[Marxism] Addendum Re: Paul Le Blanc responds to Pham Binh's ..
fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 2 16:11:42 MST 2012
One more thing I should add to my last post.
I mentioned that revolutionaries can and should organize themselves as revolutionaries in the kind of mass socialist parties that are needed.
However, I should add that throughout the history of such parties, like in the various Second International parties, the development of such revolutionary tendencies is usually an organic response to some sort of topical controversy or event. The most extreme example of course being something like a sell-out parliamentary leadership voting for a war or something along those lines, but also according to less dire but nonetheless burning questions, like the constitution of a left-wing in the Socialist Party of America organized around support for the IWW.
Even the various Communist Parties of the early Third International, whatever problems inherent in the Zionievist model of organization, were organic breaks from the parties of the Second International.
By contrast, most contemporary "cadre-style" small socialist groups aren't constituted out of an organic development within some broader context, but are rather organized around very tightly delineated programmatic or theoretical points, and usually also specific claims to a particular organizational/theoretical lineage.
In the case of the most pathological groups, like the Sparts or whatever, it's just amusing and sad.
In the case of the saner and reasonable groups, however, it's kind of vexing. Like for example, I don't understand why the International Socialist Tendency or the Mandelite Fourth International do not have common groups in most countries.
At least in Germany they are united in a broader formation like DIE LINKE, but in national contexts like the USA, lacking any kind of mass socialist formation, I don't understand why groups like the ISO and Solidarity aren't in some kind of common organization.
More information about the Marxism