DSP
minority  who opposed the continuing orientation.

For THEM it had failedand was a mistaken course.

But the almost 3 year long factional dispute was primarily about
applying  'Leninism' in the 21st century.

Whose 'Leninism'? being the operative marker.

The irony now being that it is the Socialist Alliance who not only
keenly promotes  Paul Le Blanc's  commentaries locally,
http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/579
but is the Alliance which is hosting a seminar on 21st Century
Socialism in June  this year which will feature  Paul Le Blanc as the
key note speaker  who will be imported for the occasion.
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=1252

 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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/1/13 6:20 PM, Omar Hassan wrote:


I'm gonna throw into this mix an article made by Corey Oakley of Socialist
Alternative in the most recent Marxist Left Review, which makes a positive
case for a revolutionary socialist organisation of a new (old?) type - an
agreement and articulation of clear Marxist principles without the various
Trotskyist shibboleths (which fits with Le Blanc's call for a party based
on the Communist Manifesto), an organisation with plenty of room for
disagreement about tactics and strategy within that, an organisation that
holds democracy up as an absolute central component of its functioning, an
organisation that can look reality in the face and act accordingly.


I only skimmed this long article but plan to respond to it in a couple 
of days. It seems to be close in spirit to what Le Blanc has said, which 
of course is an advance over Mick Armstrong's "From Little Acorns" 
article that I critiqued a few years ago. It would seem that the ISO and 
SAlt are moving away from the old-school "Leninism" of those days. We 
shall see.




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/1/13 2:52 AM, james pitman wrote:


http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished


My reply: 
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/a-reply-to-paul-le-blanc/





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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Mark Lause]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


These are terribly important discussions, but the tradition has always
been to turn them into a meaningless ritual of talking past each other
with undefined terms or steering the debate into conclusions of
dubious merit.

Saying that an organization dies because it's become inflexible
precludes the need to ask what made the US SWP inflexible.  It'sa bit
like saying Uncle Joe-Bob died of rigor mortis.

Every organization of any importance in radical history was
"multi-tendency."  I'm sure the Soviet CP under Stalin had definable
currents.  The question is what's done with them.  And what should be
done.  The answer "Leninism" tells us nothing in and of itself.  Well,
it tells us "democratic-centralism" or "vanguard party" or other
things that essentially tell us nothing.  The term doesn't take us far
towards a resolution of the problem.

These things will have to be resolved in the concrete.

And I'm quite sure that the US SWP doesn't have more black voices than
most.  Or hispanic.  Or any voices of any sort.  It is so small that
the local bowling league probably has more revolutionary-minded people
in it.  And they've probably accomplished as much (or as little)
towards revolution as the SWP or any other group.  We have to look
beyond the clubs.

I suspect that what will prove most worthwhile will come ouit of
movements that have yet to coallesce in any true form.  If I were to
advise the groups that want to contribute to this process, I'd suggest
that they bend every effort in every circumstances to keep such
developments as independent as possible.

Solidarity!
Mark L.


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Manuel Barrera]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


DW: " One finds, for instance, a general theme of complete inflexibility with 
regards to the organization of non-Russians into the RSDLP outside of the 
metropolitan areas of St. Petersburg/Petrograd and Moscow. I raise this because 
if is the one area that no one really has studied carefully, not LeBlanc, not 
Lih and not Pham."

This is a point that continues on in our own history of the "American" left, 
David. I find it particularly poignant that much of the early Communist 
movement had some roots in the emigration of Russians and Eastern Europeans, 
but that, today, I can think of no real Marxist leader in any of our 
discussions, with the possible exception of people like Binh (and perhaps 
Hunter Gray) that reflect Black, Brown, Indian or Asian voices and certainly no 
tradition of immigrant or people of color playing large roles in socialist 
activism and less so, in theoretical Marxist circles (there are, of course, 
examples ensconced in specific struggles like the FMLN's involvement in the 
immigrant rights movement). I have mentioned several times the need to engage 
emerging revolutionaries like Glen Ford of BAR, but to no real avail, neither 
from "us" nor, of course, from Glen himself. 


Indeed, of all the groups "out there" the all too moribund U.S. SWP still has 
more Black voices than most--James H. Omari, or Latinos like Roger C., for 
example--AND, even more sparse, the voice or revolutionary women--again with 
few exceptions of mostly older women comrades here or in FB groups. I say all 
that to note that the issue of how revolutionaries attracted and included 
immigrants, oppressed nationalities, "non-nationals" is probably as important 
to these discussion of left unity as the issue itself. There is a very 
different dynamic to any discussion when the perspectives come from not just 
different political perspectives, but from people with fundamentally different 
worldviews and experiences. Some may argue that such ideas have to do with 
"identity politics" (do I hear the strains of complaints about "creeping 
feminism" in the air :) ) and that somehow it shouldn't matter; "Marxism 
shouldn't have a color" or national orientation. Marxism should not, but people 
do and arguing that it shouldn't matter just makes it sound that current 
"Marxists" have all they need to know about unity and "Leninism" for everyone 
regardless of "identity". 


Again, Marxism can never be a dogma or the purview of the "knowledgeable" (or 
what is accepted as knowledgeable) if it is truly to reflect the solutions to 
the doom of our time. Voices as much as theory matter. I wonder just how 
different history would be if, for example, "non-Russians" had been much better 
integrated into revolutionary Russia and the development of the revolutionary 
leadership. I wonder how progroms and scapegoating might have been more 
mitigated and curtailed as a way to promote bureaucratism and chauvinism if 
such efforts had been made more successful? Yeah, it's not very materialist to 
think that way, but I wonder just the same. We can point to the examples of the 
Theses at Baku and Lenin's on oppressed nations, but theories and statements 
can never count more than the actions and behaviors we employ in making our 
theories and statements a reality.




  

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[DW]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Manuel, I agree with much of what you wrote. This peaked my interest:

"To be fair, I do believe that ISO, as one
example, is indeed “creative” although I would not consider them all
that flexible."

My assessment as well. Interestingly, if you do careful reading of
LeBlanc's book, you see that one of the main problems with the
Bolshevik faction of the RDSLP and the Bolshevik PARTY after 1912, is
precisely the issue flexibility in tactics. IT is a constant running
theme for the Bolsheviks from 1905 onward upt o and including 1917
(and beyond in many cases). The whole "Committeemen"
discussions/debates in and after 1905 is an example of this. The idea
that the nascent trade union movement should *not* be supported unless
they had RSDLP leadership (as advocated by the committed cadre of the
"Committeemen") was one of these debates over flexibility...and what
we would call abstentionism and sectarianism.

One finds, for instance, a general theme of complete inflexibility
with regards to the organization of non-Russians into the RSDLP
outside of the metropolitan areas of St. Petersburg/Petrograd and
Moscow. I raise this because if is the one area that no one really has
studied carefully, not LeBlanc, not Lih and not Pham.

David


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Manuel Barrera]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==





Paul LeBlanc is a revolutionary with much insight and
thoughtfulness and of all those associated with the ISO, I have found him less
sectarian and close-minded than much of what I hear from them when they become
defensive about how close-minded they can be regarding their interactions with
other revolutionaries. My impression has been that many ISO members are
genuinely hard working and focused on socialist politics and their 
“interventions”
into the mass movement but their participations in many of the political
discussions here and elsewhere seem often trenchant and dismissive; much like,
I think, was my experience when I was active in the U.S. SWP. Indeed, Louis has
often remarked here that ISO members remind him of many of us in the former
U.S. SWP during our time of “broader appeal”. So, it was great interest that I
read Paul’s contribution to the discussion on the UK SWP crisis. I was
interested to see how he might provide some guidance to ISO members for how to
engage the issue of what I would prefer to call democracy and action rather
than “democratic centralism”. 




There is much to read in Paul’s commentary, but I prefer to
let others like Louis to engage a more detailed analysis and reply to it. I do
not care to try to “out-understand Lenin” and the history of the Russian
Bolsheviks with Paul; the topic, frankly, has always left me puzzled about
its true relevance for a period that is so much more different and advanced—in 
the
sense that Time has moved on—as we now endure. I’m sure Paul “has it right”
when he details his understanding of Lenin’s role (and, perhaps, “tactical”
complicity?) with the aspects of democratic centralism and the “traditions” of
Bolshevism. In fact, I believe both Paul and people like Louis “have it right”,
paradoxical as it may seem. This is my point; there is a fallacy about
correctness “by quote” inherent in many of the polemics we have been all too
accustomed to engaging, an exercise in “if only we just get an accurate 
‘reading’
of what Lenin meant, we will be able to convince more people or at least make
our opponent in the debate put to shame, you know, for our immensely superior
command of fact and embedded principle”. 




At bottom, when all the quotes have been made and all the
analysis accurately made in eloquence and erudition, what we have is two (or
more) people’s opinion of fact and principle. What everyone else who reads and
opines is left to doing is to follow one or another formula, based on “Leninist”
principles, for how to “make a revolution”. 




Sadly, no revolution can be made this way because, well,
revolutions, by definition, will not follow a recipe and the “true”
revolutionary party will not come forward based on “tradition”. The historic
flaw in “Leninist analysis” by so many, especially, the organized socialist
movement today has been this very notion; that a party that leads the
revolutionary class will occur based on the notion that “the organizational
forms and norms associated >with Leninism< [my emphasis] must be applied
creatively and flexibly, continually adapting to the shifting political,
social, cultural realities faced by revolutionaries” (LeBlanc). If Lenin, didn’t
operate in such a way—both Louis and Paul essentially make that point, Louis
directly and Paul by elucidating how Lenin’s approach changed at different
times—how would such a formula be relevant to us today? 


In my view, Louis is
correct to observe that the forms of “Leninism” really have more to do with
sectarian applications of a dated historical event—the Russian Revolution and
the Bolsheviks’ role—and are neither accurate nor directly applicable. Louis
argues for not circumscribing the development of a revolutionary party based
some extant organization, no matter how “creatively and flexibly” Leninist
principles are applied because the only true revolutionary party that is
relevant is the one that is created by the revolutionary upsurge that will 
necessarily
occur if a revolution comes into being. Everything that organizations do until
then to create “networks” and build a common tradition of unity will facilitate
the strength and effectiveness of such a Party as it comes into formation in
the context of an actual struggle. Paul argues that a Leninist party is the one
which will “creatively and flexibly” apply Leninist principles including 
democracy
and centralism combined. He argues further that Louis, and others may have a
point, but that point is just a description of what he and ISO are already
doing, so, what’s the problem? To be fair, I do believe that ISO, as one
example, is indeed “creative” although I would not consider them all that 
flexible.





The problems really seem to emanate from the “formula” or,
rather the attraction to f

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/1/13 12:08 PM, DW wrote:


Louis has it wrong. Not his fault. The article without the footnotes
is a copy (where all the discussion occurs) on thenorthstar.info. Here
the footnotes Louis mentions are deleted for some reason, and not like
it was Paul's fault.


I should add that Pham Binh's day job is as an editor. The idea that he 
would somehow delete footnotes 4 and 5 out of sloppiness is absurd.




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/1/13 12:08 PM, DW wrote:

Louis has it wrong. Not his fault.


They just fixed it after what I wrote. Don't you think I would have 
checked the ISO website right off the bat?


They haven't fixed the bollixed footnote #4, however.



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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[DW]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Louis has it wrong. Not his fault. The article without the footnotes
is a copy (where all the discussion occurs) on thenorthstar.info. Here
the footnotes Louis mentions are deleted for some reason, and not like
it was Paul's fault. In the actual article from
socialistworker.org...the *one linked to by Louis HERE* all the
footnotes are present and accounted for.

I suggest Louis' eyesight IS actually effecting his ability to read...

David


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Louis Proyect]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 2/1/13 2:52 AM, james pitman wrote:


http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished


You know, I am 68 years old, with cataracts in both eyes (and a macular 
pucker in the left that makes it fairly useless for reading), with no 
editors to help out (the last one I had--Gilles d'Aymery--was pretty 
damned sharp) but I doubt that on my worst days I could come up with 
something as sloppy as this. (I will deal with the substance later in 
the day.)


Paul's article goes from footnote 3 to footnote 6. When you go to the 
notes section, you will find this for the non-existent footnote 4:


>>In fact, a day later Proyect moved closer to such formulations in an 
additional reply to Callinicos entitled “Is Zinovievism Finished?” The 
Unrepentant Marxist, January 29, 2013, in which he concludes. “The time 
for Leninism to be tried is now long overdue.”<<


But there was no article on my blog titled “Is Zinovievism Finished?”. 
Paul must be referring to “Zinovievism is finished”, a reply to 
Callinicos from a group of SWP’ers including Richard Seymour, China 
Mieville and Neil Davidson. I understand from one of the contributors 
that the main author is Jamie Allison, a comrade I am not familiar with. 
Perhaps Paul got that article confused with me since I coined the term 
“Zinovievism” about 10 years ago or so. I am deeply flattered that the 
SWP comrades would use it but I had nothing to do with that article.




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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Mark Lause]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


During the last election, I circulated a cartoon of an elderly scholar
saying something like "Those who don't study the past are doomed to
repeat it.  And those who do study the past are doomed to watch others
repeat it."  This applies no less to radicals.

As I've pointed out, the tendency of people leaving a group in any
form is to start dating its problems from when they became aware of
them.  This understanding gets locked into place, because looking back
further requires a serious level of self-knowledge and more critical
thinking about oneself than will be comfortable.

It's certainly more than I've ever expected from those who were any
position of responsibility when dishonest, unfair, undemocratic, and
self-destructive decisions were made. Despite some surprises, my low
expectations have rarely been disappointed.

I've always told myself that the problems related to conditions. Tiny
grouplings, I've told myself, are prone to this kind of inward
looking, self-rationalizing defensive conduct,.  A bigger movement
with more at stake would make people more thoughtful, more careful,
more circumspect. This current criss in the SWP reminds us that having
more to lose may wind up leaving people more solicitous for the
well-being of the organization and its image over all other
considerations.

There's no easy answer in terms of norms or labels we put on norms.
Certainly, if the movement make a deliberate and conscious effort to
create a general culture in which people regard and treat each other
as comrades, the tendency is for them to become mirrors of the
wretched institutional conduct we see around us.

Solidarity!
Mark L.


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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Shane Mage]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John Obrien wrote:


Paul Le Blanc states in this latest article - that the U. S. SWP  
crisis

occurred in the 1980's.

I disagree.  The purges started long before then, a sad history of
arrogant and insecure people who insisted they knew best and that
all others were wrong


I can testify that this is true.  I was expelled in 1963 by Dobbs,  
Kerry, and Hansen for association with Jim Robertson who was being  
expelled for "factionalism," without any real process and to the  
applause of Camejo, Sheppard, and Barnes.  Murry Weiss and Arne  
Swabeck and Dick Frazer (who of course had substantial disagreements  
with myself as well as among themselves) saw and protested what   
happening to the SWP.  To no avail.



Shane Mage


This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos






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

[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[John Obrien]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==




Paul Le Blanc states in this latest article - that the U. S. SWP crisis
occurred in the 1980's.

I disagree.  The purges started long before then, a sad history of 
arrogant and insecure people who insisted they knew best and that
all others were wrong and thus objective traitors and bandits to the 
one vision and cause.  No room for different thought was allowed - 
even though it was claimed it was a "democratic organization".  It 
was centralist for sure - but not really democratic.  The need to be
recognized as intellectually superior by ones peers over others, is 
a definite part of the problem - whether in a Stalinist or Trotskyist
party.  Zinoviev was clearly a great example of this wrong thinking
and arrogance.  And the need to go along and not jeopardize one's
status, is reflected today in the British SWP current rape crisis and
sadly in so many other party formations.

Why do people who have both intellectual critical thought and 
courage enough to challenge capitalist rule and thinking - but they
then fear speaking up and thinking in left groups, to comply with 
"the leaders" and the majority.  Insecurity is one part of the answer.   

I also question why comrades on this list do not want to recognize 
that those of us who left the SWP in 1974 over the Barnes led   
leadership who then had deliberately wanted to degrade and 
drive out the uppity Gays from the SWP - was the very same 
problem that developed into the 1980's mass expulsions, in that
same organization.  Group Think.

Around four weeks ago, Barry Shepherd approached me after I
just finished speaking at the ILWU San Francisco Hall at the
Howard Wallace Memorial - and said that I and Howard Wallace
(and the many others) were correct when we left in 1974.  He
apparently finally recognized this is part of the same problem -
arrogant insecure people operating like most police, when they
are threatened with different thinking and conclusions.

Why do we need political police in non-revolutionary situations,
except to confirm that one thought is acceptable and all others
must be crushed.  Is it the party that is being attacked, or just
mis-leaders with great insecurity who fear they will be attacked,
if they do not exert total control over those who might have
different thoughts and views.  Arrogant ego trippers with little
real leadership.  People should be respected and be able to
disagree as a minority and majority, while still able to proceed
together.  False political crisis are created for simply justifying
the superiority of the leaders and thus confirming the party
politics, approach and operations are correct.  The only thing
correct in my opinion, is we need to stop this group think and
allow critical thinking and questioning - before and after a
real revolution.  Too many have been lost to the revolution
by this "leaders know best and must be obeyed mentality".

The British SWP leaders need to place their egos aside and
their upcoming National Committee meeting this weekend,
should state the obvious - there is far more to lose than win
by trying to ignore the growing crisis and cover up.  Should
they not reverse their recent expulsions and instead continue
with more of those who are critical of unwanted sexual 
advances and sexual violence, leads to a defeated party with
little future and far less influence with other non members
in Britain and elsewhere.  

A healthy leadership would reverse course and stop being 
defensive of a wrong, but the odds of ego before politics 
will likely be played out for us all to review.  Will the correct 
conclusions be drawn, or will we just have another political 
formation become a small led personal cult, as the U. S. SWP 
sadly became?  




> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 07:52:34 +
> From: marinercarpen...@gmail.com
> Subject: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis
 
> 
> http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished
  

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

Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[Jim Moody]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


[reply inline / bottom-posted]

on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 07:52:34 +, james pitman wrote:
> == R
> ule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ==
>
> http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished

Comrade Le Blanc puts forward this encapsulation: 'Freedom of discussion, unity 
of action remains 
the shorthand definition of Lenin's understanding of democratic centralism.'

What is unclear in his piece, however, are how this freedom of discussion is 
understood within and 
by the leaderships of revolutionary organisations. As far as I can see, many 
SWP UK members appear 
to misunderstand this basic question.

Freedom of discussion means very little if it is carried on behind closed 
doors. In other words, if 
only members of the putative revolutionary body are privy to the discussion, 
which has to be kept 
from the mass of the working class, poor dears. This is sect behaviour; on this 
measure, most 
revolutionary organisations easily fall within such a definition.

In fact, behind closed doors discussion has a distinctly negative impact on the 
development of the 
working class as a class for itself. It stands in the way of the class 
developing the means to raise 
itself into a position where it has the confidence to challenge the capitalist 
system. No supposed 
'vanguard' - by definition a minority - has a hope in hell of challenging 
capitalist rule. Only 
through the overwhelming majority of the working class - which is already the 
overwhelming majority 
of the population in all advanced capitalist countries - gaining understanding 
and confidence in its 
own ability and power will we have a hope of advancing the revolution toward 
socialism.

It is impossible to delineate a line of advance that is as undemocratic as that 
of most 
revolutionary ('vanguardist') organisations without falling into some variant 
of putchism. How could 
it be otherwise? These comrades, whether heading the SWP or whatever 
revolutionary sect on whichever 
continent, are spectacularly uninterested in democracy - in the sense of Marx's 
'revolutionary 
democrat' - and are thus doomed to failure. For what militant worker not 
already ensnared in one of 
their sects would submit to such a diktat that s/he must always parrot the 
party line? Experience in 
trade unions or, for example, in Britain even the Labour Party would knock that 
crazy idea on the 
head in short order.

Of course those representing the revolutionary organisation in parliament are 
there to express what 
the party wants and vote the way the party instructs them. This is one major 
reason why the party's 
representatives are there. But that is an action, following party discussion in 
public of what it 
wants to achieve and how.

But to imagine that every time a revolutionary speaks and discusses s/he has to 
spout the ideas of 
the majority goes against all that is best in the traditions of Marx, Engels, 
and Lenin. Full and 
frank discussion must include in public, so that the working class can inform 
itself of the issues 
and arguments fully, not as filtered through some majority organ of the 
revolutionary 'party'. And 
the idea that factions cannot operate freely within a revolutionary 
organisations is also anathema 
to revolution - at least one that might succeed. It is a basic tenet of 
internal democracy - and an 
essential component of democratic centralism - that minorities have the right 
to exist and fully 
debate, including in public, within a revolutionary organisation. Essential, 
too, is the right for 
such minorities to be able to work openly within a revolutionary organisation 
with the aim of 
becoming the majority - without let or hindrance, to adopt a legalistic phrase.

Without such an approach, revolutionary organisations are on a hiding to 
nothing. And, frankly, they 
deserve to be.



-- 
Jim Moody (j...@redunity.org.uk) on 01/02/2013

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

[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the SWP crisis

[james pitman]

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/01/leninism-is-unfinished

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