Re: [Marxism] The ISO in Zimbabwe

[glparramatta <glparramatta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps Louis could, as he so often demands of others, go beyond making 
sweeping, abstract, prejudiced assertions, and point out exactly in the 
Zim comrades in their blog (http://isozim.blogspot.com/), in the GLW 
articles I pointed to earlier 
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=uds&q=Zimbabwe%20ISO%20site%3Agreenleft.org.au 
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=uds&q=Zimbabwe%20ISO%20site%3Agreenleft.org.au>) 
or anywhere else, where they ``impose a litmus test'' on others the 
acceptance of  ``state capitalism'' before working with them. I'm sure 
he would not claim such things if he had not put the time to read and 
study the Zim comrades' activity.

Please provide the examples of their failure or refusal to work with 
others in an attempt to form a broad left movement to bring down Mugabe. 
Does this include their leadership roles in the Zimbabwe Social Forum? 
In the student movement and within significant trade unions? The 
collaboration with the National Constitional Forum? Their important role 
in the initial push to create the MDC from the beginning as a 
braod-based militant workers' party, and later (eventually unsuccessful) 
their battles against the rightwing MDC leadership to unseat Munyaradzi 
Gwisai from his seat in parliament representing the Harare township of 
Highfields?

In recent years, the DSP (I might ask Louis to provide actual examples 
of the equivalent  ``Leninist'' crimes committed by the DSP, but that 
would sidetrack this discussion) has been in close contact with the Zim 
comrades. They have revealed themselves to be open and flexible in their 
tactics and views and make their own decisions without direction from 
London, unlike most sections of the IST (which has created some tensions 
with the ``centre''). Munya Gwisai is an admirer of Cuba and all are 
attempting to learn from Venezuela. They hardly raise ``state 
capitalism'' as the shibboleth Louis claims (based on what information?).

It seems Louis' own sectarian abstract shibboleth of 
anti-``Zinovievism'' is the ``litmus test'' he seeks to impose on all 
attempts by other socialists to organise, rather than study their actual 
practice and politics. Increasingly, this becomes opposition to, or at 
least ultra-criticism of, all attempts at effective organisation by 
socialists and Marxists. Of course, we always need to assess and study 
how Marxists organise in order to learn what can be the most effective 
in many different conditions, but surely -- as Louis seems to be 
preaching these days -- we don't throw the baby (the basis need of 
socialists to democratically organise together to achieve goals) out 
with the dirty bathwater or past negative practices.

Norm.



Louis Proyect wrote:

> > Lou,
> >
> > And on what do you base your claims that the ISO-Z has a "small 
> > proprietorship mentality"? (Have you met them and talked with them? 
> > Have you read their literature? Have you discussed strategies and 
> > tactics with them?)
>
>
> In order to defeat Mugabe, it will be necessary to form a broad 
> socialist movement that doesn't impose a litmus test on "state 
> capitalism". It is okay to insist on brand loyalty in a place like 
> Great Britain, where sectarianism is part of the insular soul of the 
> nation, but utterly foolish in a place like Zimbabwe where there is a 
> mass, militant working class movement desperate to transcend an 
> opportunist MDC and a thuggish "leftist" government.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism