Long live Tommy Sheridan!
alanb at SPAMelf.brisnet.org.au
Fri Jan 19 04:10:28 MST 2001
> From: "Jose G. Perez"
> And then we turn to Marx and Engels who figured this stuff out to begin
> with. And we find, lo and behold, that the idea that there IS NO MODEL is
> *precisely* what THEY believed, and it is the basis on which they
Obviously this is correct. See below.
> They did not seek to impose the right form of organization on
> the workers movement, they *accepted* the forms that the movement threw
> up, whether it was a tight propaganda nucleus (the Communist League) or
> much looser formations, like the IWMA.
I'm not entirely sure about this part. It is very likely that the
Communists will be the ones initiating organisation, and they will
therefore be the ones shaping it. Marx and Engels were not usually in this
position, while Lenin was. We can add that the PRD in Indonesia, and PST
in East Timor are both actively engaged in initiating working class
organisations, and thus helping shape the forms they take.
The paradox of the SSP and SML relationship is that the SML actually
*succeeded*. That is, it created a superior form of organisation to that
which existed previously: the SSP. The disintegration of the Scottish CWI
section is a natural consequence of that success.
I am actually in the middle of scanning in a fairly long article from the
SPP, a party in the Philippines with rather DSP-like politics. Basically,
they discuss revolutionary strategy, and deal fairly well with the fact
that there isn't a universal model. But there is one thing that they
insist on: that party building is a central factor in revolutionary
strategy, as the strategy itself is carried out by the party.
Their case is plausible, though there are cases where the "party" was
rudimentary or informal (Cuba?). I will post the article in a day or two.
(It's pretty long.)
alanb at elf.brisnet.org.au
More information about the Marxism