On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, nada wrote:
> On Jul 22, 1:22 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 9:49 am, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> There was no great objection from the SWP rank and file, as it meant
few real
>>> political changes.
>>
>> Not so, as there was a hemorrhaging of member****p. The "rank and file"
>> were powerless, because the democratic rights of tendencies were
>> completely suppressed.
>>
>> srd
>
> You seem to be be very ignorant of all the things going on at the time
> of the RT faction expulsion. 1965 was the key year and tons of stuff
> was happening with more than just the RT. There actually was a lot of
> opposition to this, among other things.
This is true, early-mid '60s transformation included not just the RT
expulsion, there was Wohlforth's "reorganized* RT, the Fraser group in
Seattle, and some other grouplets being kicked out as well I think.
There was a general cleanout of anybody who didn't sup****t the
Dobbs-Hansen leader****p, which Cannon himself was not thrilled about,
that's why he wrote "Don't Strangle the Party" in 1966.
I think the SL's opinion was that the SWP had become centrist with the
adoption of the line on Cuba, and became essentially left-reformist by
1965 or 1966, in terms of its line in the anti-war movement. So even
in their opinion, 1965 not 1963 should be labelled as the critical
year.
>
> The RT leaving is hardly a red-letter day for the SWP. It had little
> or no effect on the SWP. The OCI had zero sup****ters or influence
> around the SWP, leaving it up to the SLL (a huge mistake, clearly) to
> handle the English speaking world. Why would the Lambs have anything
> to say except their already known opposition to the reunification?
>
> David
>
Which they downpedal in that do***ent of course. Leaving them with
even less to say.
-jh-
|
