Re: The speech that Barnes should have given

[Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Richard wrote:
>
>"Marxism" encompasses a vast range of political and programmatic, not to
>mention
>philosophical approaches. The membership of this list is an example. What kind
>of a party would we constitute if we sought to be a party and not just the
>discussion group that we are.



I read Lou's exercise in hindsight with a good deal of interest, and for
what it is worth near total agreement.   I also read Richard's reply, again
with interest and sympathy. However I got so burned by the Percyites and
then the ISO in the late 7os and then early 80s that I cannot even
contemplate organisational questions. Yet they continue to surface.  Thus
at the recent Bhaskar/Critical Realist conference in Lancaster, a
delightful man named Phil Walden spoke about the need for a 'Trotskyist
Leninist Party' to lead the proletariat to victory. I thought to myself -
'Been there; done that.  And I will never go back again.'

Far better to settle for something more tangible such as a discussion
group.  Far better to try and create the intellectual and moral climate
which will restrict the scope of the bourgeoisie and their minions.  In
some ways it is uncomfortable to try and reach out to and listen to people
who do not share the 'line' or the 'program'. Certainly the ISO that I knew
and know would pour scorn on this list as a 'cyber swamp'.  Though to be
truthful they would not have the wit or the intelligence to come up with
that formulation.

Richard asks though what kind of party would we make.  Well the answer I
think is, 'None at all'. But there will never be a successful party at all
without lists such as this one.  In the current conjuncture we are (a small
part of) the necessary but not sufficient condition.
This list is not enough of course,  but it is something to be going on with.

regards

Gary