Re: The Heroic Days of British Trotskyism

["Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Stan Goff
> That's why I think Louis' notion of a broad, non-sectarian network of
> marxists/organizers as the nucleus of a future revolutionary mass party
> has a lot of merit.

In Australia, the concept of a network has often been counterposed to that
of a party.  This usually comes from people who don't want an organisation
that will challenge the Labor Party for the allegiance of workers.  In the
US the equivalent would be a proposal aimed at preventing an organisation
from opposing the Democrats.

We need parties.  We already have talkshops.

In more specific terms, I think we need and conceivably could form parties
broadly similar to the Scottish Socialist Party (which is small, and has a
bunch of problems), in several imperialist states.  Such parties would be
different from blobs like Solidarity and the Committees of Correspondence,
which don't really seem to be able to actually do very much.  These "blobs"
(an unkind term, for which I should probably apologise) are pretty much what
the term "network" implies to me.

> the CPUSA... at least let you join without going through an intensive
> indoctrination program.

On the other hand, there has to be some way to explain to new and potential
members what Marxism is, what its general positions are, and what kind of
organisation they are joining or thinking of joining.

That doesn't require a huge amount of time to be devoted to the intricacies
of particular factional shiboleths, though.

Alan Bradley
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.