On Jul 16, 3:50 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:09 pm, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> interkom.de> wrote:
> > Vngelis wrote:
> > > On Jul 15, 3:45 am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 14, 11:39 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 13, 8:40 pm, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>> What relation****p did Cliff have with the Schacmanites?
> > >> He issued a strong, orthodox, polemic against them.
>
> > >> srd
>
> > > Nevertheless, in the 1950s his group distributed literature
published
> > > by Schachtman's group and the theory of the permanent arms economy
> > > which was considered one of the pillars of what became the
> > > International Socialist Tendency originated with Schachtman's group
> > > though it is sometimes alleged that Cliff refused to acknowledge
this
> > > publicly.[1]
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Cliff
>
> > > Is this what you mean from the above...
> > > Whilst I dont trust Wikipedia as far as I can throw it surely the
> > > state-caps would have bombarded it if the above was a flagrant lie?
>
> > Actually I've protested about this and provided refuting evidence, but
I
> > haven't chnaged it yet. The allegation comes from Jim Higgins "More
> > Years for the Locust" - wonderful polemic and some amusing stories,
but
> > not always reliable.
>
> > There was no formal organisational relation****p during the 1950s and
as
> > Diamond has pointed out Cliff wrote a major critique of bureaucratic
> > collectivism. However Cliff maintained contact with a wide variety of
> > groupings that had their roots in teh Trotskyist movement, including
> > Castoriadis/Cardan's Socialisme ou Barbarie group in France, the
> > James/Dunayevskaya group in the US and the Shachtmanites. The groups
> > sold each others publications but beyond that there wasn't any great
> > cooperation.
>
> > In the late 1960s links developed between Hal Draper's Independent
> > Socialists and the British IS on the basis of certain shared
positions,
> > e.g. opposition to the Vietnam War and orientation towards the rank
and
> > file of the trade unions. Eventually Draper's group adopted the name
> > International Socialists, although Draper dropped out shortly
afterwards
> > to concentrate on his magnum opus "Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution".
>
> > The British and American IS groups split in the mid-1970s over the
> > American group's turn to industry (i.e. sending former students to
work
> > in factories). This lead to the establishment of the ISO. There were a
> > number of bureaucratic collectivists among the founders of the ISO,
> > although I don't know whether any of them who are still in the ISO
still
> > consider themselves to be bureaucratic collectivists today.
>
> > You can read a history of the development from the Workers Party
through
> > the Independent Socialist League through teh liquidation into american
> > Social Democracy, the left split that created the Independent
Socialist
> > Clubs, then the Independent Socialists to teh International Socialists
> > in "Socialism from Below in the United Sates" by Milton Fisk online at
> > <http://www.marxists.de/trotism/fisk/index.htm>.
>
> > Einde O'Callaghan
>
> From the piece you gave me and I read it states Schactman made an
> orientation to industry in the 1940's precisely what Trotsky had
> previously criticised him for?
>
> Selling each others publications of course does not entail
> organisational cooperation, but it does imply some form of solidarity
> even if on a basic level. Before Cliff wrote his theory on State
> Capitalism was he familiar with the theory of bureaucratic
> collectivism?
> vngelis
Shactman's orientation, or rather the Workers Party industry
orientation was not motivated for the same reasons the SWP did this.
For the WP it was *exclusively* toward defense industries whose
unionized members were exempt from the draft and wouldn't have to
fight. The WP orientation was motivated by it's opposition to World
War II, essentially.
At the end of the war, the WP did an *****sment and noted that while
few of their members got drafted, they recruited few workers and were
still largely confined to cities in the northeast of the US. They did
recruit one farmer in Missouri, however! Contrast this with the SWP
recruitment of *thousands* of new blue collar worker, leading sitdown
strikes against the Stalinist/FDR imposed "No Strike Pledge" the
difference becomes obvious.
David
I say "thousands" because in fact thousands did join but they only
"kept" about 1500 more than a few years.
|
