headers
Louis Proyect | 1 Nov 2007 01:07
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Respect split

Tom O'Lincoln wrote:
> Once again, tens of thousands would do. But once again, WHAT IS THIS MODEL? 
> And once again, given the number of times I've heard this point made on 
> Marxmail, I wonder why none of you goes out and implements it? You think 
> someone like me is a bit thick for not seeing it, so I guess it must be 
> pretty straightforward . so what are you waiting for?

Tom, my goal right now is to wean people away from sectarianism, not to 
launch a new party. I believe that we are in a preparatory period right 
now and the emphasis must be on political clarification. I am content to 
keep explaining how my approach differs from that of groups like the 
British SWP or the Australian DSP in the hopes that when a new 
radicalization develops people will not waste their time like I did in 
the 1960s with something like the American SWP. Or Maoists did, as 
chronicled by Max Elbaum. I am quite sure that when a new radicalization 
develops, there will be explosive growth in formations like the 1960s 
SDS but on a surer foundation. I am basically carrying on in the 
tradition of the American Socialist in the 1950s, which tried to put 
forward an alternative to the sects. Cochran and Braverman did not 
succeed but their ideas remain relevant for today. I would not 
discourage the British SWP or the Australian DSP from continuing along 
their present course, however. Socialist propaganda groups do provide a 
useful function by spreading basic Marxist ideas. I myself first heard 
about socialism from a Socialist Labor Party member in 1957 who used to 
write letters to our hometown newspaper in the summer. I still remember 
his name after 50 years: Nathan Pressman. Alex Callinicos is the Nathan 
Pressman of today.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Lenin's Tomb | 1 Nov 2007 01:23

Re: New Zealand IST group speaks out on Respect controversy

On 10/31/07, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson <at> canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine the cabal atop the British SWP liking the NZ letter one
> little bit - it's fine for the Brit leaders to interfere in the
> "sections" of the IST but if any of the mere "sections" express views
> about SWP policy in Britain there will be hell to pay.

What?  Are you serious?  The NZ comrades have been criticising the British
SWP openly over Chavez for months, and it wasn't attacked or given any kind
of "hell to pay" so far as I know.  This is, of course, a bit more serious,
but the *worst* that can happen to them is that the IST will expel them from
the tendency (I stress I am not saying this will happen), so it's hardly a
massive international sanctions regime.  I have a lot of respect for Daphne
Lawless, but I fear the main problem with this letter is that it was written
without really checking anything, and with an unfairly hostile tone to boot,
and that is unfortunately happening quite a bit over this issue.

More importantly, why are you borrowing the language of anticommunism?
What's with this 'cabal' nonsense?  The CC is an elected body whose members
are quite public about who they are and what they stand for.  A 'cabal' is a
secret organisation usually promoting private interests, and as such the
description is entirely unwarranted and wierdly paranoid.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lenin's Tomb | 1 Nov 2007 01:29

Re: Respect split

On 10/31/07, Tom O'Lincoln <suarsos <at> alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> I deny it. The SWP experienced impressive growth around 1968-74, but since
> then it's been basically treading water (despite absurd claims of 10,000
> members). But that's the fate of the left throughout the industrialised
> world. I attribute this primarily to objective conditions.

This isn't quite right.  The SWP claims about 6,000 registered members and
roughly 2,000 unregistered members, and these figures are accurate.
Secondly, the party grew substantially during the poll tax riots and the
second miners' strike, way above the levels of 1974, for instance.  It's
true that the left has collectively faced a crisis in advanced capitalist
countries, but I think it's fair to say that the SWP rode out the storm
quite well given all prevailing conditions.

And by the way, although I disagree with Louis's criticisms, he is right in
one sense: we don't want the movement to consist of a few thousand
disciplined cadre.  We do want it to consist of millions.  If people think
that this is what the argument in Respect is about, they are mistaken.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Louis Proyect | 1 Nov 2007 02:33
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Respect does not belong to the SWP

http://marxsite.com/Respectdoesnotbelongto%20SWP.html

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Lenin's Tomb | 1 Nov 2007 02:48

Re: Respect does not belong to the SWP

There has been a riposte to this statement, distributed on the same Respect
mailing list - does your website also quote that?
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alan Bradley | 1 Nov 2007 03:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Respect split

From: Louis Proyect 
> Tom, my goal right now is to wean people away
> from sectarianism, not to launch a new party.
> I believe that we are in a preparatory period
> right now and the emphasis must be on political
> clarification. I am content to keep explaining
> how my approach differs from that of groups
> like the British SWP or the Australian DSP in
> the hopes that people will not waste their time
> like I did in the 1960s with something like the
> American SWP.

Well, here's the problem. "Your approach" is
essentially hypothetical. You are counterposing an
abstraction to what people are trying to do in the
Real World(tm), and lambasting them when they aren't
able to live up to your expectations, or agree to your
demands.

But the problem is precisely that your model hasn't
been reality-checked. It is *impossible* to live up to
your expectations, because the latter aren't grounded
in reality.

In short, you've fallen into an idealist trap.

Unfortunately, it's likely that "when a new
radicalization develops" whatever forces actually
emerge aren't going to be able to live to your
expectations either. Then you'll either have to deal
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tom O'Lincoln | 1 Nov 2007 03:18
Picon

Re: Respect split

>>This isn't quite right.  The SWP claims about 6,000 registered members and
roughly 2,000 unregistered members, and these figures are accurate. <<

Thanks for these numbers -- for so long they were kept secret, or at least 
they weren't available to me even when I was in the ISO. I don't think they 
fundamentally contradict my argument.

The registered members' figure quoted at the 1982 conference that I attended 
was 4000 members, so if it's now 6000 it does indicate some modest progress, 
but hardly "impressive" given it's taken place over more than two decades. 
Also my impression is that the basis for registration has become less 
rigorous over time.

I agree that this isn't a bad result given what we've been up against.  But 
if it's true that "the left has collectively faced a crisis in advanced 
capitalist countries", indeed a "storm", then this sits very oddly with all 
the hype that has accompanied SWP perspectives. It's that hype, or as I put 
it earlier wish-fulfilment, that I think is the main problem in the 
subjective realm.

BTW I'm glad you're present on this list, we have needed a sophisticated 
SWPer for a long time.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Louis Proyect | 1 Nov 2007 03:32
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Respect split

Alan Bradley wrote:
> 
> Well, here's the problem. "Your approach" is
> essentially hypothetical. You are counterposing an
> abstraction to what people are trying to do in the
> Real World(tm), and lambasting them when they aren't
> able to live up to your expectations, or agree to your
> demands.

Let me repeat. I think it is a good thing for socialist propaganda 
groups to exist. There are very many useful articles in Greenleft 
Weekly. Just because it is precluded that the DSP will ever become a 
mass revolutionary party, there is no reason to feel inadequate. As the 
late Sol Dollinger once observed:

"Frederick Engels wrote to an American that left sects perform a useful 
purpose. They keep alive socialist ideology in those periods where the
class struggle is at a low ebb. For this reason I must respect the work
of the SLP, SWP, CP and a dozen other sect groups. They all are serving
a useful purpose."

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paula | 1 Nov 2007 03:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: the injuries of class

This was a useful piece on a very important topic, about which socialists 
should be saying much more. Michael is right to highlight the destructive 
effects of 'dependence, fear, and insecurity-in a system where workers are 
bombarded with the message that they and they alone make the decisions that 
determine their circumstances'.

It brought to my mind this quote from Lenin, regarding religion:

'The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of 
the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the 
blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon 
ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage 
torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary 
events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. "Fear made the gods." Fear of the 
blind force of capital-blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of 
the people-a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and 
small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict "sudden", 
"unexpected", "accidental" ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death 
from starvation-such is the root of modern religion ...' (From 'On the 
attitude of a worker's party to religion,' 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm).

Paula 

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alan Bradley | 1 Nov 2007 03:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: Respect split

From: Louis Proyect 
> Just because it is precluded that the DSP will
> ever become a mass revolutionary party, there
> is no reason to feel inadequate. 

It's hardly likely that DSP members would feel
inadequate about that, since we know perfectly well
that it's not going to happen, and we aren't even
trying to make it happen.

We've pointed this out many, many times. But it
doesn't fit your schema, so you ignore it.

What more can I say?

Alan Bradley

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism <at> lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane