tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post7809812684773699271..comments2023-10-21T13:04:34.038-07:00Comments on Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism: 882. Book Review: The Party: The Socialist Workers Party: 1960-1988Kamran Nayerihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-79366370636925462782012-09-06T14:13:58.281-07:002012-09-06T14:13:58.281-07:00The reader might not know who David Fender is. The...The reader might not know who David Fender is. The following is taken from the Tamiment Library and Rober F. Wagner Labor Archives of New York University (http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/tamwag/tam_104/bioghist.html):<br /><br />"U.S. Trotskyist David Fender was active in the Socialist Workers Party and a number of its political factions and offshoots; mainly the Communist Tendency, the Leninist Faction (later known as the Class Struggle League), the Vanguard Newsletter and the Spartacist League. Fender was also secretary to Peng Shu-tse and Chen Pi-len in Paris in the 1960s. Peng was one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party and the leader of the Trotskyist movement in China from the 1920s until the early 1950s when he and his wife, Chen Pi-len, also an active Trotskyist, were forced to flee the country with many of their followers after Mao Zedong's attack on the Chinese Trotskyists."Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-22728213081745712012-09-05T21:36:00.359-07:002012-09-05T21:36:00.359-07:00The one thing that we can learn from such unprinci...The one thing that we can learn from such unprincipled elements as Sheppard and the many like him in capitalist society is that we must uncompromisingly guard our commitment to sincerity, openness, and the will to stand up and struggle, for without these one will crossover the threshold to whoredom. In the revolutionary movement, these qualities are obviously useless unless combined with a dedication to the theory and politics of Marxism. I would never accuse Sheppard or Mr. locomotor ataxia, however, of being political prostitutes in the revolutionary movement, since they never have been Marxists, and they ran the SWP like an inherited petty-bourgeois business.<br /><br />david fender 8-22-12<br />dhfender@netzero.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-71987197463316359712012-09-05T21:35:33.775-07:002012-09-05T21:35:33.775-07:00The real reasons behind Sheppard’s esoteric writin...The real reasons behind Sheppard’s esoteric writings have nothing to do with the politics of advancing the proletarian revolution—he has not the first clue in this regard either organizationally or politically—but rather an attempt—feeble as it is—to assuage his ego and dress up his imagined self-important historical role for posterity in the “revolutionary” movement. He is and has always been a political sycophant along with his longtime, quid pro quo, partner-in-crime, comrade Jack Barnes, who should be better known as the locomotor ataxia of the SWP. Posterity will not give a whit about either of them. There is not a political, theoretical, or historical lesson of any kind in any of their writings. Neither earned their "authority." They assumed their positions from the anointing by others due only to their own clever maneuverings, self-promotions, or obsequious behavior and the mistaken conviction of the anointers believing they, like the kings of old, had the right to appoint their successors. Both the anointed and the anointers have completely disgraced themselves in the workers' movement. The forces of capitalism that create classes, union bureaucracies, and privilege in general are the same forces that produced the likes of Mr. locomotor ataxia and his faithful lieutenant, Sheppard.<br /><br />Of course, I am sure Sheppard would object that his work, as he has himself avowed, is a contribution to furthering the revolutionary cause by alerting, warning, putting en garde, and giving a heads-up to all future revolutionaries as to the dangers of too much authority falling into the hands of one person. Thereby, as he wishes he had done, they might nip in the bud a power-hungry egomaniac like his old comrade-in-arms Jack Barnes. We must take note, however, that the mea culpas in Sheppard’s opus are scarce as hens’ teeth for his own responsibility in his standing shoulder to shoulder with his bosom-comrade, Jack, knee deep in years of SWP organizational skullduggery, not to mention the political hocus-pocus that he and Jack passed off as a revolutionary program. Then again, Marxist politics is beyond him, and the organizational skullduggery was ALL Jack’s doing, according to Sheppard, and Sheppard’s only real failing, it seems, is not saying or doing anything—for several years—when he noticed Jack amassing all that power. He obviously did nothing out of fear of losing his prestige and privileged position in the SWP’s hierarchy—the dread of all apparatchiks. In other words, he had no backbone, and the primary ingredients of backbone are integrity, an unhesitating willingness to stand alone against the stream, and something more than a superficial understanding. Sheppard had—has—none of these, but had he called Jack to order, so we are led to believe, the SWP might still be the revolutionary Bolshevik party that he thinks it was back in 1972! Ah yes, and if Sheppard had only written these words at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, such a clarion warning might have saved us from the phenomenon of Stalinism. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Bukharin, et al. would have been forewarned! Wait a minute; did not both Lenin and Trotsky forewarn the Bolsheviks? If we believe Sheppard, we must conclude that the likes of Stalin and Barnes—and by all rights we must include Sheppard himself—are the result of personality quirk and have nothing to do with politics and the relationship of class forces. He obviously believes in the “bad ‘Hitler’ theory of history,” and thereby, he is in the idealist philosophy camp of Freud and not the dialectical materialism camp of Marx. As I said earlier, Sheppard has no understanding of Marxism.<br /><br />to be continued david fenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-91312649047153056702012-09-05T21:31:03.210-07:002012-09-05T21:31:03.210-07:00I waded through this Iranian comrade’s “Book Revie...I waded through this Iranian comrade’s “Book Review: The Party: The Socialist Workers Party: 1960-1988” to the end, unfortunately. His history was completely void of any Marxist methodology consisting of mainly "I said, he said, she said, they said, I did, he did, she did, they did," etc. You need to make a flow chart to keep track of all the players, factions, and organizations, but even that would not have made this piece any more enlightening.<br /><br />The one thing I did learn was that his political education as well as all those he mentioned came from the SWP. Every peek he gave into the political positions involved only proved how well he and the others had learned the reformist politics as well as the ruinous organizational methods of the SWP and the International. Like Barry Sheppard, whose book he was reviewing, he is superficial, mechanical, and has not the least understanding of Marxism, including the concept of the party, which, like Sheppard's concept, is a completely idealistic one. The struggle for the party is a struggle for revolutionary politics about which he and Sheppard have not the first clue. Without a revolutionary program, there is no party, regardless of size, history, etc. Capitalism is all-encompassing and corrupts everything to one degree or another, and the struggle for the party and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism is nothing more than the never-ending theoretical and political struggle against this corruption in the workers' movement.<br /><br />The SWP and the International were not "healthy" politically or theoretically in “1972” but were already on a fast road to corruption in 1942, and you only need to know a little history and have a modicum of Marxist understanding to recognize this fact. Due to the influences and extreme pressures of capitalism, even the overwhelming majority of the most dedicated of cadres can lose their way politically, and revolutionary continuity may only be transferred by a few individuals possibly outside of organizational forms. There are no absolute safeguards to protect against the degeneration of any organization, but those who perceive any political missteps have an obligation and must have the right to correct the organization’s course as soon as possible to advance the working-class movement. The cadres of any working-class party can only be expected to defend the public line of the party if the membership has at all times the right to express their ideas inside the organization in an attempt to modify the party’s line and not be limited to an episodic ritualistic exercise every few years. The circulation of internal documents should be an ongoing function of the organization determined only by the membership and the political tasks to keep the party relevant and on the cutting edge of the political events. The dissemination of internal documents and discussion inside the party is just as important as the dissemination of the organization’s press to the public. Those who succumb to the sirens of capitalism cannot tolerate such freedom and will simply justify “their” political course with mechanical and organizational means to maintain their position and power. No amount of warnings, safeguards, ombudsmen, constitutions, or watchdogs can take the place of the unceasing fight for a revolutionary program in the organizations of the working class. Behind all the arbitrary machinations of any leader or clique in the working class are the politics of alien class forces. The struggle against these alien class forces is the constant duty of every revolutionary, and it is, first and foremost, a theoretical and political struggle.<br /><br />to be continued david fenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-60039002495410232152012-08-29T18:54:08.979-07:002012-08-29T18:54:08.979-07:00In an August 22 post on his blog, Siamak Zahraie h...In an August 22 post on his blog, Siamak Zahraie has offered the following comment about this book review entitled "Trauma." (http://www.siamakz.com/2012/08/trauma.html).<br /><br />The reader of my review has noted many references to him in Part 2. I re-post Zahraie's comment here assuming he meant it to reach my readers (I do not know why he did not post it here himself) and to give the reader a sense of his current attitude to political discussion. <br /><br />****<br /><br />"I was part of the Iranian Trotskyists and read the works which are related to my past looking for some illumination. Kamran Nayeri's attempt which I referred to it at the end of my last post did not shed any light. It is wrapped inside of his criticism of Barry Sheppard's book that I have referred to in the previous post. So if you want to find it you have to dig deep down in part 2 of his article. There you will find Nayeri's version of the history of the Trotskyism in Iran.<br /><br />"Nayeri's endeavor at best seems to be mainly addressed to the good sense of those ex members of the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) who still mourn their expulsion. What one learns is that from Nayeri's point of view there were several factions among the Iranian Trotskyists. The good one he was a part of and the bad one was really a cult ruled by Babak Zahraie. The other factions were sort of tolerable. The whole diatribe seems to be about his complain that why Sheppard has praised Babak Zahraie in a sentence of his two volume work. One thing I learned which was illuminating is that expulsions in political parties can be truly traumatic and enduring on some people. I hope that Nayeri's article was at least therapeutic for him."Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-19224045941532768572012-08-20T18:58:53.334-07:002012-08-20T18:58:53.334-07:00Kamran, as one of the relatively newly radicalized...Kamran, as one of the relatively newly radicalized, I can attest to the disappointment of finding so much of the traditional left mired in personal and dogmatic disputes that impede the development of an up-to-date vision and strategy that would merit the support of the great numbers of people today who are beginning to question and oppose capitalism. Though I think there may be seeds of Leninist vanguardism in Marx, there are many other contrary seeds also present, and his own mindset was such as to readily contradict supposedly "Marxist" dogma when evidence and circumstances warranted. Somehow, if we are to remain relevant and effective, we must build a movement whose defining commitment is a greater loyalty to the process of rational and open inquiry itself than to the results of any particular iteration of it, even as we give utmost energetic expression, in activism, to the most enduring results that have survived to the latest iteration. The more I read of Marx himself, the more I am convinced that he embodied this habit of mind and action to a rare degree, at least when the whole course of his life is considered. But the sociology of groups which cite Marx or Trotsky or others virtually as holy scripture seems strikingly similar to that of many religious groups - mostly small, highly fractious, hopelessly ineffectual, and yet harboring starry-eyed ambitions of eventual universal expansion - that I have closely experienced over some decades of my life. They are, to too large a degree, guided not by the noble fusion of compassion and scientific spirit that guided Marx, but by, it sometimes seems, the petty desires of marginalized men who, unable to function as big fish in a big pond, seek satisfaction in luring those few who will allow themselves to be lured into their small pond, feeding their egos on the illusion that they have the right tradition, the right answers, without which the world cannot attain to a state of blessedness. The needs of this hour in history require larger minds and heart than that, and I think your discussion and observations serve to call us in that direction. Stevennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-24142435441044421542012-08-20T08:23:50.883-07:002012-08-20T08:23:50.883-07:00Kamran, thank you for this detailed account of you...Kamran, thank you for this detailed account of your experiences in the socialist movement. (We may have met in the 1970s. I knew Mahmoud, Babak, Kateh, and others mentioned.) <br /><br />Thank you also for your reflections on the vanguard-party notion in light of your experiences. My experiences in the SWP have led me to challenge the degree of centralism practiced in all parties that look to the organizational principles of the early Communist International. <br /><br />There is much evidence that an organization that is rooted in the diverse working class cannot be built on this model in countries where bourgeois democracy prevails. Your account provides evidence that the model is also incompatible with work in societies like the current Iran (or Iran since 1979). Therefore our task is to shape a revised model in order to move forward again. <br /><br />I see Barry's book, despite any weaknesses, chiefly as evidence that significant errors can be acknowledged and significant lessons learned even by some people who were most at the center of the distorted organizational forms -- very, very positive news. I understand that Barry's errors are painful to read.<br /><br />DavidDavid Keilhttp://www.framingham.edu/~dkeilnoreply@blogger.com