DSP, Socialist Alliance, USFI, SSP, SWP ...

John Paramo albatrosrojo2000 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 7 07:36:07 MDT 2002


Dear friends:

Few words about Brian Cahill's assumptions and
characterizations.

Brian characterized the DSP before he read the letter
from its leadership as a non-revolutionary
organization (Stalinist, etc) or at least the CWI
leaders did.

Now Brian is complaining about the DSP "liquidating"
the "revolutionary organization" in the SA.  Well ...
if the DSP was a revolutionary organization why the
CWI did not try to fuse with them before they decide
to "liquidate" their organization?  Or why the CWI
doesn't fight for the members of the DSP to save their
organization? Never mind ...

On the other hand, the DSP's letter does not indicate
that they are "dissolving" or "liquidating" their
organization.  They merely wrote that they are
thinking about operating as a faction or platform
inside SA.  In other words, they want to end the
agreement betwen organizations - that is the Alliance
-and launch a "broad party."

A faction, as the CWI knows very well throught their
own experience inside Socialdemocracy, is not
"liquidating" or "dissolving", is merely a different
form of the party.  Now, this is not to say the DSP is
correct or what they are doing is the best thing to
do, just that Cahill's logic is faulty, selective and
aprioristic.

The CWI - and Cahill - leveled the same accusation
against the CWI members who launched the SSP.  They
are "liquidating" the revolutionary party inside the
SSP.  But the Scottish left the CWI but continued to
be centralzied and organized as a faction inside the
SSP -- they named it ISM.  Cahill should learn that
what differentiates a revolutionary from a
non-revolutionary is not the form that the party
takes, but the content of its program, general
orientation and so on.  The cemetery of the revolution
is filled with the corpses of self-proclaimed
revolutionaries, who maintained "pure" aprties all
their lives, never joined with anyone and suffered
from "unity allergy" and were never more revolutionary
than the DSP or the USFI, or the SSP for that matter.

Of course, for the CWI to discuss content would be
difficult since they can show little of revolutionary
program or activity - that is why they most often than
not they find themselves discussing just form.

But Cahill goes further ... he challenges the honesty
and sincerity of the DSP and says this is just a
maneuver to split the ISO and win over what he
characterizes as "few independents."  If this is the
case, then what the DSP is doing is a maneuver, a
shortcut.  Then, these objectives are clearly in
contradiction with "liquidating" their party, since is
simply a maneuver, isn't it?

Of course, Cahill does no offer a shred of evidence
about the honesty of the DSP and its proposal.  It is
just subjective "feelings", not based in nothing
concrete he knows about the proposal, but on the
"vibes" he seems to be receiving.

He is not done.  He also compares the SSP, DSP and the
LCR (USFI), the British SWP and their proposals for
broader alliances and parties - again assuming they
are for "liquidating" the "revolutionary
organizations" (the same he does not believe are
revolutionaries) ... but he assigns honesty to the
Scottish ISM/SSP and the USFI and dishonesty and
maneuverism to the SWP, DSP ... again, how he
classifies the honesty and dishonesty of tendencies?
Just based on which ones he dislike the most.  Poor
Marxism, to say the least ...

Cahill denies the caricature of his organization is
one of looking at itself as the nuclei of the
revolutionary party that will grow cumulatively up to
the point of becoming a "mass party."  But 60 years of
existence and without a single large organization
(let's say 4-5,000 members) and very, very few with
more than 100 active members and the fact that they
can't even unite with themselves, seems to prove the
caricature as truth.  The CWI even have this
ridiculous objective of a transition to such mass
party.  They call it the "small mass party."  As the
logic he applies to judge the "reasons" (short term
maneuvers) of the DSP to "liquidate the revolutionary
organization" (cause and effect cancel each other),
the terms "mass" and "small" cancel each other when
talking about the "party."

As to the revolutionary credentials of organizations,
Cahill seems to assign that category arbitrarily.
Revolutionary organizations are those with the purpose
of working for the revolution of the future and/or
those who already participated, led, organized one.
They may wrong on their program or method, etc, but as
far as I can see the SSP, the LCR, SWP, DSP ... all
see themselves as "revolutionaries."  That is tested
and will continue to be tested in theory and practice
and cannot be judged subjectively as Cahill does.

Since the party is just a tool, not an end in itself,
and assuming Cahill realy would like to be part of a
revolutionary movement, maybe he would be compelled to
change organization in the future.  As a I see little
difference between the SWP or the SP, or the DSP and
the USFI or between the SSP and them all, Cahill
should be considering ways of closing the gaps with
proposals for unity in one same federation or global
organization or something rather than shooting from
the hip at everything that moves ...  Just a thought.

JP




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list