I have enormous respect for Mike McNair. More than Cutrone or anyone else Plat will have on. Among the left/trot sects, he's taking very seriously the questions plaguing it's organizations. That is, especially, the problem of bureaucratic centralism. The solution is democracy in the socratic sense. Period. No formal measures will save us without convincing comrades that that the organizational forms, like democratic centralism, are necessary. We have to educate every single member on the need for organizational discipline as well as democratic debate in order to make Socialism a material force. There is no other way. Within that we have to realize that disagreements in tactics and organizational forms are always connected to disagreements about political perspectives. This was the case on Bolshevik-Menshevik split. The reaction of Stalinism, as well as the collapse of the 4th international. In each case, the organizational leadership was unable to answer a political opposition and used organizational measures. Organizational measures are always under the control of an old guard. He is absolutely right about the problems of isolation and trying to be pure.
James Creegan's questions is enormously important. The objective conditions for a transitional demand approach did not exist in the post WW2 period. He is absolutely incorrect that none of the Trotskyist orgs could develop a working class base. What would be a reasonable number to require for Revolutionary events to succeed? What was the Bolshevik base at the beginning of 1917. They were about 8000 I think. The Militant in Britain on the 1980s reached about 6,000 at its height. The key is to go where the workers are and explain Marxism. It's that simple. The problem is that Marxism is philosophical and difficult, and often the members themselves only partially understand it. That's the problem of the left: trying to understand Marxism (Marx Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Connolly, Etc.) and trying to connect it w workers in the current moment. In 1938 that meant the transitional program, in 1917 it meant all power to the Soviets. Today in the USA it's calling for a mass Socialist workers party.
Intro 00:00; Bryan 4:15; Mike 15:12; Wayne 27:07; Richard 41:31; Responses 52:45; Q&A 1:12:46
I have enormous respect for Mike McNair. More than Cutrone or anyone else Plat will have on. Among the left/trot sects, he's taking very seriously the questions plaguing it's organizations. That is, especially, the problem of bureaucratic centralism. The solution is democracy in the socratic sense. Period. No formal measures will save us without convincing comrades that that the organizational forms, like democratic centralism, are necessary. We have to educate every single member on the need for organizational discipline as well as democratic debate in order to make Socialism a material force. There is no other way. Within that we have to realize that disagreements in tactics and organizational forms are always connected to disagreements about political perspectives. This was the case on Bolshevik-Menshevik split. The reaction of Stalinism, as well as the collapse of the 4th international.
In each case, the organizational leadership was unable to answer a political opposition and used organizational measures. Organizational measures are always under the control of an old guard.
He is absolutely right about the problems of isolation and trying to be pure.
James Creegan's questions is enormously important. The objective conditions for a transitional demand approach did not exist in the post WW2 period. He is absolutely incorrect that none of the Trotskyist orgs could develop a working class base. What would be a reasonable number to require for Revolutionary events to succeed?
What was the Bolshevik base at the beginning of 1917. They were about 8000 I think.
The Militant in Britain on the 1980s reached about 6,000 at its height.
The key is to go where the workers are and explain Marxism. It's that simple. The problem is that Marxism is philosophical and difficult, and often the members themselves only partially understand it. That's the problem of the left: trying to understand Marxism (Marx Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Connolly, Etc.) and trying to connect it w workers in the current moment. In 1938 that meant the transitional program, in 1917 it meant all power to the Soviets. Today in the USA it's calling for a mass Socialist workers party.