Re: Comintern (Re: DSP on Cannon) (Re: Camejo's article)

["Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: ben
> Bear in mind that the Comintern also advised united front work with some
> of these right-wingers when useful, eg the CPGB affiliating to Labour.

In Australia, the CP attempted to affiliate with the Labor Party, and
briefly succeeded in New South Wales. They were subsequently proscribed by
the right wing. At that point in time the Labor Party wasn't the kind of
membership organisation it is now, but was a coalition of affiliated unions
and other organisations supporting the parliamentary party. (A bit like the
US Democrats, perhaps?)

The ALP split during the first world war, with the Prime Minister, and many
of the parliamentarians, defecting to the conservative parties. On the other
hand, those that remained included many particularly vile scum. One of the
leading red-baiters, Queensland Premier E.G. "Red Ted" Theodore, was a
business partner of the Packer family, and involved in the Emperor gold mine
in Fiji. Theodore started as a union leader, and ended up an imperialist
capitalist, in alliance with the family that has now become the richest in
Australia.

> We shouldn't blame all the mistakes and follies of the CPGB, CPUSA, CPA
> or any other CP on Moscow--whether it's Lenin's Moscow or Stalin's
> Moscow. The sectarianism and opportunism that came to characterise the
> CPs in many countries has its roots in the socialist movements of those
> countries: these problemswere not caused by Moscow.

It's hard to look at the pre-CP left in Australia without wincing. With the
honourable exception of the IWW, it was a real mess. Unfortunately, this
mess became the CPA.

I'm actually a little reluctant to attribute the CPA's failure to the
Comintern, although the latter played a pretty stupid role at various
points. The CPA had its own vices, rooted firmly in Australian history, that
guaranteed that it would never lead a revolution.

> From: Louis Proyect
> If a DSP'er sent a message to Marxmail challenging the party position on
> UN troops in East Timor, he'd be brought up on charges. This is
> Zinovievism, not Bolshevism.

Probably not. He'd probably merely draw some kind of reply from the other
DSPers on the list.

(Incidentally, a rather high proportion of the DSP membership are female,
although that doesn't appear to be reflected on this list.)

Of course, a lot would depend on what the DSPer wrote, too. If they started
"defending Indonesian sovereignty", in the manner some people did during the
East Timor flame war on this list, they would draw a stronger response than
if they merely expressed misgivings about the wisdom of supporting the call
for UN troops.

Getting expelled from the DSP is hard.

> When a movement continues to produce leaders like Barnes, Healy, Lambert,
> et al, who share in common an affinity for the Trotskyist method of
> party-building, especially the Cannonist subset, we have to question the
> methodology, don't we?

Why is it the party-building "methodology" that is the cause of this, rather
than the very many other sectarian/opportunist characteristics these
movements exhibit, and have exhibited since day one?

> In fact, the problem with DSP'ers and SWP'ers is that they are really not
> familiar with how the Bolshevik party functioned in the real world. Their
> understanding is based on Cannon's (or Tony Cliff et al) recounting of
> Russian events. As is generally the case, you are better off reading
> independent scholarship, such as Neil Harding's 2-volume study of Lenin.
> Also, read Lenin.

Funnily enough, one of the DSP's criticisms of the ISO is that they prefer
to learn about Leninism from Tony Cliff rather than Lenin.

My experience is that trying to convince people to read Lenin is an exercise
in cat-herding. They'd really rather read something that had a more obvious
connection to struggles happening in the present day. Fortunately, however,
there are interesting parties around today for them to learn from...

Way back when, when _I_ was reading Lenin, I asked a DSP leader, "How
democratic centralist was the Bolshevik party, really?" He started to
explain how extremely democratic it was. The thought that I was actually
asking how centralist it was didn't cross his mind! This was a result of
years of bickering with various anarchists and other liberals, for whom any
constraint on their oh-so-tender egos is intolerable and undemocratic.

There are a couple of points in this story: the main one is that DSP members
are actively encouraged to read stuff that can lead them to ask questions
like that.

But of course, if you do that, you are merely indoctrinating them in the
party line, aren't you?

The truth is that there is no correct answer. You can't win. All you can
really do is to get stuck in and try to do something that works. Parties
don't operate on autopilot - they have to be led and directed every single
day, and that leadership and direction has to come from every single member
they have, and not just from the elected leaders. This still won't prevent
them from going astray, but it's the best chance of avoiding it.

The problem with the kind of arguments Louis and people like him come up
with is not that this or that point is wrong, or even that they make
sectarian caricatures of existing groups, but rather that they substitute
idealised abstract models for building concrete organisations in the real
world.

In the end, anti-partyism, which _is_ its proper name, is as much a
withdrawal from reality as "building" abstentionist sects.

Alan Bradley
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx




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