Selected
Political
Essays, Classes, Talks, Letters, Etc.
(under construction)
_____________________________________________________________
Sound the Alarm
Appeal to sections and members of the Fourth International by four
"suspended" members of the Socialist Workers Party National Committee
Bulletin In Defense of
Marxism, issue No. 1, December 1983 |
Since the
August 1981convention of the U.S. Socialsit Workers Party, the current
party leadership has been carrying out a revisionist course which
threatens to destroy that organization as a revolutionary party. The
open repudiation of the historic program of Trotskyism, in particular
the attack on the theory of permanent revolution, has been imposed on
the membership in a step-by-step process—through
the pages of the party's press and other public activities, as well as
through an internal "educational" campaign of anti-Trotskyist classes,
educational conferences, and speeches.
READ MORE |
|
|
Why Steve Clark Can't Really Explain what Happened in Grenada
Bulletin In Defense of
Marxism, issue No. 3, February 1984 |
Since the coup in Grenada and the U.S. invasion, quite a few pages in the Militant and Intercontinental Press have
been devoted to explaining these events, presenting the views of the
present leadership of the Socialist Workers Party or of others whose
perspective they share. Articles on the subject include an initial
assessment by Steve Clark in the November 7 IP, a report from the NJovember SWP National Committee plenum in the December 9 Militant, a speech by Castro printed in the December 12 IP, and an interview with New Jewel Movement leader Don Rojas in the December 12 IP. The most recent effort appears in the December 1983 International Socialist Review,
also by Steve Clark, entitled, "Grenada's Workers and Farmers
Government, its achievements and its overthrow." This article continues
the general approach of those that preceded it. Clark quotes exensively
from both Castro and Rojas go back up his points.
READ MORE |
|
|
Who is Responsible for the Split in the Party
In reply to the SWP Political Bureau
Bulletin In Defense of
Marxism, issue No. 4, March 1984 |
The Political Bureau of the SWP in its statement
printed above, claims that it has expelled a disloyal secret faction,
which engaged in flagrant acts of indiscipline in violation of the
party's organizational principals, and was determined to split from the
party. This is completely false. Those labelled "splitters" are not the
initiators of a split, but its victims. It is the Barnes leadership of
the party which is solely responsible for what has occurred.
READ MORE |
|
|
On the Workers' and Farmers' Government
Introduction, theses, article.
Bulletin In Defense of
Marxism, issue No. 6, April 1984 |
One feature of the Bulletin In Defense of Marxism
has been the printing of doucments, suppressed by the SWP leadership,
which were written and submitted by minority members of the
National Committee before their expulsion. Those suppressed document
which we have published up to now were all distributed to NC members,
but not to the party rank and file. The members were denied any
first-hand account of the opposition's real views, while a caricature
of those views was presente by the leadership in the name of
"information."
The Theses on the Workers' and Farmers' Government
and the accompanying article by Steve Bloom, "The Workers' and Farmers'
Government and the Socialist Revolution," printed below have received
an even narrower distribution than other suppressed documents.
READ MORE |
|
|
Tribute to George Breitman
Talk given at a memorial meeting, June 7, 1986, published in the book Tribute to George Breitman (1987, Fourth
Internationalist Tendency) |
Last February we held
the third national conference of the Fourth Internationalist Tendnecy
in Celeveland, Ohio. George was too ill to make the trip, and when we
realized that it was just short of his seventieth birthday, we voted
tosend him a message, a birthday greeting, which said a few nice things
about his lifetime of dedication to the movement, and his courage in
the face of physical ailments which would have caused many a less
dedicated comrade to decide it was time to retire.
George complained in a letter which Paul Le Blanc showed me that the
greetings were "overly laudatory," and expressed the same thought to me
verbally. I don't think most of the delegates who voted to send the
greetings would have agreed. But there was nothing phoney or put-on
about George's reaction.
READ MORE |
|
|
Four Conceptions of the Workers' and
Farmers' Government
Article published in the International
Marxist Review, Vol. 2 No 2., Spring 1987 |
Since the revolutions
in Nicaragua and Grenada in 1979 a discussion has been taking place
within the Fourth International, and amongst its supporters around the
world, concerning the theoretical implications and general
applicability of the term "workers' and farmers' government." This
discussion no doubt seems somewhat arcane and esoteric to the casual
observer—of
little practical consequence or importance. But such a superficial
assessment could not be further from the truth. In fact, the
differences within our movement over this concept touch on some of the
most fundamental problems of revolutionary Marxist theory and
strategy, as I will try to demonstrate.
READ MORE |
|
|
|
Marxism and Scientific Method
with Abe Bloom
Unpublished essay, originally written in the late 1990s
|
"Life is short, the art [of healing] long, opportunity fleeting,
experience treacherous, judgment difficult"—Hippocrates
"Truth emerges more readily from error than from
confusion"—Francis Bacon
"Doubt everything"—Karl Marx
Preface:
Why the present text and authors?
Let us begin dialectically, with an apology that is not really an
apology. The two authors of this paper (father and son) are, in some
ways, not the ideal people to be writing on the subject of Marxism and
scientific method. We are not scientists, nor have we been able to take
the time to bring ourselves up to date on the latest thinking about the
history and philosophy of science—an area where much research and
discussion has taken place in recent decades. We recognize full well
that our present effort will probably be deficient on that account, at
least in some respects.
On the other hand (and this is why we do not really apologize) we
believe that we bring something to this presentation which most
academics who have had the time to study the history and philosophy of
science cannot—a collective 11 decades (more or less) of activist
experience in the struggle for social change in the United States,
combined with a serious, if amateur, interest in problems of science
and scientific method. (Abe enjoys a formal training in mathematics and
engineering as well).
READ MORE
|
|
|
|
Karl
Marx
Presentation
for
Solidarity Summer School—June 2001
|
I.
There
are different ways
that people study historical figures. Most often we get biographical
studies (that is, a discussion of who they were) or ideological
studies (what they thought). Both of these are perfectly valid. But I
want to approach Marx a bit differently today. You already have a
short biography. And I will talk about essential ideological
contributions. But mostly I want to focus on Marx in still a third
kind of way: philosophically or methodologically.
Good, nobody got up and
walked out of the room. You don’t need to get nervous. I
won’t
use words that nobody (including me) can understand. All I mean by
this is that we are going to talk about how Marx thought,
rather
than simply what he thought or who
he was.
READ MORE
|
|
|
Marxism, Scientific Method,
and Cuba—
Pursuing an
Essential Discussion
Solidarity Discussion Bulletin,
September 2003
|
I agree with Joel F.
(DATE DB) when he tells us that this discussion is important for
younger comrades. I would add that it is also essential for the more
experienced generation in Solidarity, because it will help us to avoid
misunderstandings and grapple with real
disagreements—disagreements that have consequences in terms of
political analysis and proposals for action.
A misunderstanding, and a
note about our approach
One misunderstanding runs throughout Joel’s article and we should
get it out of the way before we take on the heart of our real
disagreement. I take full responsibility for this since I assumed
something to be a common frame of reference that, apparently, Joel did
not. He writes: “Steve attempts to convince us that Cuba must be
either socialist or on the road to socialism or was born in a socialist
revolution, or something along these lines.” He then proceeds, in
the rest of his article, to explain how bad it would be to call Cuba
“socialist,” as if this is what I were proposing, and it is
of no consequence whether I am asserting that Cuba is
“socialist,” or “on the road to socialism,” or
“was born in a socialist revolution.” But these three
statements are not equivalent.
READ MORE |
|
|
|
Report
on February 2004 meeting of the International Committee of the
Fourth International
|
I am sending this
report out by blind
copying everyone. I am using overlapping lists of interested people
(all members of the FI so far as I am aware). We do not yet have a
formal basis for a collective discussion among all concerned comrades
internationally. If anyone sends a comment, clarification, question,
or alternative/supplementary report and asks me to circulate it to
everyone who received this, I will do so.
The one agenda item I will report on
dealt with Brazil.
READ MORE
|
|
|
|
Leninist Organization and Left
Refoundation from Below
May 15, 2004
For Solidarity Internal Bulletin
|
I write this in the
context of the article "Left Refoundation from
Below," by Jose Perez, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
At
the Solidarity summer school last year Mike Parker gave a
presentation as part of a panel on "The Solidarity Experience"
in which he suggested that our goal should be to become a more
disciplined group. When asked directly whether this was a call for
"democratic centralism" he replied in the affirmative.
That
sparked a spirited discussion at the summer school which continued
afterwards. Reactions have ranged from comrades who applaud Mike to
those who say absolutely not, or (if they speak based on some
experience) "Never Again!"—with many others somewhere in
between.
READ MORE
|
|
|
|
Yes, Charlie, There Is a Labor
Aristocracy
Though
We Might Decide to Call it
Something Else
January 23, 2005
For Solidarity Internal Bulletin
|
In his article
“The Myth of the Labor Aristocracy” in the January 2005
issue of the Solidarity Discussion Bulletin Charlie P. states:
“The theory of the labor aristocracy . . . has and continues to
inform the politics of many currents on the US and international left.
It even has adherents in Solidarity.”
Imagine that! Even
in Solidarity? Yes, and I can testify that I am one of these remarkable
individuals. True, were it up to me I would not have chosen the term
“labor aristocracy” because I don’t really think it
characterizes the phenomenon very well. I actually like the concept of
“white privilege” better. It is more descriptive of
something that exists not as an absolute difference (between the
aristocrats and all others) but as a relationship that is flexible,
relative, representing a continuum of possibilities.
READ MORE
|
|
|
| Comment on
Venezuela and Bolivia
Presented to the International
Committee of the Fourth International in February 2006
|
First I need another
disclaimer. These
remarks definitively do not reflect the collective views of comrades
I have been collaborating with around Brazil. Judging from informal
conversations, most of them would have a decidedly different
viewpoint.
I want to make a few remarks about our
overall framework for understanding events in Venezuela, which I
think are equally applicable to Bolivia. I agree with D. when he says
that there is a dynamic of permanent revolution unfolding in
Venezuela. But I will approach the question from a different angle.
In our earlier discussion on the world
situation one comrade expressed the thought that a process of
socialist revolution was taking place in Venezuela, but Chavez does
not know how to bring it to a successful consummation, or words to
that effect. The implication seemed to be that we would know how if
we were in power in Venezuela. I want to raise a serious question
concerning that assumption. If members of the Fourth International
were in power today in Venezuela we would have to discover how to
move forward, in collaboration with the mass movement. Chavez is in a
similar position.
READ MORE
|
|
|
Labor Aristocracy:
Myth—or Reality
(A
Reply to Charlie Post)
Published in Against
the Current, No. 126, January/February 2007. Also available on-line
at https://solidarity-us.org/site/node/348
|
In ATC #s 123 and
124 a two-part article by Charlie Post declares “The Myth of the
Labor
Aristocracy.” As the author notes, this idea was originated by
Frederick Engels, one of the founders of Marxism. It was subsequently
developed by Lenin as an explanation for the social chauvinist
capitulation of the Second International at the beginning of World War
I.
Lenin's approach to this question has been pretty much accepted by most
Marxists up to the present day.
Post’s effort
to correct Lenin’s thinking rests on two fundamental lines of
argument:
1) The labor
aristocracy concept attributes higher wages and other privileges
enjoyed by workers in the imperialist centers to the superprofits of
monopoly capital in the colonial world (“third world” or
“global south”). This idea, we are told, is mistaken.
Higher wages are the direct result of higher labor productivity in the
imperialist centers (global north), not the super-exploitation of the
global south.
2) The assertion
that more privileged strata of workers become passive supporters of
capitalism, incapable of struggling against it because they are
“bourgeoisified,” is empirically false. A survey
of struggles in the 20th century shows that such workers have
repeatedly engaged in actions that challenge the capitalist system.
Below we will
examine these two lines of reasoning, then look critically at
Post’s alternative explanation for the working-class conservatism
that does exist today.
READ MORE
|
|
|
|
On the SWP and the culture of white male
domination on the left
October 16, 2007 email
message
|
I think we are getting confused by apples and
oranges. I didn't,
actually, make any assessment of the SWP's attitude toward racism or
women's oppression. The party's credentials on these questions, as
specific social issues in and of themselves, can hardly be disputed.
But you can be very good on questions of racism and women's
oppression, as specific social issues in and of themselves, and still
live in a white-male centric universe which clouds your judgment and
affects your behavior. My mom was the first one who raised my
consciousness on this when she described my father as the kind of
communist who would sit on a stool in the kitchen reading "Lenin
on the Woman Question" to his wife while she was down on her
hands and knees scrubbing the kitchen floor.
READ MORE
|
|
|
From:
The Conference on The Legacy of Leon Trotsky and U.S. Trotskyism—
Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
July 2008
|
1) The Legacy
of Trotskyism
(Written contribution to the preconference
discussion)
The purpose of this
contribution is to
briefly explore the legacy of Trotskyism on two levels—political
and organizational. The conclusion I draw, which seems obvious to me,
is that the political legacy of Trotskyism continues to summarize
essential historical lessons which can be of inestimable value for
the next generation of revolutionary struggles. At the same time, the
organizational legacy of Trotskyism can only be described as
dismal—a
maze of incompatible sects incapable of agreeing on what their
political legacy actually means. This disconnect needs to be
explained, in particular by those of us who continue to identify with
the theoretical tradition of Trotskyism as an international current.
READ MORE
2) Reconsidering Party-Building Paradigms
(Written contribution to the preconference
discussion)
One of the key questions we need to
discuss in the lead up to our conference next summer, and at the
conference itself, is: How do we assess the SWP’s party-building
paradigm in light of its degeneration and our subsequent experience?
Was there anything in the basic self-conception that contributed
significantly to the demise of the party? Also: have there been any
changes in the world in the last 2-3 decades that might make us
reconsider what we did back then as a model for building a Leninist
organization today? (Do we want to still build a Leninist
organization today?)
This contribution will not try to
provide a comprehensive answer to these questions. I will, however,
suggest two key problems, and one conclusion:
READ MORE
3) Supplemental Comments to "Reconsidering
Party-Building Paradigms"
(Circulated among the conference planning committee)
I circulate this merely to the planning
committee for now. With a little encouragement I will also submit it
to the listserve.
At our meeting on Tuesday evening we
got into a discussion about the party-building panel and its
composition. I pledged to submit an outline of the perspective I plan
to present, as a way of alleviating fears expressed that the session
could become dominated by efforts to dump on those who are presently
engaged in organization-building projects. When I sat down to write
that outline, I discovered an article already written some months
ago, and submitted to the conference listserve, that addresses the
most relevant points. That article is attached FYI. I’m not upset
with comrades for forgetting about this contribution. I had forgotten
about it too. I resubmit it now, with the following notes:
READ MORE
4)
Comments on "Building the Revolutionary Party"
(Presentation made to the conference)
I would like to
start by emphasizing a point made by the chair in introducing this
panel. I am a member of Solidarity, but I do not speak here for that
organization. I take full personal responsibility for the ideas I am
about to present to you. (And I may have to.)
Yesterday the
question was posed—by a conference participant who comes from a
different tradition, does not share most of our history: “Why are
there so many Trotskyist groups when there seems to be so much
agreement on fundamental political matters?”
I believe that this
is a central question for our historical current, especially when we
are talking about “party building.” It’s one we not
only need to answer; it’s one we need to do something about.
READ MORE |
|
|
Letter to the International Committee of
the Fourth International
February 2009
|
For the fist time
since I have functioned as a member of the international leadership I
am unable to make the IC meeting this year. My apologies. I would like
to comment on the document which is being circulated—in
particular points 4, 5, and 6.
READ MORE
|
| |
|
Comment on "Italy, A Failed Refoundation" by Salvatore Cannavo
Posted to the FI Forum of Solidarity on February 5, 2012
|
I am struck,
on reading this document, by several thoughts I would like to share:
1)
We are offered an assessment of the PRC experience, what went wrong.
The comments seems quite reasonable on the whole. But does this
document prepare the conversation we need to have in the Fourth
International? Shouldn't that discussion be primarily about the role
of our own cadre as part of this process? What was our assessment and
what were our actions while
all of this was going on?
When did we come to these conclusions? When should we have? What did
we do in response and when did we do it? What might we have done?
Could we have been more conscious and acted in a more timely fashion?
READ MORE |
| |
|
|
Revolutionary History
and its Relevance for Today:
The Legacy of Trotskyism in
the US
Edited text of a talk given in Columbus,
Ohio, May 12, 2012
|
Let me start with a disclaimer. I am a member of
Solidarity and the Columbus branch of Solidarity is sponsoring this
conversation. But these remarks do not speak for Solidarity. I speak
only for myself. We have many viewpoints in Solidarity on this topic
and mine is only one of them.
This is part of a new approach to revolutionary
organization-building, an approach which is critical, in a way, of the
Trotskyist legacy in the USA. This is something I will come back to it
at the end of my remarks.
Also, allow me to preface my main comments by
noting that times are changing. We all feel the change and have talked
about it a lot since the development of Occupy Wall Street last Fall. I
have heard many musings about the question: Will OWS come back again
now that the Spring has arrived? But I would like to suggest that the
question should be broader than just whether OWS will come back. We
need to consider not only that, but also whether the spirit of
resistance and protest that OWS began to manifest will bubble up in
other places too.
READ MORE
|
|
|
|
Human Economy and Class Society
(a new introduction)
Originally written
April, 2012, for Scientific Soul Sessions and posted on the SSS
website, revised July 2014
|
This is an attempt
to write another brief introduction to a subject that has been
introduced many times by many people, traditionally called "political
economy" (recognizing the link between the economic and the political,
as opposed to a more academic approach which presents
“economics” as something completely independent.) And
because the political economy I propose to elaborate is based on a
certain understanding of human history that goes by the name
"historical materialism" we will deal here with some of the
fundamentals of this concept as well.
Why a new effort?
Because none of those developed previously that I am aware of seems
adequate if our goal is to envision a 21st century ecosocialism.
READ MORE
|
|
|
The Dialectical Method—an Introduction
Written for Scientific Soul Sessions,
May 2012 |
This is an introduction to dialectical materialism—the philosophy of Karl Marx
and, at least formally, of the Marxist movement. (I say
“formally” because I often find that those who call
themselves “Marxists” fail quite badly when it comes to
properly grasping and applying dialectics, engaging far too often in
purely formal-logical modes of thought.) As with the companion essay
that I have developed for Scientific Soul Sessions (“Human Economy and Class Society”)
I am attempting to cover something that many others have written
introductions to before. Here, in my view, the need for a new one is
equally acute, though for different reasons. Basically, the problem is
that none of the other introductions to dialectics that I have
encountered follows a dialectical method in its own exposition. They
fail to properly explain what dialectical logic is or to demonstrate
its utility. Too often they are satisfied with simply contrasting
dialectics to formal logic.
I will try to do better.
READ
MORE |
|
|
|
The "Struggle for Organizational Hegemony"
on the Left—
A Formula for Failure
Published by Old and New,
September 2014
|
It
is hard for anyone to avoid noting the fragmented condition of the
revolutionary left: multiple small groups each competing with all
others for influence and recruits. There are many and complex reasons
for this state of affairs. To some extent it does represent genuine
and important political disagreements on questions such as how to
orient toward contemporary struggles, what strategic path to follow
to promote revolution, what forces constitute the revolutionary
subject in contemporary society, who are the primary allies, what
ideologies should be promoted and which ones combated, plus many
similar issues.
But
there is one factor which has generated considerable fragmentation
and which, in my view, ought to be theoretically discarded: The idea
that there can be one, and only one, organization that has a truly
revolutionary outlook, that this organization with the correct
revolutionary outlook is the one I belong to, and that the most
essential goal, therefore, is to battle for the organizational
hegemony of my group. All other organizations on the left represent
the enemy, either actively or by default.
READ
MORE |
|
|
Ecosocialism:
The Road Ahead, the Struggle
at Hand
Reply to six questions
posed by Solidarity's Ecosocialist Working Group in 2014
Published in Solidarity's webzine, 2015 |
I would
like to suggest that one way to
think about the answers to these questions might be as stones in an
archway. One base of that arch rests in the capitalist present, the
other in our ecosocialist future. And if we approach things in this
way then perhaps our answer to question number 4 represents the
keystone to that arch, the answer that supports the entire structure:
“How, if scaling back production is necessary, will ecosocialist
strategy remain committed to meeting human needs? Or can we envision
continued expansion and economic growth under ecosocialism, as the
working classes and others in the industrialized nations have come to
expect?”
READ MORE
|
|