Long live Tommy Sheridan!

mmcdon mmcdon at SPAMiol.ie
Thu Jan 18 17:34:41 MST 2001

> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Long live Tommy Sheridan!
> Date: 18 January 2001 22:38
> >Interesting to see how previous arguments you advanced about freedom of
> >expression within socialist parties, and your criticisms of what you
> >"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
> >reference to entrism.
> Oh, please. "Entrism" is a tactic for splitting 'reformist' >

Again, you prefer to rant about entrism, a spectacularly inappropriate
characterisation of the CWI's role in the Scottish Socialist Party, than to
engage with the actual issue at hand. Where is all your rhetoric about the
rights of minorities in socialist organisations now? It seems that as long
as a faction you agree with is in control, suppression of other views is

> Ie., everybody who does not agree with your analysis of the "Russian
> questions" and who does not view as the nucleus of the vanguard. There
> hundreds of you and millions of the rest of us.

More snide ramblings. You prefer to throw in red herring after red herring
rather than argue your point. Your rampant hostility to any organisation
which actually attempts to organise in preparation for working class
revolution outweighs any interest you have in actually evaluating their
politics. I don't pretend to know if your condescension towards
revolutionary socialists is a result of spending time in the (US)SWP or a
product of too many years of scholastic masturbation. Neither am I
particularly interested. I am interested, though, in your neo-Stalinist
defense of Cuban "proletarian democracy". Feel free to defend it. You might
have to use more than a few sneering one liners, however.

> >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
> >you "enter" a party you helped to establish?
> By functioning as members of that party rather than "intervening".

The CWI founded the SSP.The CWI built the SSP. For almost the entire span
of its existence, CWI members formed the leadership of the SSP. Even after
the events of the last few days, CWI members continue to play leading roles
in the SSP from full time organisers to parliamentary candidates.

None of that is of interest to you, because it doesn't suit your pretty
little pre-concieved schemas. Instead we are "entering" the SSP. We are
trying to split the SSP. We are "intervening" rather than functioning as
SSP members. I can only conclude that you know very little about the SSP or
the CWI, but that it doesn't stop you from pontificating about either.

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

So why take such enormous care to distance Lenin from "Leninism"?

> >Neatly, you seperate Lenin from overly rigid party structures and palm
> >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