Update on the SWP
Jose G. Perez
jgperez at SPAMfreepcmail.com
Mon Sep 6 14:07:30 MDT 1999
I hate it when I do this sort of thing (which, if you've been observant,
I tend to so every once in a while). I guess the old sectarian in me just
comes out and somehow sends that kind of post when I'm not looking! At any
rate, I written Michael an apology as well as a more substantive comment on
his concerns, which I just posted, and he'll soon see.
I did sort of add a paragraph or two introduction to the SWP update post
kinda warning people that this was going to be pretty much of interest to
"insiders" only so to speak. I can imagine Michael and others reading it:
"... 460 at Oberlin this year ... 600 four years ago ... $200,000 pledge
drive ... who cares? What is all this drivel?" I guess I wasn't clear enough
in my intro. I mean you might sit down with an old friend from those days
looking at your high school yearbook, but anyone else listening in is going
to think it is a real yawner.
Anyways, apologies to those who thought perhaps my "update" post was
more than an exchange of tidbits and gossip meant for mostly for those of us
who'd been in or around the SWP an still took a certain interest in it.
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Update on the SWP
>>know me and got my name wrong. Yet instead of debating Taylorism (and
>>Lenin's spport of it) and the whole nature of work in capitalism, why
>>the labor movement shies away from discussing this subject, what workers
>>think of their work, etc., he gives us a long and boring exegesis of the
>>SWP. I think whenever I see SWP in the subject line, I'm going to press
>>the delete button. Louis P. has already taught me enough about it and
>>in a more interesting manner.
>Michael, from what I've seen of Jose on this list, I would characterize
>both the sharpness of his comments on your post and his screwup of your
>last name as atypical. Furthermore, did write a series of interesting posts
>on the American economy which implicitly took a position on the current
>situation of the working-class. I think that he has tended to minimize the
>sort of contradictions that you drew attention to in "Why Unions Matter"
>because veterans of the SWP are suspicious of anything that smacks of
>overprojections. Obviously the goal is to arrive at a more balanced
>appraisal of the objective situation through debate and discussion.
>On the question of the SWP, Jose comes at it from a different angle
>entirely and I find his comments interesting. He is examining things from a
>perspective of somebody much closer to the inner circles, while I was
>always, as Charlie Mingus puts it, "beneath the underdog".
>My recommendation to one and all who find another list member's
>contributions aggravating is to filter them out. I may even assign Carrol
>Cox to be the majordomo of such techniques since he is such an ardent
>believer in their value.
More information about the Marxism