Re: [Marxism] Robert Des Verney and Peter Camejo (ungarbled-skipprevious)

[David Walters <davidw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Joaquin on his view of the SWP history of this. Cannon's 
point about the CP is VERY well taken.

We've discussed this here, before, and a lot more over on the Leon 
Trotsky Legacy Conference Yahoo group list.

Not even the modern SWP believed that the positions taken in the 1960s 
onward were the "same" as the ones *discussed* with Trotsky, et al, in 
the late 1930s. The positions expressed, in ONE conversation with 
Trotsky and Cannon, CLR James, etc, did not come up with a new paradigm, 
a new way of thinking. In fact, they came back to New York and the SWP 
leaders immediately...ignored the advice given by Trotsky on the whole 
question. Indeed, the CP had a very advanced position, not on 
self-determination, which simply was not poised then, but on the fight 
against racism and how *Blacks* understood it.

The discussion in Mexico City could of been a complimentary additional 
aspect of this struggle had the SWP at least went beyond their general 
anti-racist positions and actually approached the question the way the 
CP did. But they didn't.

This complimentary aspect was something that was in "advance" to what 
the CP did, when the CP abandoned, in effect, it's Comintern-imposed 
self-determination policy and that was the self-organization of 
oppressed blacks. Part of this abandonment of the previous position is 
not really mentioned...by anyone, Cannon included. The CP, while in 
effect becoming an advanced fighting group of anti-racists, taking their 
struggle for equality into the deep south of the US, *opposed* generally 
the self-organization of Blacks in their own defense when multi-racial 
organizations for racial equality could be built. This was Trotsky's 
contribution that later, much later, helped the SWP of the 1960s develop 
it's position on self-determination and it's understanding that Blacks 
were an oppressed nationality.

But back in New York the SWP didn't "do much". Blacks joined the SWP, in 
their hundreds, because it was anti-racist organization, integrated, and 
fighting against the Stalinist and AFL/CIO imposed no-strike pledge. But 
actual anti-racist organizing is not something the SWP did. Which meant 
that the idea of a "Black Fighting Organization" as proposed by Trotsky 
had no legs, since the SWP couldn't, wouldn't and didn't, grow any.

The irony of all this is that it was exactly Richard Fraser (author of 
the much maligned "Revolutionary Integrationist" position) who realized 
that the SWP position was SO bad, so abstentionist, so do-nothing that 
he raised this in 1946 only to be slammed by the SWP leadership. He 
approached the membership wondering why it was that the CP would battle 
racism in the unions, taking on racist unions and their leadership while 
the SWP generally, didn't do this. The SWP had no generalized theory, or 
application, of anything approaching Black liberation or developing a 
working class based anti-racist organization.

However, partly as a result of his cajoling, that the 1948 convention 
*started* to deal with this. More articles on racism started to appear 
both in Fourth International and The Militant...even as the SWP lost 
it's entire black membership in the space of a few years. The SWP 
eventually developed, because of the impact of external events (civil 
rights, black nationalism, etc) a correct position AND implementation of 
an orientation toward helping the black struggle and becoming part of it.

DAvid

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu