On Jul 22, 9:07=A0am, pattyjoe <pattyjoetwee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> i would love to hear more from people in response to the essay written
> by Alan Benjamin for Socialist Organizer. i have long been impressed
> with them theoretically, and wonder what critiques others might offer,
> aside from the usual, snide, substance-free denunciating.
Most of the article lays out the position of, at one time, the entire
International Committee. There is at least one interesting novelty,
the position that the SWP experienced a tem****ary partial relapse into
Trotskyism with its approach to the Vietnam War, while most in the IC
at the time considered the SWP thoroughly pacifist in approach. What
impresses the Lambertistes is the holding of democratic mass meeting
to organize demonstrations, the meetings open to all tendencies
opposed to the war. I think this position, perhaps a re*****sment,
must relate to the organizational forms the Lambertistes have taken
up, involving broad organizations open to all tendencies, directed
against expressions of "globalising imperialism."
Those of us disposed to straight-up Trotskyism don't have many
choices. The positions compatible with resisting Pabloism and the USec
reunification boil down to Healy, Lambert, Robertson. and the vngelis
position, that the Fourth International failed to survive WWII. The
main problem I have with the Lambertistes is their view of the
developments in the workers states, including and most im****tantly
their sup****t of Yeltsin and of the capitalist reunification of
Germany. But then, on these matters I haven't read their position.
srd
|
