Re: For revolutionary factionalism not sectarian lunacy

["Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Louis Proyect
> When you have several hundred people defending some bit of ideology under
> threat of discipline, you naturally end up with a rather homogenous
> political culture.

Which is a problem that exists in your mind, rather than in the DSP's
practice.

Louis, do you really think that the DSP would really give a damn if one of
its members suddenly got up in public and announced that they believed in
the theory of Permanent Revolution? Most of its members would be _amused_.

What the DSP _would_ care about would be something different: if one of its
members got up in public, announced that they believed in the theory of
Permanent Revolution, and denounced the party as a bunch of petit bourgeois
deviationists! _That_ would draw a response. And at least some of its
members would be amused.

These are two different things.

> If you dumped this approach and adopted a genuinely non-sectarian
> framework, you would grow much more rapidly. But that would require a
> boldness that I am afraid that does not exist in your ranks or leadership.

This is wrong on a couple of different levels.

First, there is _no_ way that the DSP could "grow much more rapidly". It is
a total fantasy to think otherwise.

I'll skip the stuff about "genuinely non-sectarian" and boldness. It all
gets a bit "is too"/"is not".

> building a broad inclusive revolutionary front that involved millions of
> students, campesinos and workers tired of Batista and imperialism. In the
> next few years ...

<yawn>

The DSP will broadly follow the political course that groups like its
allies in places like Indonesia, the Philippines, and so on have taken.
That's _very_ broadly, of course, since Indonesia and the Philippines are
very different societies to Australia. Is that a problem?

Alan Bradley
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx



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