Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: SWP
- Subject: Re: SWP
- From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 16:26:25 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, James Miller wrote:
> Recently Lisa Rogers posted a message asserting that
> SWP members were required to choose companions or marriage
> partners from within the SWP or YS. This is not true. There
> are many SWP members who have wives, husbands, companions
> or partners who are not in the SWP.
> People who disagree with the SWP would make a better
> case if they avoided slander of this type. It only reflects
> on the slanderer.
The greater truth is that the SWP is a cult. Nobody "requires"
anything of SWP members except that they attend meetings, pay dues and sell
the newspaper.
Underneath the formal strictures, however, are never-ending and onerous
demands on people's lives and individuality that are typical of religious
sects like the Unification Church.
I can give you one example that hits home. My own.
I was told that unless I took a factory job in 1977 that "the
contradictions" of being a computer programmer in a "proletarian" party
would continue to mount until people would start to resent my presence at
meetings.
I shrugged my shoulders, quit my programming job, and trucked off to
Kansas City where I took a job as a spot welder. It was a disaster and I
quit the SWP, which I had been a member of for 11 years.
A regional coordinator of the party flew to Kansas City and asked me to
work with the local branch leadership to keep my resignation a secret
since news of my departure would "demoralize" the branch.
So I just disappeared. I became an unperson. I thought that this act of
self-abnegation would help to build the party. What my act really
represented was the effort of a cult member to sustain the cult even
after breaking formal ties.
I have never forgiven those bastards or myself for going along with such
a disgusting and degrading act. As a matter of fact, I let that putz Jack
Barnes know what I thought of him when I saw him once in the
expensive seats at the Metropolitan Opera, "Spending membership dues on
the opera, Jack? Where's your top hat and tails?" Proletarian, my foot.
I figure Jim Miller has either gotten closer to this sect or even joined
it since the last time we heard from him.
Jim, listen closely to me. I generally don't pay much attention to this
outfit except in a broader historical context. But if you anticipate
acting as their attorney here, you will have to put up with something
much worse than slander and that is the truth. I know the truth about the
SWP after having spent 11 years in it and this time I have no intention
of keeping my mouth shut.
Louis Proyect
--- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
- Thread context:
- Re: The Two-China Policy, (continued)
- SWP,
James Miller Sat 17 Feb 1996, 17:31 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: SWP,
glevy Sat 17 Feb 1996, 19:06 GMT
- Re: SWP,
Louis N Proyect Sat 17 Feb 1996, 21:26 GMT
- Re: SWP,
Rahul Mahajan Sat 17 Feb 1996, 23:48 GMT
- Re: SWP,
David Walters Sun 18 Feb 1996, 00:00 GMT
- Re: SWP -Reply,
Lisa Rogers Sun 18 Feb 1996, 00:22 GMT
- Re: SWP -Reply,
Lisa Rogers Sun 18 Feb 1996, 00:33 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]