Re: History of SWP (US)

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

James Miller writes:
>
>    I agree with many of Vladimir Bilenkin's criticisms of
> Louis Proyect's "history of the SWP" posting.

So do I.

It is true to say that when most people attack Trotskyism they are
attacking classical Marxism, the Marxism of Marx, Engels, Luxembourg,
and Gramsci, as well as of Trostky himself.

Trostsky was engaged in the last five years of his life in the most
important work of his life, passing on the revolutionary tradition
"over the heads of the 2nd and 3rd international".

But, Louis' experience is NOT a personnal one. Many people in many
organisations have similar stories to tell, similar DEEP scars.

I would argue that the POLITICAL roots of this are the tendency to
treat Trostky's writings as tablets of stone, as the fixed, final
result of the classical Marxist tradition. [ In particular, his incorrect
identification of state ownership and socialism. ] Hence, criticisms and
reorientations within parties which adherred to the "Trotsky as Moses"
interpretation have come from OUTSIDE the classical Marxist tradition.

Some have veered off towards third world nationalism ( SWP - US ) , others
the mainline CP's ( Pablo, apparently )  and others again toward reformism
( Militant, + many individuals over the years ).

We in the British SWP have not been immune from the pressures on other
revolutionary organisations -  [ sectarianism, ultra leftism, squadism,
movementism, syndicalism - we've had them all, and no doubt will again ] -
but we HAVE been able to correct them, before it was too late, BECAUSE we
have stayed inside the classical Marxist tradition, continuing the overall
orientation and spirit of Trotsky's work, if not always the letter.

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---