Unity as organizational fetishism

[m-14970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hugh Rodwell)]

Ryan D regaled us with an article from the United Secretariat's English
journal International Viewpoint, prefacing it with the comment:

>Just thought this might be of interest to some of the people debating and
>discussing various sectariana; look! there are actually socialists who
>are capapble of working together!

In the whole article there is not a single concrete policy position
presented. Policy documents are mentioned, as is the 'Kurdish question',
but no indication is given as to the content involved or any stands taken.

The quintessence of the article is in the following words:

>But we shouldn't attach too much attention to definitions and political
>formula.

This is pure opportunism. The kind of unity aimed for is cliquish and
feel-good, the worst kind of Broad Left cop-out. 'He's a Kemalist
Social-Democrat, but he's *our* Kemalist Social-Democrat, so that's all
right. Kurdish question? That's *hard* , so we don't talk about it too
much, I guess.'

Generalizations about good intentions follow:

>If we can make the VDP into a real instrument of struggle, on the basis of the
>fundamental themes of its political programme, then our current debate
>about the
>precise formulation to use will become irrelevant. What is essential is to
>intervene in struggles and, simultaneously, to widen the internal democratic
>life of the party.

They won't be able to. And they don't let us know what the 'fundamental
themes' are, so we can't see what they're aiming at and can't form any
judgement about the validity or realism of their goals.

Not that it matters, cos the cliquish essence of the project is immediately
reiterated to dispel any doubts that the generalizations may have given
rise to:

>Or, more precisely, to find a style which enables these two
>aspects of the new organisation to reinforce each other.

Style! If I was a bourgeois strategist I would suggest giving a little bit
of money to support this group (they'll be slobberingly grateful anyway, no
point in wasting good cash) and let them siphon off as much real class
opposition to capitalism and the state in Turkey as they can manage before
they fade away or get into high-level bourgeois parliamentary politics.

Incidentally, the whole article is self-contradictory on the political
conjuncture. It mouths as a truism:

>This is not a period of upturn and growth in the class struggle.

yet doesn't ask why in that case it is experiencing 'Such rapid growth' or
why 'the party keeps growing. New members are signing up.'

The article worries about 'risks for the socialist identity of the party'.
There might be a risk in relation to a label. Nothing else as far as I can
judge on the basis of this article.

Who needs principles when you can get a hundred new members, eh?

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------