Philip, you seem to be accusing me of not being a sufficient virulent SWP-hater. I plead guilty. The SWP is part of the socialist movement and deserves to be treated fraternally. Comrades leaving the SWP who stay in socialist politics, in my experience, have a high level of consciousness of Marxism, including on issues like united front and internal democracy where the SWP is weak. Where did they pick that up? I can only conclude that the spark of Marxism is still alive within the SWP, despite everything.

Unfortunately, the loss of socialist forces in the SWP is very heavy. Many comrades leave, and of those leaving, most quit left politics entirely.

As I wrote in my first article on this topic, “The SWP still represents significant human and political resources, but these assets are locked inside a strongbox to which no one can find the key.”

As for the rest, you are picking at secondary points. Did the SWP capitulate to Stalinism? You must consider its entire trajectory. Why did the SWP fail the test of the movement against the Iraq war? Was that a capitulation to Stalinism? I’m afraid not; you’re barking up the wrong tree.

John

I don’t think this is the case, John. The Barnesites adopted a very hostile attitude to left protests in defence of Solidarity union in Poland. They basically wouldn’t have any truck with such solidarity with Solidarnosc.

This was soon accompanied by a shift in relation to the Soviet leadership and members of the Barnes cabal in New York became, shall we say, rather agnostic on the question of whether a political revolution was needed in the Soviet bloc. In fact, didn’t they suggest that a “political revolution” could actually take the form of a series of radical internal reforms?

This took on a rather ridiculous dimension when Doug Jenness debated Ernest Mandel in Intercontinental Press on the issue of the Soviet economy. Jenness claimed that the Soviet economy actually had some serious dynamism in it. This was really quite extraordinary as, in reality, the Soviet economy was in such a schlerotic state that the bureaucracy had to bring in Gorbachev to administer some drastic reforms to try to inject some dynamism into it.

The Jenness article was a good example of starting with a fixed political position (albeit the rigid position was actually a new one) and then trying to invent an argument and marshall some facts to make it look like it was a serious argument. Jenness simply made himself look, to put it mildly (and kindly), incredibly foolish.

But ignoring reality and simply making stuff up was becoming a trademark of the Barnes operation, even as early as the beginning of the 1980s (and, of course, elsewhere comrades like Ralph Leavitt have noted that making stuff up long predated the early 1980s, but I’m only dealing with two specific things you mentioned from the early 1980s.

As the 1980s progressed, this approach became more and more evident. Claims that the US lost the Cold War, that the working class was moving forward when it was patently in retreat, etc became par for the course. Friends of mine who left the IMG after having been in the Barnesite Faction told me that one of the last straws for them was that when the British miners were crushed by Thatcher in 1985, the line of the leadership of the Faction, parroting Barnes, was that the miners had won!

My friends did not wish to enter the parallel universe where such nonsense was the received wisdom.

I think you stayed way too long in the parallel universe John and that this is reflected in what you write. Although I’ve had some pretty strong words to say in the past about Barry Sheppard, reading about vol 2 and his reflections on his own role mean that I no longer have the same views of him. Although I’d still disagree with him politically on a number of things, I think the fact that he got out long before you has enabled him (and Gus Horowtiz) to be much more incisive about what they call “the cult of Jack Barnes” than you are about what you call the SWP There is no SWP mate; it was destroyed in the early-mid 1980s.

What’s left in my view has a similar relationship to left-wing politics as the modern Catholic Church has to the early Christian communities.

Philip Ferguson

As I said before, thanks for answering on such short notice, since I imagine you have other things to do aswell. As the rest of us in this world of growing capitalist disorder.

I hope you dont interpret my comments in a sense of wanting to have the last word. I have from the beginning talked from my personal point of view, at the same time recognizing that the “personal” aspect of things, even feelings and memories, do have a deep political and class meaning.

Maybe I missed the fundamental points of your answer, but since you mentioned the united-front aproach in proletarian politics, I tried to give an answer according to my personal understanding, ability and perspective on how that aproach becomes an expression of a more concious fighting for independent working-class politics.

Im alone responsible for the views presented, even the limitations of my arguments, in the sense of being too abstract, in the sense of maybe only giving what I personally consider the correct, revolutionary thrust and direction of the SWP in becoming. I dont feel I have the right to speak in the name of the movement, since Im not under its discipline and I dont do it trough its elected bodies or as an expression of its democratically agreed-upon policies.

And I do firmly believe the SWP and communist leagues can speak for themselves, and speak for themselves primarily trough their actions on a day-to-day basis, week by week, 365 days a year as a disciplined and politically conscious part of the working-class vanguard in becoming.

I believe as well, that vanguard judges the SWP or any other organization, day by day, in a million ways. In a million practical ways. As I understood you, fertile terrains are opening up, space is being broadened and mantained trough struggle. Now is the time to move on, keep reaching out, turn outwards.

The thing is I believe thats exactly what the communist movement is trying to do internationally and the SWP in the US. I know we disagree on this fundamental point. Let history judge, let living history judge as embodied in human beings of flesh and blood, preparing to once again storm the heavens.

I have no problem with you reposting my comments on your side, even though that may be a difficult task, since my written english is far from perfect. But I would like to ask you, if you as an experienced editor maybe could change the titles “Letter from a SWP suporter” and “Exchange with a SWP supporter”, the reason being a question of honesty and integrity, since for ME being a supporter has a meaning primarily as an organized supporter. That means a disciplined relationship to the party, in my personal opinion.

I do defend the SWP and the movements revolutionary perspective, and I feel deep inside me, in the gut, in my own life and past and presemt experiences, that I and others I know of and others I dont know of, wherever we are, are converging with the party and its unflinching course, in practice.

The party that is becoming, not the party that became. Let the class struggle judge, and everything that through collective, disciplined action, helps assemble the international vanguard that in daily life will subordinate all other considerations to the fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I firmly believe history will absolve them.

/Ernesto

Im thankful for your answer on such short notice and the opportunity given to clarify some political points and thoughts in a manner thats respectful, while at the same time forceful.

First something of a more practical nature. You are aware that the Socialist Workers Party has just recently announced their candidates for President and Vice- President in the coming US presidential elections….

[The full text of this lengthy comment by Ernesto has been transferred to “What is a united front: exchange on the U.S. SWP“]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, and also to other supporters of the SWP who have expressed their views on Gus Horowitz’s blog (www.gushorowitz.wordpress.com). This is the first such open exchange of views in at least thirty years between SWP supporters and socialists outside the SWP. All of us outside the SWP need to take notice and act accordingly. We need to consider whether this an accidental incident – ships passing in the night – or whether there is there a possibility of respectful discussion and collaboration between SWPers and non-SWPers.

So our first task is to seek out common ground. And you have shown us in your letter where this common ground lies. Reporting on the work of SWP delegations at international conferences in Havana in 1997 and 1999, you say:

“We argued forcefully for our communist politics and international point of view, we didn’t hide them. I met some wonderful people and I felt a bit richer, like the rest of us from that experience. We didn’t have to see eye to eye on everything under the sun, but we argued with respect, self-confidence and at least we started to understand in our own ways, each of us, how convergence or divergence in class politics are aspects of a single process.“

What you are describing here is experience in a united front. In such a joint endeavour, a broad range of forces join in pursuit of a common goal, and each component retains its full freedom to express its own point of view. Such united front activity is the common ground within which working-class activists of many viewpoints and socialist currents can work together respectfully and constructively, while learning from each other. It is also the best arena for revolutionary Marxists demonstrate in life their leadership capabilities and the validity of their ideas.

You also mention similar interventions at a youth festival and book fairs in Caracas. You could also have cited the work of the SWP and its sister organizations in Cuba solidarity groups and committees for the Cuban Five in different countries, where SWPers collaborate constructively with activists from socialist currents with which the SWP may strongly disagree on fundamental issues.

We should note that all these activities take place in what we can call, in a loose sense, the internationalist work of the Cuban revolution. The Cuban comrades have always promoted united action by socialist and anti-imperialist currents, and the SWP interventions you describe take place in that framework. I think the Cuban approach is a good one, and we would do well to apply in our own countries. In addition, it would be useful to engage with other arenas of Cuba’s internationalist work, such as Cuba’s efforts for global environmental justice and its work for Latin American solidarity, which is structured around the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). I recognize that the SWP dispute the general thrust of Cuban policy in these arenas, but there should still be areas of common agreement and scope for constructive criticism.

I believe that the united front approach is in the bones of SWP members. I notice this when I meet young people who have recently left the SWP. Yet I do not see this approach in the Militant. I meet SWP supporters at working-class events only if the action has a Cuban focus or if SWP supporters are staffing a literature table at the edge of a large action. Perhaps the Militant is overly modest about the SWP’s initiatives; is it perhaps involved in broad campaigns of which I am unaware?

You mention the Crystal Sugar strike struggle, and I reviewed a few Militant articles on it. The SWP is doing a fine job reporting on this battle, on the basis of first-hand reportage; many comrades have travelled a long way to express support. What I do not see in these articles – and I may be overlooking something – is initiatives toward broader actions, support meetings, or collections on behalf of the strikers, carried out jointly by worker and socialist activists of different traditions. In my experience, on an important issue, even a single determined socialist can often initiate a broad, effective action.

Anti-war work provides another example. The Militant speaks out forcefully against U.S. wars and militarism. But socialists have to do more in this area than make the record; they have to take practical initiatives toward united action. Why does the SWP not take part in broad anti-war coalitions? Some of these efforts are problematic, but, overall, the obstacles are not as great as those that faced us in the Vietnam war era. There are also useful things a party like the SWP can do on its own – a shop-floor petition, perhaps – which may carry moral weight. The apparent absence of reports on such work troubles me greatly (and was the issue that led to my estrangement from the SWP in 2004).

The SWP feels strongly that its contribution to building a revolutionary party is unique and essential; it has quite a low opinion of other socialist currents. No one is asking the SWP to back away from these convictions. In fact, many other socialist groups have exactly the same opinion regarding their own particular heritage and the defects of their socialist rivals. The united-front approach enables each current to maintain its convictions and advocate its views freely, while contributing to a common goal.

A united front is not a cartel of socialist groups. In fact, it may contain no socialist groups at all – as has often been my experience in the Toronto environmental justice movement. Years ago, when the SWP campaigned for mass action for U.S. troops out of Vietnam now, it was unable to win the consistent support of any socialist current on this point. But today there is substantial agreement among socialists as to a program of immediate demands for the working class. Also, the obstacle to united action posed by Stalinism and Social Democracy is greatly diminished. In the early stages of the Iraq war, for example, the range of forces favouring mass action for “out now” was quite large. True, there were political problems; they could have been more easily overcome if the SWP had not abstained.

Overall, I think you may be overestimating the obstacles. You provide the following quotation:

“The revolutionary movement, under the best conditions, is a hard fight, and it wears out a lot of human material. Not for nothing has it been said a thousand times in the past: ‘The revolution is a devourer of men.’ The movement in this, the richest and most conservative country in the world, is perhaps the most voracious of all.

“It is not easy to persist in the struggle, to hold on, to stay tough and fight it out year after year without victory; and even, in times such as the present, without tangible progress. That requires theoretical conviction and historical perspective as well as character….

“It is not easy to persist in the struggle, to hold on, to stay tough and fight it out year after year without victory; and even, in times such as the present, without tangible progress…”

I do not understand this at all. These paragraphs describe a different planet than the one I know. This is a wonderful time in which to be a socialist. Socialism provides hope and direction in a society where there is so much despair. This is a time in which socialists are winning an increasing hearing, including among workers.

But perhaps what your quotation is describing here the situation within the SWP itself. The party has been doggedly following a fixed course for thirty years without gaining ground – indeed, while suffering significant losses. If this is the case, then SWP members should consider alternative tactical approaches.

Finally, you may wonder how I can write of the SWP in a positive spirit when I have just published an article that speaks of its decline in harsh terms. Well, I have kept my silence for eight years. My reason for speaking up is the publication of Barry Sheppard’s second volume on the history of the SWP. I recommend his books to you – volume 1 provides the only available account of the SWP in its prime, and it is available on line.

But Barry makes a major error, in my view. He blames the SWP’s decline, in part, on its political alignment with the Communist leadership in Cuba. I have tried to prove that this is a misimpression. I argue that SWP support for Cuban communism was (and is) the party’s strong point. I know you agree.

Thank you again for your contribution.

John

/Ernesto

Ernesto, your well-reasoned and powerful contribution challenges us all to put aside stereotypes of the SWP and search for common ground. It is significant that three other SWP supporters have written in the same vein to the blog of Gus Horowitz. I would like to pause for a moment and consider what you have said before proceeding. Meanwhile, my “Part 2” will be published Sunday, which will speak to some points that you raise. Thanks for your initiative in raising these issues. In solidarity, John

Ken, I am glad you recall, as I do, the SWP’s overture to the U.S. Socialist Labor Party (SLP). I feel now, as we all did then, that it was a positive move. It was all the more impressive given that the SLP did not have a good reputation among party members. It was a reminder that we must not write off anyone who sincerely works for socialism — a thought that all participants in the present SWP discussion should keep in mind. John