Re: [Marxism] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ken Hiebert WROTE" "If tendencies and factions are not "...a preferred modus operandi for dissent...," then what is? Should dissent be allowed only for individuals who are not allowed to band together to promote their views? " I didn't write that. My suggestion was that forcing different views into factional format as a matter of course wasn't so preferable either. I wasn't advocating banning factions ... or tendencies . I wanted to underscore the far left's preference for organised factional operations. In the context of open public discourse,allowable 12 months of a year, factionalising becomes less of an issue as does any move away from dogma or programatic absolutism. You'll always get factions in the context of political struggle but 'our' collective problem is that they so easily lead to splits. That needs to be deflected and moderated some how rather than simply proscribed or encouraged. The PROBLEM isn't differences. The PROBLEM is that so little room is allowed for political differences to develop in a milieu in which they can be talked out, debated upon and resolved, outside the confining attitudes of a bunker mentality. According to Jim Cannon, the history of the US SWP is the history of faction fights -- of preserving 'revolutionary continuity' and the correct line. That's purported to be progress, because what's at stake is protecting the party's line from outside influences or muddle headed politics. It's party 'preservation' -- rather than party building -- by splits. [Or 'preserving the traditions' according to current UK SWP-speak.] At some point 'party building' has to be about stepping out of this containment approach and moving our parties outward and towards a more open -- indeed, a more courageous -- engagement with the real world around us while embracing the confidence that what ever may arise -- WHAT EVER may arise in way of challenging debate -- should be something we can talk out by dint of the seemingly banal approach of winning and losing arguments. One of the ironies of the Marxist left is that it is frightened of discourse. Here in Australia, for instance, various tendencies may coexist on the left for decades without ever engaging in open discussion about what to do next. I mean discussing with, not editorialising at, or ignoring, one another. There is a huge difference between pissing competitions and comrades trying to solve collective challenges. Every one of these grouplets seem ordained to arrive at its POV without reference to any other. We may get a sort of patenting (indeed ritualistic) debate about offshore issues (such as Cuba) -- but day to day, there is no shared what-is-to-be-done chit chat. I think factions tend to function in a similar way as they foster the preservation and copyrighting of differences rather than seeking ways in which we can agree to work together. At some point you may indeed reach disputation cut off -- but then I suspect it becomes a question of what you seek to be loyal to. Do you seek to be loyal to boutique versions of presumed correctness (often as not untested in practice) , rather than seek to consolidate a collective line of march within the same formation? I'm not trying to be mawkish or moralistic as 'loyalty', afterall, is essentially a tactical question. It is isn't it? Whatever we may say about factions, the underlying question is what is gonna be our primary loyalty? I KNOW that loyalty is often manipulated by the leaderships of Marxist parties.But compared to how loyalty is employed by the social democratic parties or the US Democrats or whoever ...we are rank amateurs. We may be abused for our penchant for enclosure, but your everyday bourgeois party has the business of loyalty generation sown up. That's their main modus operandi.An art form. Their trump card. At some point we have to recognize that what we need to foster is an ANTI CAPITALIST LEFT rather than so many boutique socialisms. That has to be our primarily loyalty. A line of march issue . The party question -- the party form -- is secondary.Our primary ask is that whatever we create has to be consistently anti-capitalist, pro socialist and engineered to returning to the attack over and over again. Inasmuch as we have learnt anything thus far,these last 10 years, the Socialist Alliance "regulates" dissent so: "10.2 Any individual member or affiliate organisation shall have the right to form a caucus for the purpose of influencing Alliance policy and activity. As far as possible caucus meetings shall be open and transparent. However, once Alliance policy and campaigning priorities are decided, caucuses are expected to abide by them and not organise public campaigns in opposition to Alliance policy. 10.
Re: [Marxism] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/9/13 6:14 PM, Ken Hiebert wrote: Ken Hiebert responds: LP assets that factions are not in fact tolerated but are expelled. Ratbag Media suggests that factions do not always get expelled but, in the absence of expulsions, lead to splits with the same consequence. Ratbag Media then cites a counter-example, the NPA of France. The NPA has been much closer to "Leninist" principles than the English-speaking sections. Of course they have other problems as well-- adaptation to Islamophobia, unfortunately. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ratbag Media wrote (in part) Louis Proyect WROTE:"The idiotic Leninist left enshrines the right to factions in their idiotic constitutions but once you form one you get expelled. That is the reality of the sectarian left. " ...or there is a split.Same consequence. You could also add that most tendency disputes are quickly factionalionised and the stakes move to winner-takes-all. Of course if you want to insist that factions are a preferred modus operandi for dissent then you get the routine factionalisation such as exists in the NPA * * * * * Ken Hiebert responds: LP assets that factions are not in fact tolerated but are expelled. Ratbag Media suggests that factions do not always get expelled but, in the absence of expulsions, lead to splits with the same consequence. Ratbag Media then cites a counter-example, the NPA of France. Based on his description it appears that some tendencies (and factions?) have been formed in the NPA without leading to splits or expulsions. But Ratbag Media does not mean this as praise. He dismisses the NPA experience as "routine factionalisation." If tendencies and factions are not "...a preferred modus operandi for dissent...," then what is? Should dissent be allowed only for individuals who are not allowed to band together to promote their views? 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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Nothing in human affairs is inevitable. That's the whole point. On Feb 8, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Andy Bain wrote: > > Einde said, > " I suspect that expulsions are not on the cards now, whatever may have been > the case earlier in the week." > Expulsions are inevitable! > Cheers > Andy Bain > > 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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 09.02.2013 02:28, Andy Bain wrote: Einde said, " I suspect that expulsions are not on the cards now, whatever may have been the case earlier in the week." Expulsions are inevitable! If you know SWP and look at the list of signatories of the "In Defence of Our Party" statement (which includes a large number of very long-standing heavyweights), you'll realise that there has been a shift in the balance of forces. My point is that at the beginning of the week expulsions looked imminent, now any expulsions that happen aren't quite so imminent. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The irony is that in the digital age ruled by the web the whole nature of political disputation on the left has changed. Some groups -- indeed, probably most -- haven't caught up and they naively assume that they can keep their polemics in house. Nowadays you are public whether you like to be or not as the internet knows no shame. So trying to turn factions off by 'banning' them is patently absurd. Nonetheless, I hope we have enough sense to respect real time debate in the same room rather than just on the same server. That's because we KNOW that a vote has to mean something as voting DECIDES what is to be done. That's our message, right? Well, that's supposedly our message: collective DECISION MAKING g rather than collective disputation. Argument we are old hands at. Deciding to do stuff together is almost a novelty. This SWP faction suffers a fatal flaw in that its own party conference endorsed both the current leadership and the conference reports. While we may lament how shallow and formal that democracy may have been, that complication handicaps any fightback. But what happens now? Does this newly formed faction switch its deliberations to private mode and abandon web discourse ? After such a public protest (even inside the bourgeois media) do the dissenters now withdraw back into the bunker for the sake of party loyalty? It's pretty clear to me that while these dissenters may indeed seek some accommodation with the traditions of the SWP, the consequence already is that a major split has occurred in that party's ideological construct -- akin in its own small way to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and its impact on the public and internal status of communist parties. No tanks were involved this time around, of course, & no one was killed or imprisoned --- but you'd be a fool if you didn't note the world wide ramifications of this dispute as it pans out across the Marxist left. That such a singular issue -- handling allegations of rape against one individual -- should have such explosive ramifications suggests how vulnerable was the pre-existing edifice. The dinosaurs may not want to recognise it, and will no doubt seek to ignore the rumbling fallout, but Marxism just changed because this SWP dispute is a sort of tipping point that underscores the chronic malaise we have been suffering from for decades. Jack Barnes eat your heat out -- you have had a comeuppance 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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == If this were the American SWP, I'd suspect that "the leak" came from the National Office to create an excuse to purge everybody it wanted. The rule on factions was quite interesting, btw, and mirrored the one we used to have . . . that the circulation of political documents among members is prohibited unless it goes through the National Office. It basically makes it impossible for any number of people to draft a document and present it to the organization unless you ignore this ban. And once members do that, they've broken the rules and are liable to executive action. In hindsight, I'm very pleased the SWP US didn't have drone technology uin the 1970s. 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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I think with the resignation from the student office we entered a different game. Kimber & Callinicos are fighting for their lives, now, lMO. "Leninism" creates Kimbers and in my experience they will rather reign over a small organization than serve in a large one. I always thought Richard Seymour was too talented from the CC's point of view. So the odds are on a split. What is extraordinary is the incompetence of the CC - taken out by the dark side of the force I.e. the Internet. 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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Einde said, " I suspect that expulsions are not on the cards now, whatever may have been the case earlier in the week." Expulsions are inevitable! Cheers Andy Bain > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:25:02 +0100 > From: eind...@freenet.de > Subject: Re: [Marxism] SWP Faction > To: scunn...@live.com > > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > On 08.02.2013 20:58, Andy Bain wrote: > > > > Surely, this faction is 'illegal' from the CC's point of view? > > Are they trying to provoke the full timers into expelling them? > > > Section 10 of the SWP's constitution - the section dealing with > factional rights - doesn't say that factions are limited to the > pre-conference discussion period - here is the text: > > "If a group of party members disagrees with a specific party policy, or > a decision taken by a leading committee of the party, they may form a > faction by producing a joint statement signed by at least 30 members of > the party. > A faction will be given reasonable facilities to argue its point of view > and distribute its documents. These must be circulated through the > National Office, to ensure that all members have the chance to consider > them. > Debate continues until the party at a Special or Annual Conference > reaches a decision on the disputed question. Permanent or secret > factions are not allowed." > > The three months period is referred to in section 4, which deals with > the party conference. this is the relevant passage: > > "Three months before each Conference the Central Committee opens a > special pre-conference discussion in the organisation. Members are > invited to contribute written discussion documents for internal > circulation during this period. During the pre-conference period, > district aggregates are held where CC members present members with a > review of the previous year and an outline of party perspectives. These > open meetings give all members the chance to discuss party work, raise > questions and points of disagreement and collectively assess the party’s > development." > > Considering the number of prominent long-standing party members who've > signed the faction document, I suspect that expulsions are not on the > cards now, whatever may have been the case earlier in the week. > > Einde O'Callaghan > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/scunnert%40live.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] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 08.02.2013 20:58, Andy Bain wrote: Surely, this faction is 'illegal' from the CC's point of view? Are they trying to provoke the full timers into expelling them? Section 10 of the SWP's constitution - the section dealing with factional rights - doesn't say that factions are limited to the pre-conference discussion period - here is the text: "If a group of party members disagrees with a specific party policy, or a decision taken by a leading committee of the party, they may form a faction by producing a joint statement signed by at least 30 members of the party. A faction will be given reasonable facilities to argue its point of view and distribute its documents. These must be circulated through the National Office, to ensure that all members have the chance to consider them. Debate continues until the party at a Special or Annual Conference reaches a decision on the disputed question. Permanent or secret factions are not allowed." The three months period is referred to in section 4, which deals with the party conference. this is the relevant passage: "Three months before each Conference the Central Committee opens a special pre-conference discussion in the organisation. Members are invited to contribute written discussion documents for internal circulation during this period. During the pre-conference period, district aggregates are held where CC members present members with a review of the previous year and an outline of party perspectives. These open meetings give all members the chance to discuss party work, raise questions and points of disagreement and collectively assess the party’s development." Considering the number of prominent long-standing party members who've signed the faction document, I suspect that expulsions are not on the cards now, whatever may have been the case earlier in the week. 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
[Marxism] SWP Faction
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Surely, this faction is 'illegal' from the CC's point of view? Are they trying to provoke the full timers into expelling them? Cheers Andy Bain 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:55 PM, John Wesley wrote: Ever heard of "microfactionalism" ? Ever heard of anibal Escalante? He was expelled from the Cuban CP on that accusation. His "crime"? He was too pro-Soviet. lol Indeed. The Escalante affair was a major point I raised in the SWP at that time. At issue, of course, was the fact that he had been expelled on undefined charges of "bureaucratism" without ever being allowed to present his case to anyone outside the Castroite leadership. The hacks running the SWP plus their acolytes Barnes, Camejo, and Sheppard of course were applauding. I objected on the ground that if Cuba claimed to be democratic Escalante's political views, right or wrong, needed to be debated in front of the Cuban workers rather than being administratively suppressed. Which of course made me and my views a target for administrative suppression. On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: The Cuban CP does not have factions but that does not mean that there are not fierce debates. And there were, no doubt, even fiercer debates [post-Stalin] on the CPSU's politbureau (as Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev et. al.) could attest. But (until Gorbachev) not a word of those debates was ever heard in public. As in Cuba (cf. Carlos Lage). The debates take place behind closed doors and are decided by a self-coopting bunch quite willing to "demote" dissenters. In a democratic organization or in a democratic country the only meaningful debate is that which takes place in public, and the only legitimate decisions on policy are made after that debate by majority vote of the members or citizens. The Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the *first* act of the working class upon seizing power is to "establish democracy." The power of the soviets was a democratic power, and that was why Lenin and Trotsky were right to proclaim the Russian revolution as "proletarian"--and why the Cuban revolution and its state Party are not. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ever heard of "microfactionalism" ? Ever heard of anibal Escalante? He was expelled from the Cuban CP on that accusation. His "crime"? He was too pro-Soviet. lol Mike G. El pueblo armado jamas sera aplastado! From: Shane Mage To: Mr. Goodman Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] SWP faction declared == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: >> > > The Cuban CP does not have factions but that does not mean that there are not > fierce debates. And there were, no doubt, even fiercer debates [post-Stalin] on the CPSU's politbureau (as Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev et. al.) could attest. But (until Gorbachev) not a word of those debates was ever heard in public. As in Cuba (cf. Carlos Lage). The debates take place behind closed doors and are decided by a self-coopting bunch quite willing to "demote" dissenters. In a democratic organization or in a democratic country the only meaningful debate is that which takes place in public, and the only legitimate decisions on policy are made after that debate by majority vote of the members or citizens. The Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the *first* act of the working class upon seizing power is to "establish democracy." The power of the soviets was a democratic power, and that was why Lenin and Trotsky were right to proclaim the Russian revolution as "proletarian"--and why the Cuban revolution and its state Party are not. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/godisamethodist%40yahoo.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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: The Cuban CP does not have factions but that does not mean that there are not fierce debates. And there were, no doubt, even fiercer debates [post-Stalin] on the CPSU's politbureau (as Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev et. al.) could attest. But (until Gorbachev) not a word of those debates was ever heard in public. As in Cuba (cf. Carlos Lage). The debates take place behind closed doors and are decided by a self-coopting bunch quite willing to "demote" dissenters. In a democratic organization or in a democratic country the only meaningful debate is that which takes place in public, and the only legitimate decisions on policy are made after that debate by majority vote of the members or citizens. The Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the *first* act of the working class upon seizing power is to "establish democracy." The power of the soviets was a democratic power, and that was why Lenin and Trotsky were right to proclaim the Russian revolution as "proletarian"--and why the Cuban revolution and its state Party are not. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What is Cuba's party position on Syria's ongoing conflict? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/8/13 12:00 PM, DW wrote: Those that want to emulate China, as you wrote, seem to be in the ascendency. We should have a discussion on Cuba (sans 'class nature' and all the polemical shit) reviewing the latest developments, trajectory, Imperialist moves, etc. That doesn't happen here enough Well, go ahead and writing something. Just do me a favor and don't write "should of". It is "should have". When you write something so ungrammatical, it is like listening to a garden rake being scraped across a blackboard. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/8/13 11:57 AM, Shane Mage wrote: What I then denied, and do so to this day, is that a *proletarian* revolution ever took place in Cuba. This is why it is a waste of time having a debate over such matters in a listserv. Neither David nor Shane has any interest in sitting down and writing something of substance. If I was going to take up the question of the class character of the Cuban revolution, I would spend a month doing so as I did when I responded to a fellow named Adam Rose on the earliest Marxism list that preceded this one. Not only are they too superficial and too lazy to write something of substance, they won't even take the fucking trouble to do some research on the Internet to find something that expresses their views and send a link to the list. What a couple of lunkheads. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis wrote: "The Cuban CP does not have factions but that does not mean that there are not fierce debates. That will naturally be the case when you have a ruling party. There are obviously "modernizers" who want to emulate China and then there is an old guard resisting that move. " Wow...an excellent answer. If you could of noted this in response to Shane in the first place! Those that want to emulate China, as you wrote, seem to be in the ascendency. We should have a discussion on Cuba (sans 'class nature' and all the polemical shit) reviewing the latest developments, trajectory, Imperialist moves, etc. That doesn't happen here enough DW 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] SWP faction declared
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On 2/8/13 10:50 AM, Shane Mage wrote:
Obviously more qualified then ever now that he has taken up arms
against
sexism in his own party.
And likewise more qualified than ever to lecture us about the
antidemocratic prohibition of factions within the Cuban State
("Communist") Party.
For comrades new to the list, Shane was part of a faction in the
American SWP that was formed in the early 60s on the basis of
opposition to the party's recognition that a revolution had taken
place in Cuba.
Young Louis was (and apparently still is) too young to know it at the
time, but absolutely nobody ever after Jan. 1, 1959 denied that a
revolution had taken place in Cuba. Instead, he let his innocence be
abused by the party hacks who had improperly expelled me for falsely
alleged (and merely by association) "indiscipline" and swallowed the
lie that I had denied the existence of a Cuban revolution. What I then
denied, and do so to this day, is that a *proletarian* revolution ever
took place in Cuba. The absence of democratic proletarian
institutions and the incipient centralization of power in a
bureaucratic structure modeled on the CPSU were then the grounds for
my position. It was definitively confirmed when the President of Cuba,
without a single word of dissent allowed to appear on the island,
endorsed the counterrevolutionary Stalinist invasion of Czechoslovakia
in 1968--a disgrace for which Louis and a whole congeries of ex-SWPers
continue to this day to offer apologetics. And continue to support the
sort of bureaucratic regime in the Cuban Party that they rightly
object to in the (somewhat less undemocratic) SWPs.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/8/13 11:42 AM, DW wrote: Louis, the problem is, you suck at changing the goal posts. While you may or may not be correct about "Sam Farber" (I agree with you here, but this is not the point), Shane's comment, the one you do not want to address and, because you have no response to him you dredge up his Spart past from, say, what is now...45 years ago when he left them...was that the Cuban Communist Party bans factions. The Cuban CP does not have factions but that does not mean that there are not fierce debates. That will naturally be the case when you have a ruling party. There are obviously "modernizers" who want to emulate China and then there is an old guard resisting that move. The idiotic Leninist left enshrines the right to factions in their idiotic constitutions but once you form one you get expelled. That is the reality of the sectarian left. Additionally, factions only get formed in deep crisis because in "normal" times there is so much peer pressure in the sect that it takes enormous self-confidence to get up and say that something was wrong. When I got up at NYC local meeting in 1978 to announce that I was transferring to K.C. to go into industry because of all the "opportunities", I was saying something I did not believe. In the Stalinist world, people do things like that because you might go to prison for telling the truth. In the sect world, you do it because you don't want to be shunned. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/8/13 11:34 AM, DW wrote: For Louis this is all a never ending game. I ask about Cuba, he wants to talk about womens liberation. I am more than happy to talk about Cuba: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/cuba.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/economics/markets.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/NACLACuba.htm Plus, another 25 articles or so. Why I don't want to do is waste time jabbering with a sectarian like you on a mailing list. If you wanted to do something constructive rather than mouth off, you'd sit down and write something of substance but as I read the mangled spelling and grammar in your average post, I can only conclude that you are happier writing bullshit off the top of your head. 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis, the problem is, you suck at changing the goal posts. While you may or may not be correct about "Sam Farber" (I agree with you here, but this is not the point), Shane's comment, the one you do not want to address and, because you have no response to him you dredge up his Spart past from, say, what is now...45 years ago when he left them...was that the Cuban Communist Party bans factions. State capitalism? Sam Farber? The ISO? Gerry Healy? No, he just noted a *fact* in relation to the whole issue of tendencies in the British SWP. Shane himself is a wee bit on the obtuse side as well (and it's this being obtuse why I enjoy his oh-so-abbreviated comments now and again). I *suspect* he meant all this goings on about democratic centralism, democracy, Leninism (or "Leninism") and no one is noticing the Cuban CP and whether this has any bearings on how this party, in power off the coast of Florida, functions in relation to the discussion at hand. DW 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == For Louis this is all a never ending game. I ask about Cuba, he wants to talk about womens liberation. I mention Libya, he wants to know if I ever got a Bar Mitvah. Funny character our Moderator is. The French OCI to my knowledge, never *had* a position on Cuba like that of Gerry Healy's SLL. Doesn't matter, it is just *SO* much fun to talk about this, and be obsessive about statements made 50 years ago...er...well...perceived...I think..."maybe position's" that someone told me about who heard it from the Sabret Hot Dog vendor outside my apartment. Maybe. What were we talking about. Oh yeah "DAVID WALTERS LAMBERTISM!". Right on. DW 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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2/8/13 11:24 AM, DCQ wrote: This is a fantastic development, especially now that Emma, Richard, China, etc. have signed on. Oh, and as for the Cuba dig, Lou, you might consider subtitling Unrepentant Marxist: "Opposed to all shibboleths...except my own." In reality the notion that Cuba is "Stalinist" or "state capitalist" is something highly heterodox. If you develop your own approach to Marxism, as most of the non-party subscribers to Marxmail have, this is about the last thing that would occur to you. For example, the average non-party socialist admires Che Guevara and would find Sam Farber's mudslinging piece written on the anniversary of his death most off-putting and really quite weird. I of course set up Marxmail to have a conversation with non-party socialists and not those who belong to "Leninist" groups or those who have been permanently warped by their experience in such groups. 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] SWP faction declared
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On 2/8/13 10:50 AM, Shane Mage wrote:
Obviously more qualified then ever now that he has taken up arms against
sexism in his own party.
And likewise more qualified than ever to lecture us about the
antidemocratic prohibition of factions within the Cuban State
("Communist") Party.
For comrades new to the list, Shane was part of a faction in the
American SWP that was formed in the early 60s on the basis of opposition
to the party's recognition that a revolution had taken place in Cuba. He
is even older than me. Like an old dog that has retired from active
duty, he still races around the firehouse when he hears a siren.
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] SWP faction declared
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
Interesting to see that Mike Gonzalez is included. Wonder how
qualified he is now to lecture us about sexism in Cuba.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf
Obviously more qualified then ever now that he has taken up arms
against sexism in his own party.
And likewise more qualified than ever to lecture us about the
antidemocratic prohibition of factions within the Cuban State
("Communist") Party.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
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] SWP faction declared
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Interesting to see that Mike Gonzalez is included. Wonder how qualified he is now to lecture us about sexism in Cuba. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf 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
