Re: [Marxism] SWP: "U.S. troops consolidate victory in Fallujah"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was struck by Louis's statistic of 138 exchanges with Steve G on the
SWP.  And the fact that no VISIBLE progress has been made on any side.

I'm sure Steve has learned something from the discussions, but he will
never let us know -- well, never say never, but you know what I mean.

Steve's identity as a revolutionay consists of his position as an
(unorganized, I assume) supporter of the SWP who follows (self-imposed)
discipline of never criticizing the party in the presence of the goyim,
and defending the party unconditonally against all comers, whether he
actually agrees with its views or not. When Steve writes about the
party's line, we do not find out what Steve thinks but what he thinks he
can come up with to defend the party and the Militant.  Sometimes, it is
true, he does so by attributing to the party views of his own which are
clearly not those of the party (otherwise the party would express them
in its articles rather than or along with those it does express).  But
Steve has to convince himself that the party is looking at this the way
he does in order to preserve the illusion that his views are homogeneous
with the party's, as they are morally bound to be.

I know these mechanisms quite well, and do not criticize him for them.
I simply point out that they take him out of the framework of real
debate, just as they take the party way further out of that framework.

Steve will do this as long as he believes that being a revolutionary
means supporting the party and abiding by its (in his case, MORALLY not
organizationally obligatory) discipline in relations with the goyim (for
the SWP, the rest of humanity, regardless of class, that does not
homogenize with the only working class position, their own).  So the
discussion with Steve cannot develop or evolve.  He may learn from what
people say, but he's not going to say so in front of the goyim, and he
would learn or not learn just as much from discussions of the war on
Iraq that do not revolve around the SWP's position.

And since I think Steve missed most, if not all, of the last twenty-odd
years of radical degeneration of the party, he has a lot less
provocation to break out of this pattern than I did.

We are discussing basically the same things regardless, but more
concretely when we discuss events than when we discuss the positions of
this current.  Also we avoid the sectarian temptation to put a minus
everywhere and anywhere the sectarian puts a plus, and vice versa, which
arises naturally out of repeatedly centering debate on the positions of
this sect.

Of course, this might reduce Steve to the position of a lurker, since he
participates in discussion pretty much only  when they revolve around
the position of the SWP, at which points he mounts his steed and lowers
his lance in defense AGAINST attack on the party.  Or it might lead him
to submit his own opinions on things, rather than his ideas on how to
defend the SWP position.  In any case, no loss to anyone involved.

My own guess is that there may be one last shot for some of the members
of  this declining, aging, disappointed, depressed, and defeated-feeling
sect to make a break for it. (I don't know whether the SWP is
technically a cult but it is DEFINITELY NOT a happiness cult -- just the
opposite.) This will come when there is real motion in the industrial
working class,  if (as I tend to expect) that comes before the current
bunch die off..  Since we can be sure that working-class motion will
differ as much from SWP "norms" and "line of march" as everything else
in the class struggle has done, and since it will be hard to hide from
the industrial workers in the factories, this may shake things up -- or
not. Cross that bridge when we come to it.

Until then, I think it is best to focus are attention on real political
life.
Fred Feldman
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism