Yves-Marie Quemener yvesmarie.quemener at
Wed Sep 4 14:55:41 MDT 2002

Nigel Irritable wrote:
>I do dispute, though, your characterisation of the
>kind of parties Bensaid and now possibly the DSP are
>trying to build as "new". In fact these ideas are very
>old indeed. I strongly doubt if anyone in this forum
>is unaware that time and again socialists have raised
>the idea that a revolutionary party in unneccessary,
>or has been superceded by events.
You should be aware that people in LCR are as much
avowed revolutionaries as you are. They want to see a
proletarian revolution, to participate in it, to see it succeed,
and they are also persuaded that a revolutionary party is
necessary for making it succeed.
they also recognize that they don't know what a revolution
would look like, that they don't have a blueprint for making
it arrive, that the working class in developed countries have
not been close of making a revolution since at least 30 years,
and that there are no significant sections of the working class
ready to build a revolutionary party, unlike for example in
the 20s or the 40s where the example of actual revolutions
was fresh in the head of workers,
their idea (and strategy) is to build the largest regroupment
of anti-capitalist people, not forcing them to have the same
exact idea about how to take power, about what to think
of the USSR. The real test is agreement on the concrete
struggles of the working class. And they hope to convince
those large regroupments to behave as revolutionary
organizations and parties if revolutions in developed
countries become again actual.

Your strategy, on the contrary, seems to be to have a
complete agreement on the past and future revolutions in
your organization, to recruit people on this agreement, and
to grow from this nucleus, or embryo of the party into a
full-size revolutionary party.
If I have misrepresented the strategy of your organization,
please correct me. But I believe that the strategy of USFI
(and DSP, and the scottish ISM) has got more chances
of success that the caricature I have drawn of the strategy
of CWI.
When (or if) one of those organisations happens to be part
of a proletarian revolution, those strategic disagreements will
be settled.

>You, Louis, may well sincerely argue that you want a
>new type of revolutionary party rather than just
>another type of reformism. I am charitable enough to
>believe you. But those you choose as your "allies",
>the leadership of the USFI or the Scottish ISM are not
>so naive.
I've got the idea that real revolutionaries are people that
lead (or have led) revolutions. In that sense, the CWI is
no more revolutionary than the USFI or the ISM.
If to be revolutionary it is enough to say it, then the USFI
or the ISM are as much revolutionary than the CWI.

    Yves-Marie Quemener

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list