Re: [Marxism] The fight in the SWP, conclusion (What kind of party we need)

["Mark Lause" <markalause@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm glad that Craig is learning to think about politics in terms of a
civic ecology.  It is a piece of wisdom, simple as it is, that
socialists as a group mastered less well than the Greens.  Certainly,
I couldn't agree more with what's coming from that side of his
mouth...when he uses it.

On the other hand, what comes out of the other side of his mouth are
dogmatic rants and a personal abusiveness worthy of a drunken Leninist
in waterfront anarchist dive.  I'm not sure that he's ever addressed
any position I've actually taken without misrepresenting it, whether
through intellectual carelessness or a sophomoric desire to win cheap
debater's points.

For my part, I've always taken on face value apparent belief that the
Greens represent an advance over earlier radical currents, noting that
a current is not just what it says but how and where it flows.  The
dogmatism and groupthink of the old socialist (and anarchist) groups
unsuited them for serious leadership.  They primarily addressed their
shortcomings by spewing bile at those adherents who recognized,
defined and wanted to address those shortcomings.  Put another way,
these organizations sought to avoid facing their failures to become
larger and more influential by silencing the discussion of those
problems and ascribing any desire to have such a discussion to alien
class influences, personality flaws, etc.  The approach simply pumped
more poisons into the internal life of the group, hastening its spiral
into irrelevance.

Most of what Craig has written in response to me on the electoral
question amply demonstrates that, however superior the intellectual
insights the Green movement offered, it is fully capable of inspiring
the same responses.  The fact is that I retain my membership in the
GPUS and regard most of the active members in Ohio as decent folks
with decent goals, as I did and do most socialists, anarchists, etc.
I pointed out that the Green leaders in my state define themselves as
ideologically opposed to socialism and informally act to exclude
socialists, while simultaneously putting open Democrats in positions
of leadership and influence; Craig counters by trying to prove the
worthiness of the GP by saying that I just don't like my fellow Greens
and have concerns with nefarious, hidden motives.  It doesn't address
the issue on any level and simply oozes his contempt for anyone who
sees the problem.

As I have frequently said, most of the people are generally in
agreement with us on most of the really big questions, but we need to
figure out how to encourage action that corresponds to these ideas.
That means a frank and honest discussion of each others' opinions.

On the other hand, winning an argument against a misrepresented
positions actually wins nothing.  I'm ready to discuss with Craig or
anyone, but not willing to waste my time....

ML

________________________________________________
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