Long live Tommy Sheridan!

mmcdon mmcdon at SPAMiol.ie
Thu Jan 18 15:29:31 MST 2001

> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Long live Tommy Sheridan!
> Date: 18 January 2001 16:39

Not one of your finer moments here , Louis.

> On Cuba, the CWI has been critical that the SSP and Tommy Sheridan have
> described Cuba as a socialist country, which we do not accept. We believe
> this is putting forward a neo-Stalinist position. We defend the
> gains of the Cuban revolution in health care, literacy and education but
> given the lack of democracy within Cuba, this does not equate with
> socialism, where democracy and working class involvement in the running
> society and the economy is essential.
> [Democracy? This must refer to the lack of Soviets in Cuba. To the dismay
> of Sheridan's critics, I must inform them that neither is Russian spoken
> Cuba. Times change, so do the forms of proletarian democracy.]

Your own neo-Stalinist slip is showing here. In your mouth "proletarian
democracy" becomes meaningless, as distorted a form of words as ever it was
in the Soviet Union.

> We were shocked and dismayed that our, now former, members in the
> leadership of the SSP have proposed "guidelines" for that party which
> preclude the right of organised trends within the SSP to produce public
> material, sell public journals, etc. These guidelines argue that
> platforms should "not act as a party within a party".
> [Maybe, as former Trotskyists, they understand that "entrism" is a
> maneuver to recruit people to a sect.]

Interesting to see how previous arguments you advanced about freedom of
expression within socialist parties, and your criticisms of what you term
"Zinovievism" can be so swiftly abandoned when it suits you. The SSP
leadership seeks to silence its critics and all we get from you is a snide
reference to entrism.

That reference is, of course, particularly misplaced in the case of the
SSP, given that it was founded on an alliance of disparate trends. How do
you "enter" a party you helped to establish?

As an aside, doesn't the name you give to certain forms of "Leninist"
organisation, "Zinovievism", in the final analysis, seem every bit as pious
as the attitudes you sought to criticise?

Neatly, you seperate Lenin from overly rigid party structures and palm them
off on someone else. If you had the courage of your convictions, the
distinction wouldn't matter.

Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill

More information about the Marxism mailing list