Alan Bradley abradley1 at
Fri Jun 8 07:46:58 MDT 2001

From: Greg Schofield
> I will go a step further disintegration of existing organisations should
> be embraced as natural, while the eye on the ball must concentrate on what
> new forms of organisation might come of it.
> It is a revolutionary plunge not a dipping of toes in the pond that is
> required. The latter prolongs the current state of affairs and dances
> politically around the major questions, too much dancing and both might
> collapse together (mutual disintegration) on the other hand making the
> plunge and being ruthless about it does at least promise a solution, the
> only thing worse would be staying as we now are.

Well, here is the problem:  nobody is interested in a "revolutionary
plunge".  Nobody trusts anybody else, or believes that such a move would be
possible at the moment, even if it was desirable. Opinions are mixed on the
latter, too.

That is why things have to be posed as they are at the moment:  as an
alliance, that is, as a dipping of toes in the pond.  What is happening is a
process of testing and exploration, of seeing what the actual possibilities
are, rather than just speculating about them, or plunging ahead and
discovering nobody is interested.

There is actually a worse option than staying as we are now:  destroying
what little organisation we currently have.  That means losing the main
mechanisms we still have for attracting people to Marxism, or at least
giving them some kind of exposure to it.  But then again:  if all of our
organisations were to implode, something would emerge to fill the vacuum.
It might even be more interesting than what we currently have!  On the other
hand, it would still have to fight tooth and nail for its own right to
exist, against the anti-organisational sentiments that would become even
stronger in this situation.

Then again, this is not the prospect that concerns people, when you get down
to it.  Most people aren't that concerned about the well-being of the left
as a whole, but rather of that part of it which they tend to identify with.

I won't plead nobility here either:  it just so happens that the bit of the
left I identify with (but am not presently a member of) would end up as an
influential faction within "the party of the future", and would be
reasonably capable of reconstituting itself if an attempt to build such a
party failed.

It's late, so I will stop here.

Alan Bradley
abradley1 at

More information about the Marxism mailing list