12 responses to “Three additions, Proposals for the Party (6th Ed.)”

1. 

   SEP France – Random Poster

   October 28, 2018 at 8:09 pm

   […] In order to prevent a situation similar to the split with the OCI- based on the cutting off of discussion on the part of the SLL or SEP amid accusations of anarchism, syndicalist, radicalism, and opposition to discipline- there should be an open discussion on said constitution, as well as financial professionalism, and educational professionalism. See these three proposals for a party congress: https://randomposter33.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/three-additions/%5D […]

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   CMSchaefer

   January 1, 2019 at 1:10 am

   I think the financial aspect is a crucial element to this. The sale of the press (which, I am not clear whether this was party-owned or privately held, but which I do know employed a number of party members) took place in a way which destabilized certain members, and also seemed to co-incide with a secretiveness in finances in general. I say this as a former elected financial officer from one of the branches. We stopped getting word on what our quotas were, as well as who had contributed from the area. We were exhorted to generate funds – but with no goals in mind, and with no concerted effort coordinated from the Center.

   Transparency is something which is in short supply generally, but I think with finances in particular things are particularly opaque.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      randomposter33

      February 1, 2019 at 8:26 am

      Thank you for writing. Did you arrive at this site through disqus.com? Or was this post passed around by people?

      The right course of action is to attempt to pass these resolutions at a national party conference or congress. I have just seen that you no longer participate in such events. Maybe a contact of yours would pass along the proposal to have it considered.

      As a seperate matter, or as a corrollary to the Financial Report, a commission should be formed to oversee an investigation and a report to the membership on the incident you mention.

      LikeLike

      Reply
3. 

   CMSchaefer

   February 5, 2019 at 3:16 am

   I followed you here via Disqus, as I appreciate your input at the site, which I look in on from time to time.

   No, I quit the party for a variety of reasons, as you might have read, though I was tempted to stay longer to see just where things were going to end up. It looks to be degenerating, going by the articles I read.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      randomposter33

      February 5, 2019 at 5:23 pm

      I have read your account, and I found it horrifying. You should not have to return until you receive an apology or justice in some form against the NC member. I am upset to hear that Fred Mazelis retired, as I worked closely with him. As for the degeneration, I feel that preventative measures can only go so far, and then curative ones must be considered. In the party’s history, there was a time when factions could produce and distribute literature, organize openly, and bring resolutions to a vote among the general membership. This may not be enough, as sexual harrassment is not procedural but bureaucratic, requiring punishment, legal code, etc.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. 

         CMSchaefer

         February 7, 2019 at 2:30 am

         Factions do not form – any dissent (a down vote on a slate of candidate, or a measure) is quickly suppressed. As well, any deviation from the party line is very quickly labeled (reformist/opportunist/revisionist/etc), with no chance of debate. There is poor communication between branches as well, so any chance of developing any kind of faction is forestalled. I myself was shouted at for talking to people outside my branch about the poor communication. “It should be kept in branch!” – from which branch I got…. Poor communication. In addition, we have been directly told that any disagreement we have has to be kept quiet for the sake of presenting a united front publicly. Lockstep is the only way forward, apparently.

         The issue of sexual harassment is a serious one, despite the SEP’s protests to the contrary in re Healy and #metoo – it is indicative of their outlook on 1)women, and 2)the working class.

         LikeLike

         Reply
         1. 

            randomposter33

            February 7, 2019 at 3:00 am

            It’s important to look at the SEP both historically and to see the party as rightfully democratic centralist. The SEP represents the organizational continuity of the Trotskyist movement back to Trotsky’s final years during the outbreak of WWII and further back to the founding of the Left Opposition, the Red Army, and the Soviet Union. The SEP also, in order to stand on this tradition, must base itself on democratic centralism. That means the public agreement can only be upheld as a result of thorough internal discussion.

            Theoretically, opposition to factionalism represents opposition to Leninism and opposition to Marxism. Lenin divided the Second International against the reformist leaders, leading to the formation of the Third International. Marx divided the First International against the Anarchists, leading eventually to the formation of the Second International. Trotsky’s Left Opposition opposed Stalinism, leading to the formation of the Fourth International. To oppose or see only futility in the continuation of factionalism, or genuine Marxism, would be to oppose the very foundation of the SEP. Such a position, no supporter of the SEP, past or present, could uphold in serious argument.

            The working class cannot hope to make progress on its issues if they abandon the task of creating a strong leadership as soon as one or another leader falters. That eventuality, due to internal imperfections or outside pressure, has to manifest itself in the frustration of the workers movement by its own leaders. Workers must respond by returning in sufficiently large numbers to confront the weaknesses exposed during struggle and shore them up with sufficient strength.

            I recommend Zinoviev’s history of the Bolshevik Party. It shows all the trends that the Bolsheviks passed through from their foundation up until the October Revolution. Revisions of the theoritical foundations of Marxism arose again and again in various forms, due to the influence of the middle-class intellectuals on the work of the party. Only a long struggle over the course of 14 years finally overcame these inconsistencies, in large part because of the pressure exerted on these intellectuals by the failure of capitalism which gave rise to WWI.

            LikeLike

            Reply
            1. 

               CMSchaefer

               February 7, 2019 at 3:27 am

               Oh, yes, I am aware – there is tremendous value to factionalism. I’ve studied the history of Marxism for quite a while (having been a party member for ten+ years) – and growth comes through examining and analyzing developments as they happen. An unhealthy tendency has developed of trying to lay the lessons of history over the occurrences of today as if the conditions were exact duplicates. A lot has happened since Lenin wrote Imperialism, for example, and that has to be taken into account when determining (pardon me) what is to be done. There are times when progress within the party seems completely arrested (and other times when it seems regressive – as with metoo and black lives matter), and this is worrisome. I have heard it said that this is a problem with orthodoxies in general that any departure from what was written in days of yore is taken to be a sort of apostacy, and I do agree in this particular case.

               I’ll re-read Zinoviev – it’s been a little while, but it was valuable as I recall, so thanks for reminding me of it.

               LikeLiked by 1 person

               Reply
               1. 

                  randomposter33

                  February 9, 2019 at 3:04 am

                  Just so you know, your situation is very common in bourgeois politics, and you don’t have to give up that easily. It’s important to try to trap them with witnesses. This is easier for someone with more resources, but it is an important step to take to rid the party/revolutionary movement of such a destabilizing force. This can be seen in recent cases of the Florida city comissioner (who forced the city manager to resign for resisting her advances), as well as the former president of Costa Rica (accused by multiple victims of sexual misconduct). He also was a Nobel Laureate, but his victims found the strength to confront and accuse him publicly. Now he faces criminal charges and has resigned from the party.

                  LikeLike

                  Reply
      2. 

         CMSchaefer

         February 7, 2019 at 2:32 am

         (Also – I have zero intention of returning. From what I read when I pop in from time to time, the conditions have only worsened. I’ve also heard from cdes that any talk of moving – no matter how necessary – is viewed as being “in political retreat”. Never mind if they’re at risk of actual homelessness if they stay put. I’ve heard this from cdes on two continents so far.)

         LikeLike

         Reply
         1. 

            randomposter33

            February 7, 2019 at 3:19 am

            This is a personal decision. Remember, however, that Stalin, held a leading position within the Bolshevik Party. He was known for his gangster connection s, and he must have made life hard for Bolsheviks in Russia. Concurrently, the Tsar had his agents in the movement which sought to force the comrades of those days into terrorist acts.

            Lenin and Trotsky left Russia, as Marx and Engels left Germany. So this no moving talk, this no retreat talk, does not represent Marxism but a bureaucratic mindset, a return to Stalinist management tactics, and a retreat on their part to Pabloism, a tacit agreement with Stalinism. Stalin remained in Russia.

            LikeLike

            Reply
4. 

   CMSchaefer

   February 7, 2019 at 3:29 am

   Oh, my – very good point regarding Stalin and moving. I had not thought of it in those terms.

   LikeLike

   Reply