Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 03.02.2012 20:32, Louis Proyect wrote: On 2/3/2012 2:17 PM, Kevin J. Murphy wrote: Hi Louis, What exactly is point of bringing up the "Stalinicos" insult ten years later? You know there was bad blood between ISO and SWP, so what? Alex supported my book on the Deutscher committee precisely because he does not harbor the same sort pettiness that continues to haunt you. Dear Comrade Murphy, How nice to hear from you. The last encounter was when you had Einde send a message to Marxmail about you winning the Deutscher prize, rubbing it in my face so to speak. Dear Louis, Although I've remained in sporadic contact with Kevin over the years, he had absolutely nothing to do with me posting about him winning the Deutscher Prize. I just thought that the name of the winner of the said prize might be of interest to members of teh list. Comradely greetings, 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Class war I understand . . . race and sex as part of that . . . but generational? WTF bullshit is this? How gratifying it would be for the ad-men of the 1960s and 70s to know that their Pepsi-generation categorizing of people into market niches would be so automatically puked up decades later by radicals! And hearing self-described Barnesites bitch about being uncomradely is a bit like listening to Charlie Manson complain about rude language in front of Scarlett O'Hara. Hypocrisy doens't begin to cover it. ML 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Creepy was an unfortunate choice of words that I regret saying. It's just that you upset people, Louis, when you lose your temper, and you make people afraid of joining if if they think they are going to make you mad. I spent years and years in the U.S. SWP and loved every minute of it but always feel self-conscious about sharing my experiences for fear I may rub you the wrong way. > From: davidrrowla...@hotmail.com > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:05:48 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc responds to Pham Binh's > To: davidrrowla...@hotmail.com > > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > > I just don't understand how and why people can have anything to do with him. > He is positively creepy. > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:50:39 -0500 > > From: jayrother...@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Paul Le Blanc responds to Pham Binh's > > To: davidrrowla...@hotmail.com > > > > == > > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > > == > > > > > > > > > > The next time you post some stupid shit to Marxmail, you will be unsubbed. > > > Go read some Neil Harding or Lars Lih and get up to speed on Lenin > > > scholarship before you waste bandwidth here. > > > > > and > > > > > > > What a callow little prick. > > > > > and > > > > > > > Don't you fucking understand that the discussion is about the differences > > > between how your little sect is organized and how the historical Bolshevik > > > party was organized? I was writing about this shit when you were a gleam > > > in > > > your daddy's eye. > > > > > > Get lost, you two-year old. > > > > > > > > > are perfect examples of the kind of intimidating and histrionic > > posturing that stops pro-Barnes list members like myself from joining in. > > What a pathetic and wretched way to treat comrades, and far from the first > > time! > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > > Set your options at: > > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/davidrrowlands%40hotmail.com > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/davidrrowlands%40hotmail.com 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > > The next time you post some stupid shit to Marxmail, you will be unsubbed. > Go read some Neil Harding or Lars Lih and get up to speed on Lenin > scholarship before you waste bandwidth here. > and > What a callow little prick. > and > Don't you fucking understand that the discussion is about the differences > between how your little sect is organized and how the historical Bolshevik > party was organized? I was writing about this shit when you were a gleam in > your daddy's eye. > > Get lost, you two-year old. > are perfect examples of the kind of intimidating and histrionic posturing that stops pro-Barnes list members like myself from joining in. What a pathetic and wretched way to treat comrades, and far from the first time! 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Incidentally, Lih's and Harding's books are available for purchase at: http://www.haymarketbooks.org Robin. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > On 2/2/12 5:24 PM, Adam Proctor wrote: >> >> Keep discrediting yourself, comrade. I've had about enough of this for >> another year. >> > > The next time you post some stupid shit to Marxmail, you will be unsubbed. Go > read some Neil Harding or Lars Lih and get up to speed on Lenin scholarship > before you waste bandwidth here. > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/redasheville%40gmail.com 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 responds to Pham Binh's
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Adam Proctor: > These are not the issues of most of the revolutionary organizations of today. Probably not, since the American SWP under Barnes strikes me as a particularly pathological case, but I think the main point Louis is constantly trying to make in his various writings on the organization question is that the world does not need more "revolutionary organizations". What we need are mass movements (like Occupy Wall Street) and mass socialist parties (like the NPA or DIE LINKE). These parties should be anti-capitalist, explicitly socialist, and multi-tendency, but the division between "revolutionary" and "reformist" parties belongs to a historical constellation that is now past and will probably never return again, at least not in that form. Of course, self-described "revolutionaries" can find a home in such parties and even continue as formal organizations within them. I think the non-pathological revolutionary organizations like the ISO recognize this, hence their work around Green Party campaigns and working with people like Camejo. 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > > What a callow little prick. > Einde phrased it far better than I, perhaps, but the sentiment is the same. I genuinely hope you can move beyond past the regrets you seem to still harbor regarding the political activity of your youth. Until then, I would only ask that you do not paint today's revolutionary left with a 1970's-era SWP brush. We can do so much better than that, don't you think? Best, Adam 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/2/12 4:38 PM, Einde O'Callaghan wrote: During all my years in the British IS/SWP and since in the various incarnations of the tradition here in Germany I've never experienced anything like this. That's probably true but there's more to politics than avoiding stark raving lunacy. I tend to think that such practices have roots in adverse objective circumstances and attempts to force the pace through voluntarist action. Formal political theories may strengthen or weaken such tendencies, but they aren't the cause. All I can say is that the American ISO was expelled from the British-led "workers international" on the flimsiest of grounds, so much so that Kevin Murphy, the fellow who won the Deutscher prize a couple of years ago, went around referring to its leader as Stalinnicos. As I have tried to make clear, the Cliffites were nowhere as bad as the Cannonites but it's hard not to be. Anyhow, the goal is not to avoid becoming a deranged sect-cult but in becoming a *genuine* vanguard party. In my estimation, it is a huge mistake to organize parties on the basis that Tony Cliff laid out. 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/2/12 4:24 PM, Adam Proctor wrote: Seriously, Louis -- Go see a shrink for those kinds of problems of accepting your past. These are not the issues of most of the revolutionary organizations of today. Get over it, stop fighting your shadow battles, and join the rest of us in shaping the future. ...or, stay old and bitter. I guess you can always do that. What a callow little prick. 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 02.02.2012 20:53, Louis Proyect wrote: Later that day I told some close friends who were about as alienated from the party leadership and its idiotic "turn" as I was that I was saying things I did not believe. I just wanted to fit in. Here I was, a rebel from the age of 13 censoring myself. Nobody tortured me into making a fool of myself. I did it all on my own. Unbelievable. I'm sorry to hear about the distorted political heritage you stumbled into, Louis. But your attempts to generalise from your limited experience just don't work. During all my years in the British IS/SWP and since in the various incarnations of the tradition here in Germany I've never experienced anything like this. Only during my mercifully brief encounter with the British SLL (later WRP) - admittedly at a distance since I was in Ireland at the time - did I encounter anything like this - but luckily I got out before I was embittered by the experience - although it did put me off joining an organisation for a number of years. I would hazard a guess that these practices popped up in a number of organisations from various political tendencies - including possibly my own in a number of countries - but I don't think this means that such tendencies are inherent in any particular political strand claiming to have Leninist roots. Indeed I've come across similar tendencies among anarchists and other non-Leninist socialist traditions too. I tend to think that such practices have roots in adverse objective circumstances and attempts to force the pace through voluntarist action. Formal political theories may strengthen or weaken such tendencies, but they aren't the cause. 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == All of us who were members of the SWP in the 1970s (I joined in 1971) have stories they can tell along the lines that Louis is telling below. My big story, which have I have told many times, is my participation in printing the dishonest internal bulletins "explaining" the "split of the Internationalist Tendency party from the Socialist Workers Party" in 1974 and keeping quiet about it, even though I knew, from what I had been told by Al Hansen prior to working on them, that the party leadership was lying. That's not how we did things in the Fourth Internationalist Tendency, and if it had been, I would not have stayed in it from 1984 until we dissolved it into Solidarity in 1991. Our discussion bulletin was permanently open; we published differing points of view in the "Bulletin in Defense of Marxism," and no one ever felt inhibited about expressing her or his point of view. Paul Le Blanc, who had gone with Socialist Action in 1983, resigned from SA and joined us in 1985 after SA split, with the minority going on to form Solidarity. In subsequent debates within FIT, Paul and I were almost always in agreement. We had our share of problems in the FIT, but lack of democracy was not one of them. The last thing we need right now is a scholastic argument over quotations or WWTBHD (what would the Bolsheviks have done). I'm of the belief that our organizational practices in the SWP had developed as they had in order to combat a Communist party, union bureaucracy, and--later--petty-bourgeois forces in the "new left" that were able to wreak considerable havoc. I agree with Peter Camejo's comment that without the SWP's intervention, the CP would have "flushed the antiwar movement down the toilet of the Democratic party." But those organizational practices were a double-edged blade, as Jim Cannon himself knew well. As much as I loved and respected Breitman, Lovell, and others of that generation, the way they turned over the party leadership to Barnes and his associates amounted to--in Bob Dylan's words--putting "guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children." Trainor, to his credit, tried to do something about it, but he did it wrong, in my opinion. Whatever we might say about Leninism and theories of organization, the fall of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe and China have changed the political landscape as much as the Russian Revolution did in 1917. The kind of battle we had to do in the New Mobilization Committee is not on today's agenda. The last thing we need are generals who are intent on fighting wars that were concluded long ago. Rather than go into the new political struggles armed with a program to convince all these newly radicalizing people that WE have the ANSWERS, maybe we need to (1) get involved, (2) do some work and earn some respect, and (3) listen to what these folks are saying before we start shooting our mouths off. Of course, that's what I said back in 1978 inside the SWP, but I don't think anyone was listening, at least not then. Tom >From Louis: "Later that day I told some close friends who were about as alienated from the party leadership and its idiotic "turn" as I was that I was saying things I did not believe. I just wanted to fit in. Here I was, a rebel from the age of 13 censoring myself. Nobody tortured me into making a fool of myself. I did it all on my own. "Unbelievable." Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tgbias%40ptd.ne t 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 responds to Pham Binh's ....
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > > These are not the issues of most of the revolutionary organizations of > today. Really? I'd be happy to believe that. But from the outside looking in the SWP, RCP and some others have appeared to still have these problems. Hopefully I am wrong due to my lack of interactions with them... Tristan 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
