World Party of Socialist Revolution
s.hopkinson at cqu.edu.au
Wed Jul 17 08:35:52 MDT 2002
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> >It's experiences like this that have made me stick with the "sect" form of
> >organisation, despite its obvious drawbacks. Those who would persuade us
> >otherwise need to suggest a convincing practical alternative.
> >Tom O'Lincoln
> Speaking for myself, I have already offered an alternative in my "speech
> that Jack Barnes should have given."
Both Steve P and I have been working at updating your 'report' in the
context of Australian conditions. Its too early to start drawing conclusions
about 'what is to be done?' yet.
> That being said, I am afraid that Tom
> and the DSP'ers are not looking for an alternative but a recipe. In other
> words, they want a set of prescriptions about how to organize *themselves*.
> I am afraid that unless you lose the concept of yourself as a distinct
> current, you will never get anywhere.
I think this is unfair. No one wants a recipe we want to know what your alternative
would look like. I like Draper's piece for its analysis of what the Bolsheviks were
really like but I think he's pretty light on for details. You have criticised the DSP
being a sect and now we need to abandon the concept of ourselves not just as a
party (or mass party in miniture) but even as a political current. I don't want a
recipe I want to be able to see what you have in mind and how it you see the process
unfolding (not in detail but in general) as Draper does.
> While Jon Anderson's bio of Che
> Guevara is deeply flawed, it is worth reading for the material on how the
> July 26th movement came together. Put succinctly, it was the organizational
> expression of a *mass movement*, as was the Russian social democracy (we
> should never lose sight that the Bolsheviks were simply *part* of this
> broader movement.)
Indeed. I have rad stuff on this list and elsewhere on the early days of the
and how they constituted themselves out of workers circles held together around a
newspaper. Its the early stuff that interests me moreso than 1917. We all want to be
part of a broader movement - but which mass movement is it that you think we should
submerge ourselves into (giving up our identities as sectarians) and thereby moving
world closer to fundamental change.
> Unless you begin to see the big picture, it will be
> impossible to think in terms of what should be done next.
Indeed and so Steve and I are sketching stuff out to see the 'big picture' from
> Habit, routine and tradition are intrinsic to organizations of the type that James
> Cannon inspired. A true revolutionary movement will have to shun these
> characteristics like the plague.
Indeed - as long as they don't give up any form of organising at all in the process.
> I should add however that all forms of socialist organization, even the
> sect, are useful.
Well yes I wouldn't ne here having these debates if it weren't for DSP educationals
the question is how to move forward. Lenin found a way to bring the workers
circles together as a marxist current in the Russian labour movement. Now we need
to find ways to move forward from here drawing on the experience of many comrades
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism