Re: [Marxism] The ISO, "State capitalist theory", and dialectics

[Nick Fredman <sra@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Replies to Carroll Cox.

> On what basis do you assume that there can or should be _A_ socialist
party?

I've no idea why you seem to be interpreting "a socialist party" as
"The Single Monolithic Socialist Party". I think the main point is
there can be relatively successful socialist parties in disparate
countries at present despite difficult times, and these can make a
crucial contribution to the class struggle. These could include the
PRC in Italy, LCR in France, maybe even the SWP in England, and the
crucial example for the English-speaking world, the Scottish
Socialist Party. Not to mention the Cuban Community Party, the FARC,
and others which are probably more controversial examples on this
list.

All successful revolutions and most progressive social movements have
been led by parties, if not at the start then formed in the struggle
(e.g. Cuba). You could argue that the Nicaraguan revolution was led
by a coalition, but the main point's the same. There's good reasons
why the party question is a hot topic in Venezuela right now.

> Why not various socialist organizations (leagues, unions, etc)
> working together on a "general line of march."

Well indeed why not, there's lots of forms of common agreement and
action possible and relevant at different stages. However if you were
a bit more clear on how your conception relates to the lessons of
history and the situation we face now, it'd be better. In my previous
post I was thinking of the relatively similar situations facing the
far left around the English-speaking world at present: lots of left
groups, indistinguishable to most people, in competition, 1000s of
unaffiliated radicals and activists who may be attracted if the left
was seen to get its shit together, and an example in the SSP of how
principled unity can lead to real advances for the socialist left.

> Parties of any substance are in any case a unity of conflicting
> factions and tendencies.

I think this was exactly what I was saying, though I might add that
both unity and difference are means to an end, useful in different
measures at different times, and both not to be fetishised.

> Why does the overall unity have to be represented by a
single party?

Dunno why you're asking me this, as I never said any such thing.
--

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism