The name was changed in 1976 or 77, way before the subsequent indignities of
Barnes.

The person who told me was in their central leadership.





-----Original Message-----
From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com on behalf of David
Sent: Sat 12/19/2009 5:30 AM
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: Bazza Down Under -

Phil does point to a real truth about the imposition of Healy by Cannon. I
understand (from reading Sam Gordon's letters to Cannon and vice-a-versa) why
this was done but it was a mistake of historical proportions.

But I heard just the opposite about the IS-->SWP name change. I heard from them
that they were quite proud of this this and they were 'saving' the name from the
indignities of Barnes, etc. I only talked to 3 UK SWPers about this but they
thought it was swift-bang-right-on. Funny, though.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
>
> John Percy wrote:
> >As for your characterisation, they "always took sides and always
> interfered..."? come on, don't you recognise some exaggeration in your
> description? Always? In the 40s, 50s, 60s? The sect/cult that remains
> today is a very different organisation than the earlier SWP.
>
>
> Fair enough point, John.  I'll amend it.  In all the cases *I know about* they
interfered and took sides.  And that goes back quite a long way.  There was a
chunk of resentment, for instance, among old-time British Trots for the US SWP
inflicting Healy on the movement in Britain.  When I lived in Britain in the
early 80s I was quite taken aback at how much hostility there was to the US SWP
among Trots there.  One of the leaders of the British SWP told me there was a
lot of opposition to them changing their name from IS to SWP because they were
worried about being associated with the American SWP and no-one wanted that.  It
was quite a shock coming from a weird little bubble world where the US SWP was
venerated to find thee was a big wide world of trotskyists who had quite a low
opinion of them.
>
> And, of course, you folk had experience of US SWP interference in your
organisation when you had the temerity to disagree with New York over
Afghanistan and you folks ended up being anathematised.
>
> OK, I'll take your word re Sheppard's 1969 visit to Australia.  And good luck
with him; I wouldn't touch the guy with a forty-foot bargepole.  My attitude to
those people is that they're the past, they're not part of the future, let the
dead bury the dead.
>
> Anyway, I'll leave that thread there.  Have heaps to do with work for our
national Retreat.
>
> Phil
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Phil does point to a real truth about the imposition of Healy by Cannon. I
understand (from reading Sam Gordon's letters to Cannon and vice-a-versa) why
this was done but it was a mistake of historical proportions.

But I heard just the opposite about the IS-->SWP name change. I heard from them
that they were quite proud of this this and they were 'saving' the name from the
indignities of Barnes, etc. I only talked to 3 UK SWPers about this but they
thought it was swift-bang-right-on. Funny, though.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
>
> John Percy wrote:
> >As for your characterisation, they "always took sides and always
> interfered..."? come on, don't you recognise some exaggeration in your
> description? Always? In the 40s, 50s, 60s? The sect/cult that remains
> today is a very different organisation than the earlier SWP.
>
>
> Fair enough point, John.  I'll amend it.  In all the cases *I know about* they
interfered and took sides.  And that goes back quite a long way.  There was a
chunk of resentment, for instance, among old-time British Trots for the US SWP
inflicting Healy on the movement in Britain.  When I lived in Britain in the
early 80s I was quite taken aback at how much hostility there was to the US SWP
among Trots there.  One of the leaders of the British SWP told me there was a
lot of opposition to them changing their name from IS to SWP because they were
worried about being associated with the American SWP and no-one wanted that.  It
was quite a shock coming from a weird little bubble world where the US SWP was
venerated to find thee was a big wide world of trotskyists who had quite a low
opinion of them.
>
> And, of course, you folk had experience of US SWP interference in your
organisation when you had the temerity to disagree with New York over
Afghanistan and you folks ended up being anathematised.
>
> OK, I'll take your word re Sheppard's 1969 visit to Australia.  And good luck
with him; I wouldn't touch the guy with a forty-foot bargepole.  My attitude to
those people is that they're the past, they're not part of the future, let the
dead bury the dead.
>
> Anyway, I'll leave that thread there.  Have heaps to do with work for our
national Retreat.
>
> Phil
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

John Percy wrote:
>As for your characterisation, they "always took sides and always
interfered..."? come on, don't you recognise some exaggeration in your
description? Always? In the 40s, 50s, 60s? The sect/cult that remains
today is a very different organisation than the earlier SWP.


Fair enough point, John.  I'll amend it.  In all the cases *I know about* they
interfered and took sides.  And that goes back quite a long way.  There was a
chunk of resentment, for instance, among old-time British Trots for the US SWP
inflicting Healy on the movement in Britain.  When I lived in Britain in the
early 80s I was quite taken aback at how much hostility there was to the US SWP
among Trots there.  One of the leaders of the British SWP told me there was a
lot of opposition to them changing their name from IS to SWP because they were
worried about being associated with the American SWP and no-one wanted that.  It
was quite a shock coming from a weird little bubble world where the US SWP was
venerated to find thee was a big wide world of trotskyists who had quite a low
opinion of them.

And, of course, you folk had experience of US SWP interference in your
organisation when you had the temerity to disagree with New York over
Afghanistan and you folks ended up being anathematised.

OK, I'll take your word re Sheppard's 1969 visit to Australia.  And good luck
with him; I wouldn't touch the guy with a forty-foot bargepole.  My attitude to
those people is that they're the past, they're not part of the future, let the
dead bury the dead.

Anyway, I'll leave that thread there.  Have heaps to do with work for our
national Retreat.

Phil


This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Phil,

You might find this "incredibly difficult to reconcile" with your
knowledge and experience, but it was a /fact./ During that first visit
in 1969 we asked for support, or even some direct advice from Barry, but
the response was with general lessons and examples from the US SWP
experience. Some things from our history might not be well remembered,
but facts that are consistent with other events and our subsequent
behaviour should be given credence. This was the stance Barry took, and
it's also consistent with his recollection of the visit as described in
his book, the Party (page 243.) And it wasn't just my memory, but also
my brother Jim's, and other comrades who were around at the time.

Of course, from our then limited knowledge and reading of Cannon and the
US SWP, we /thought/ they and Barry would agree with us rather than
Gould. But it was a bit frustrating when we didn't get that direct
support. Nevertheless it was best, forcing us to continue to try to work
things out for ourselves.

As for your characterisation, they "always took sides and always
interfered..."? come on, don't you recognise some exaggeration in your
description? Always? In the 40s, 50s, 60s? The sect/cult that remains
today is a very different organisation than the earlier SWP.

For us an important question has been the process and reasons why the US
SWP degenerated. We'll make our analyses from the SWP/DSP available on
the RSP website. (For those on this list who think it was /always/
rotten, I don't have much to say to.) This is related to the timing,
when it degenerated. This of course will be a central question addressed
in Barry's second volume, which he's ploughing through now.

It's natural enough for us to also ask, are there any lessons or
similarities with the more recent degeneration of the DSP and our
expulsion, and its dissolution into the Socialist Alliance. There are
many obvious differences, including direction, but some similarities and
lessons also -- for example, the danger of converting a tactic into a
permanent strategy, the "turn" in the case of the US SWP, the "broad
party" in the case of the DSP.

What attitude to take towards comrades who break from or are expelled
from the SWP after it degenerated? It's natural to feel closest to those
who broke at the same time as yourself, but the DSP leadership was
interested in developing relations with all who broke, and we were
always anguished about the weakness and disunity of the remnants from
the SWP degeneration. We respected the strong political skills and
experience of so many of those individuals. We collaborated with Peter
Camejo early on, then with Barry Sheppard, Caroline Lund and Malik Miah,
and even in recent times with the comrades in Canada, who had stayed in
the Barnes group for such a long time. (And now on Facebook I've found a
less formal way to reconnect up with many of them!) But we hoped that
those who broke would be able to retain the politics of the SWP in its
healthier period, certainly when it was leading the campaign against the
Vietnam War. To be able to do that, some assessment of the reasons and
the dynamic of the degeneration has to be made. Hopefully Barry's second
book will be an important contribution to that understanding.

John.

Philip Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> John, politically I would probably agree way way more with you than with
> Gould. However there are parts of Gould's account that just ring truer
> than some of yours. I'm not suggesting any untruthfulness on your part,
> but memories are odd things. I teach a course on the American 60s and I
> show a little clip of the guys from Big Brother and the Holding Company
> talking about what Janis Joplin was wearing the day she turned up to
> audition. They all remember really clearly - and they all remember
> differently. . .
>
> For instance, one thing in your account below that just doesn't square
> with everything I know about the SWP (and stuff I saw) is the comment:
>
> "Barry listened, but didn't take sides."
>
> Sorry, I just find that incredibly difficult to reconcile with all my
> experiences and knowledge of these people. They always took sides and
> they always interfered. The line from then to the mad Barnesite cult of
> today, where people sell the Militant in London, Stockholm, Sydney and
> are directed straight from New York, might not be an entirely straight
> one but it's there nevertheless. And Sheppard was one of its
> architects.
>
> I've no personal reason to dislike Sheppard, he certainly never ever did
> anything to me, and thus no axe to grind against the guy. And I'd much
> rather be on your side than Gould's. But it just doesn't entirely stack
> up. Even after a friend of mine told me last night that he met Gould in
> the late 60s and thought he was a nutter.
>
> Sorry. Really.
>
> I'd also be a little less dismissive of Sheppard, and less prepared to
> believe Gould's account, if he (Sheppard) did some serious owning up.
> We're not Catholics, he doesn't have to flagellate himself in the public
> square - or even allow those whose lives he partly tore up give him a
> whipping. But I would expect some kind of serious critical reflection
> and owning up. Instead he strikes me as having a rather patrician,
> shall we put it, attitude towards the havoc that he wreaked and the
> really quite terrible things he did.
>
> I know that if I was the American ISO leadership I don't think I'd be
> letting him near the youth to act as some kind of model Marxist! He
> can't even own up that the American SWP leadership were thoroughly wrong
> on Iran and their people in Iran hadn't a clue about how to operate in
> the concrete conditions of 1979 and thereafter. The whole Iran thing
> was a fiasco and showed how the SWP leadership really hadn't a clue
> about revolutions other than in books and know-all speeches and
> documents.
>
> Anyway, I digress. . .
>
> Phil
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf
> Of John Percy
> Sent: Saturday, 12 December 2009 1:29 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [swp_usa] Bazza Down Under -
>
> Phil, as a balance to Gould's memory of Barry Sheppard, here's my
> description of that first encounter, as set down in my book "A History
> of the DSP and Resistance, Vol 1, 1965-72."
>
> "In August, Barry Sheppard returned to the US from Europe after the
> April 1969 FI Ninth World Congress via Asia and Australia, to attend the
>
> SWP's convention.
>
> "The fifth^ IML meeting on July 5 eagerly received the letter announcing
>
> Sheppard's visit. Naturally our small group was quite excited, and
> arranged a program of meetings. Each of the two "sides" in our group was
>
> keen to argue their case with him. We met him at the airport with a
> delegation of perhaps a dozen comrades. We didn't know what Barry looked
>
> like, but Gould was keen to be first to greet him, so began accosting
> arriving passengers who looked "American", asking them "Are you Barry
> Sheppard?" After quite a few knockbacks, he was a bit more subdued and
> at the back of the pack when Barry finally walked up to us. (Our scruffy
>
> gang was not hard to pick.) He told us later he wasn't sure he'd be met,
>
> and if he wasn't he planned to go out to the campuses and ask, "Are
> there any Trotskyists around here?"
>
> "Both sides started lobbying him right away. We wanted help: how to
> build a party, what to do? Shouldn't we be more organised? Gould wanted
> a looser group; we wanted to establish stricter membership, around a
> program, and voting on admission. Barry listened, but didn't take sides.
>
> "But he was quite impressed with what we'd gathered together: a strong
> youth movement and an impressive headquarters and bookshop. We brought
> him in from the airport to Goulburn Street, and he looked up at 35-37,
> and 20a, and asked: "Is this all ours?" We answered yes, but some of us
> looked at each other, perhaps already a bit worried about how Gould
> might be getting proprietorial about the bookshop."
>
> John Percy
>
> Philip Ferguson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Speaking of Barry Sheppard and his mistakes, I was reminded of his
> > intervention into the Australian organisation in the late 1960s, which
> I
> > read about on Bob Gould's site.
> >
> > As some people here can vouch, I've no time for Bob Gould's politics
> > (he's an inveterate Labourite deep-entryist) and he and I have had
> > various fairly antagonistic arguments. So when it comes to Gould and
> > Sheppard I certainly don't have a favourite. However, Bob's account
> > does have the ring of truth and, on this issue, I do actually have
> some
> > sympathy for him.
> >
> > I found this amusing:
> >
> > On a lighter note about the cultural style and appearance of members
> of
> > the US SWP, back in 1969 myself and my two younger, then rather
> hairier,
> > associates, John and Jim Percy, went out to Mascot Airport to meet up
> > with the visiting Fourth International and US SWP emissary Barry
> > Sheppard.
> >
> > This man was to be the first overseas Trotskyist leader that any of
> the
> > three of us had ever seen. We looked around the airport for the
> > Trotskyist and we couldn't see one. We were completely nonplussed.
> When
> > we'd worked our way two or three time through all the incoming
> tourists
> > and plump businessmen the only possibility seemed to be a
> well-dressed,
> > slim man in a suit.
> >
> > I made a little joke that our most likely prospect looked like a
> Mormon
> > missionary. Indeed, he was the right bloke. His arrival in Australia
> was
> > highly significant. He rapidly homed in on an incipient dispute
> between
> > myself and my two associates, heavily stressing to them the importance
> > of Cannonist organisation and arranging for John Percy to go to the US
> > to an Oberlin conference that Christmas, from which John Percy
> returned
> > in a state of Cannonist zeal and he and Jim started a factional war
> > against me, which culminated in the inevitable split.
> >
> > In those days, and for 10-15 years thereafter, Barry Sheppard was a
> > close associate and even a kind of political enforcer for Jack Barnes,
> > until they fell out. It's to the great credit of Sheppard, his
> companion
> > Caroline and his associate Malik that they've survived the
> vicissitudes
> > of splits and industrialisation to remain politically active. So while
> > my political views and theirs still don't coincide, particularly in
> this
> > area, nevertheless I have certain respect for them, as I have for
> anyone
> > who's still active.
> >
> > I still have in my mind, though, the image of the steel-hard Cannonist
> > cadre who looked for all the world like a Mormon missionary when he
> > emerged from Customs at Mascot way back then.
> >
> > The above is from:
> > http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w16/msg00089.htm
> <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w16/msg00089.htm>
> > <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w16/msg00089.htm
> <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w16/msg00089.htm>>
> >
> > But on a more serious note, check out what Bob Gould says about
> > Sheppard's role as an SWP global enforcer/factionalist, something
> > completely glossed over in his memoir:
> >
> > http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Twovisits.html
> <http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Twovisits.html>
> > <http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Twovisits.html
> <http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Twovisits.html>>
> >
> > Pity Sheppard didn't use his book to come clean and try to draw some
> > lessons that might be of use to the next generation.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> > Behalf
> > Of generalstrike2000
> > Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 6:17 p.m.
> > To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [swp_usa] a ps Re: A Spart List?
> >
> > I knew Gerald quite well. It was the presence of people like Gerald,
> > Fred, and a longshoreman, now retired, Howard, that attracted me to
> the
> > Bolshevik Tendency, until the split.
> >
> > I remember while attending Slyvia Weinstein's memorial in San
> Francisco,
> > Gerald was sitting beside me. When Barry Sheppard, speaking from the
> > podium said, "expelling the Weinsteins from the SWP was one of the
> most
> > serious mistakes of my political life," Gerald leaned over and
> > whispered, "confession is good for the soul."
> >
> > This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> > not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> > guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> > please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the
> message
> > and any attachments.
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer
> <http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer>
> > <http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer
> <http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer>> for more
> > information.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 4677 (20091210) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer
> <http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer> for more
> information.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 4685 (20091214) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"counter-culturalist", what kind of shit is that?  Reminds me of David Frost's
comment on Nixon asking him about his sex life with his girlfriend in terms of
"fornication".  What a bunch of wretched nerds!

"get a life!" is what I'd have to say to some of them whom I recall personally
from way back when.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "generalstrike2000" <generalstrike2000@...>
wrote:
>
> RE who's there, until the addition of a few of us, I would say the "mild".
Interesting that after 15 members being reported on this site, the ex-SWP group
is now up to 22, including some of us.
>
> It appears to be more for social networking than any serious political
discussion, although the discussion around "When Skateboards are Free," would
seem to be contradictory to that end. We'll see.
>
> --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A. Lause" <MLause@> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.  Who's there?  The mild or the wild?
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Naw, my experience is that they were uptight early 60s type radicals-as Barnes
and Sheppard were-for whom the evolution of the radicalization of the 60s
farther down the line was alien.  Of a piece with the folks that booed Dylan in
65 at Newport for going electric.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> My impression is also that the really uptight ones who were into
> "proletarian norms" were more from middle class backgrounds and the few
> people they recruited from working class backgrounds were a lot less
> uptight.
>
>
>
> One of the things about that expression that strikes me is that it
> appeals to middle class people who like to be in control.  Workers tend
> not to like such "proletarian norms" because it just means another realm
> of life where they're under the control of people above them in the
> social hierarchy of capitalist society.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of generalstrike2000
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 December 2009 3:08 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: Houston Massacre and CPUSA
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe counter culture was the wrong term. You're right about being
> uptight. By contrast, there was a group of several of us in Columbus,
> who were students at Columbus College, all from working class
> backgrounds.
>
> The SWP and YSA sent people down to talk with us, and we did some
> reading. First off "My Life" by Trotsky, and then some history of the
> 1930's. Some on this list have mentioned that you met SWP members who
> joined in the 1930's and 1940's, in the 1960's and thought them strange.
> We in Columbus would have loved to have met the older members with class
> struggle backgrounds. We considered the younger members strange, even
> though we were the same ages.
>
> By this time the US had already withdrawn from Vietnam. We had missed
> the anti war movement because of age, or as in my case being on active
> military duty, and again in my case, being in Vietnam, 1968-1969. I
> didn't participate in the anti-war movement, because as embarrassing as
> this is to admit, I got taken in by Nixon's "Vietnamization" caper.
> Also, as one who was adversely affected by the 1969-1970 recession,
> economic survival was at the top of my personal agenda. I didn't
> radicalize until 1972.
>
> --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@> wrote:
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> > I doubt you've pissed anyone off either.
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess I'm just surprised to hear that any branch of the SWP was at
> all
> > counterculturalish! My impression was that all the branches were
> > uptight because the centre always made sure they had uptight
> organisers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > Of generalstrike2000
> > Sent: Tuesday, 15 December 2009 2:45 p.m.
> > To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [swp_usa] Re: Houston Massacre and CPUSA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It was just the opposite. I went from the CPUSA (1976-1977)to the
> > SWP(1978-1981). I wasn't the only one apparantly. Even today there are
> > at least a couple of ISO members who got their start politically with
> > the CP youth group, the Young Communist League.
> >
> > I had exposure to Trotskyism prior to joining the CP. When I was
> living
> > in Columbus and Carrollton, GA (1971-1975), I had contact with the
> > Atlanta, GA SWP branch. I wasn't impressed. They were too counter
> > culture for my taste. Very little working class consciousness. I'm not
> > talking about industralizing. I mean interest in issues that affect
> > working class people, such as working conditions and economic
> > deprivation.
> >
> > The CP and even the Maoists had a better perspective on these issues
> in
> > the early and mid 1970's. With the exception of the International
> > Socialists the non-Stalinist left was weak, politically in these
> areas.
> > The CP also had a better analysis of economic issues.
> >
> > So anyway, in 1976 the CP had this campaign, "join us for a year, even
> > if you have disagreements, and at the end of that year, either your
> > disagreements will no longer exist, you'll still have disagreements,
> but
> > can try to make changes in the party, or drop out". OK. At the end of
> a
> > year, I had not been won over to their program of unquestioning
> > subservience to the Soviet bureaucracy, and I knew I had a snowballs
> > chance in hell of getting the CP to change course, so away I went. I
> > found the SWP in Salt Lake City much more to my liking than the
> Atlanta
> > branch. Something tells me I've just pissed off some people.
> >
> > --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey general strike (Ken?),
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How on earth did you go from being in the SWP to being in the CP?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> > not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> > guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> > please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the
> message
> > and any attachments.
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> > information.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Of course they completely missed the boat on Malcolm X taking, like the FSP
which is their offspring, a scandalized left-liberal attitude towards black
nationalism of the 60s.  Politically I always thought the SWP in the 60s period
was much stronger, if not the "lesser evil", to its sectarian and dogmatist
trotskyist opponents, just not going far enough in that direction, say like
Workers World.  Part of the damage, however, that occurs when bureaucratism and
heavy handed measures replace political discussion: the political issues get
buried and your opponents get to shroud themselves in victimhood.  A clear
example being the 1971 convention and the wrong headed Proletarian Orientation
Tendency.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> An interesting document is the Kirk-Kaye one on the nature of the
> Dobbs/Kerry leadership.  They argue it was more radical Laborite than
> Bolshevik - for instance, marked by economism.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of David
> Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 1:17 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
>
>
>
>
> I can go along with that. I think part of this key to this, always
> looking for answers, etc was the post-Cockranite split period (which
> firmed up Dobbs leadership over others) into the early mentoring of
> Barnes period. We don't have the documents up on this but seems to go to
> the binary nature of the SWP internal personality. The eventually
> pushing of Milt Alvin off the PC was sort of a codification of this.
>
> David
>
> --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@> wrote:
> >
> > Ken, no-one has said Cannon=Barnes. I doubt anyone here believes any
> > such thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cannon's conception of a revolutionary party was wrong, but Cannon was
> > also a courageous working class fighter. Barnes is just an absurd
> > office general turned tinpot despot.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > Of generalstrike2000
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:38 p.m.
> > To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
> >
> >
> >
> > > I don't feel that Sheppard has an obligation to agree with the
> > propositon that Cannon=Barnes. I sure as hell don't.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> > not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> > guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> > please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the
> message
> > and any attachments.
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> > information.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Couple of things wrong with this.



In a healthy organisation, why would someone just stop presenting their
views for two years?  (ie the period between conventions).  That was not
Bolshevik practice.



What you're saying is, basically, that the IT made a huge tactical
blunder by not giving up being the IT.  If they hadn't been the IT they
couldn't have been expelled.  Yes, and if pigs aren't pigs they can't be
pigs.  This is a completely circuitous nonsensical argument, Dave.



By the way, around the same time (72 or 73), didn't the SWP leadership
totally defend the 'right' of their little Tendency in Britain to
continue to operate as a tendency after an IMG conference at which they
got very, very few votes?



The whole thing was screwed up.  Suggesting tactical advice to the IT -
36 years later - seems totally pointless.  The key thing about that
purge was that the leadership were determined to destroy the IT, and the
people who made up the IT, regardless of what tactical sophistication
the IT did or did not show.



Sheppard appears to have sided with the RSP as against the DSP, yes.
The organisation I'm part of in NZ has some form of friendly
relationship with both the RSP and DSP and also with the SP.  At our
last conference, in June, we had people over from the RSP and SP.  Early
next year ourselves and Socialist Worker (Cliffites) are co-sponsoring a
speaking tour by a young DSPer.  One of our members who moved to
Australia joined the RSP and we're perfectly happy about that.  And we
expect there'll be an RSP rep, possibly even more than one, at our
conference next year, along with an SPer or two.  (The DSP itself won't
exist then because it's dissolving into the Socialist Alliance.)



I can't help thinking that John Percy must grin to himself now and then
that a number of the people in the North American leadership who
demonised him and his brother Jim Percy and the Aussie organisation back
in the 1980s at the time the Aussie group parted company with New Yorl,
and carried on the demonization for some years afterwards, now can't be
friendly enough with them and are keen to head over to Oz for
conferences every year.  How the big ole wheel turns.



But I'm not sure I'd be quite as forgiving as John in relation to such
people, because I think it sends the wrong message about actions and
consequences and what is and what is not acceptable behaviour on the
left, especially from "leaders". . .  If I was in John's place, I think
I'd want to see some serious critical reflection on the part of those
particular folks before welcoming them with open arms to the RSP.
Anyway, it's the RSP's call.



Phil







From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of David
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 4:22 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





I haven't read from anyone an actual defense of what the SWP did (re:
IT). It was a purge, no question about it. My difference, really with
Phil, is that yes, I think it really could of been mitigated by hanging
it up right up the Special 1973 convention (Chicago) after the IT lost
the vote. At that point if they had done that, dissolved, there could
not of been a purge or, at least, one that would not of split their own
majority block. The IT made a huge tactical blunder, IMO.

Now...in a party that was a lot more healthier, none of this would of
been necessary and it was the formulaic, mechanical application of the
democratic centralism, this culture of 'no discussion' after a
convention that evolved that was totally fucked up. I would be
interested to see if Sheppard addresses this or where, rather when, he
points to the problem later.

I think Louis made a good point. I think Barry is having a problem on
the structural level of addressing this. Interestingly, he's close to
the RSB in Australia. I don't know if they maintain the highly
centralized 'faux-Cannonist' internal structure.

David







This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Phil, Young America on the antebellum land reform movement is from a couple of
years back.  Personally, I expected the first to be much more popular than the
second, but it seems as though the second has stirred a lot more interest.  This
may tell us more about the unrepresentative nature of book readership than
anything....

I'll give you the catalogue description on these, Phil.  Thanks for asking...

Solidarity!
Mark L.


RACE AND RADICALISM IN THE UNION ARMY
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/67zda4ns9780252034466.html

In this compelling portrait of interracial activism, Mark A. Lause documents the
efforts of radical followers of John Brown to construct a triracial portion of
the Federal Army of the Frontier. Mobilized and inspired by the idea of a Union
that would benefit all, black, Indian, and white soldiers fought side by side,
achieving remarkable successes in the field. Against a backdrop of idealism,
racism, greed, and the agonies and deprivations of combat, Lause examines links
between radicalism and reform, on the one hand, and racialized interactions
among blacks, Indians, and whites, on the other.

Lause examines how this multiracial vision of American society developed on the
Western frontier. Focusing on the men and women who supported Brown in
territorial Kansas, Lause examines the impact of abolitionist sentiment on
relations with Indians and the crucial role of nonwhites in the conflict.
Through this experience, Indians, blacks, and whites began to see their
destinies as interdependent, and Lause discusses the radicalizing impact of this
triracial Unionism upon the military course of the war in the upper
Trans-Mississippi.

The aftermath of the Civil War destroyed much of the memory of the war in the
West, particularly in the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). The opportunity for
an interracial society was quashed by the government's willingness to redefine
the lucrative field of Indian exploitation for military and civilian officials
and contractors.

Assessing the social interrelations, ramifications, and military impact of
nonwhites in the Union forces, Race and Radicalism in the Union Army explores
the extent of interracial thought and activity among Americans in this period
and greatly expands the historical narrative on the Civil War in the West.

"This incredible work broadens understanding of the Civil War in the West and
expands historical knowledge about the Native American contributions to the war
effort. It will appeal to any Civil War historian and those interested in Native
American or military history."--Eugene H. Berwanger, author of The Frontier
against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension
Controversy

"In this study of an obscure but important group of radicals, Lause includes
cameos of fascinating figures largely ignored in standard accounts as well as
coverage of battles beyond the frame of nearly all Civil War texts. Future work
will have to reckon with this marvelous study."--Bruce Laurie, author of Beyond
Garrison: Antislavery and Social Reform

* * *

THE ANTEBELLUM CRISIS AND AMERICA'S FIRST BOHEMIANS
http://upress.kent.edu/books/Lause.htm

Amid the social and political tensions plaguing the United States in the years
leading up to the Civil War, the North experienced a boom of cultural activity.
Young transient writers, artists, and musicians settled in northern cities in
pursuit of fame and fortune. Calling themselves "bohemians" after the
misidentified homeland of the Roma immigrants to France, they established a
coffeehouse society to share their thoughts and creative visions. Popularized by
the press, bohemians became known for romantic, unorthodox notions of literature
and the arts that transformed nineteenth-century artistic culture.

Bohemian influence reached well beyond the arts, however. Building on midcentury
abolitionist, socialist, and free labor sentiments, bohemians also flirted with
political radicalism and social revolution. Advocating free love, free men, and
free labor, bohemian ideas had a profound effect on the debate that raged among
the splintered political factions in the North, including the fledgling
Republican Party from which President Lincoln was ultimately elected in 1860.

Focusing on the overlapping nature of culture and politics, historian Mark A.
Lause delves into the world of antebellum bohemians and the newspapermen who
surrounded them, including Ada Clare, Henry Clapp, and Charles Pfaff, and
explores the origins and influence of bohemianism in 1850s New York. Against the
backdrop of the looming Civil War, The Antebellum Crisis and America's First
Bohemians combines solid research with engaging storytelling to offer readers
new insights into the forces that shaped events in the prewar years.

Paul Buhle: "Mark Lause offers readers a remarkable and convincing nineteenth
century back story to the later Greenwich Village bohemianism, Bay Area
Beatnikism, and twenty-first-century DIYism of culturally rebellious Americans. 
delivered in lucid prose, this is a book to unsettle fixed views and open up
vistas--just as bohemianism has always done."

Ed Whitely: "Much of the scholarship on the bohemains writers and artists of
antebellum New York has tended to cast them as a chramring group of largely
irrelevant cultural figures.  Mark Lause, in contrast, makes the strongest case
to date that America's first bohemians were relevant both as commentators and as
agitators on some of the nineteenth centuiry's most pressing concerns: slavery,
labor reform, the sustainability of urban life, international relations, and
women's rights. Lause's compelling argument for the bohemians' wide range of
influence--not to mention the rich primary sources that he opens up for further
analysis--promises to make his book the seminal text for subssequent studies of
the counterculture of antebellum New York."

David S. Reynolds: "A fascinating, innovative look at the culture of
bohemianism, free love, and adventurous creativity that played an important role
in the ferment that contributed to the Civil War.  Mark Lause's research is
excellent, and his style is cogent and engaging."






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark A. Lause
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 3:52 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2



  But the fact is that, in this same year, two of my books have come out
and I'm extremely happy about it.





One I know is 'Young America'; what's the other one?



Phil









ML

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I haven't read from anyone an actual defense of what the SWP did (re: IT). It
was a purge, no question about it. My difference, really with Phil, is that yes,
I think it really could of been mitigated by hanging it up right up the Special
1973 convention (Chicago) after the IT lost the vote. At that point if they had
done that, dissolved, there could not of been a purge or, at least, one that
would not of split their own majority block. The IT made a huge tactical
blunder, IMO.

Now...in a party that was a lot more healthier, none of this would of been
necessary and it was the formulaic, mechanical application of the democratic
centralism, this culture of 'no discussion' after a convention that evolved that
was totally fucked up. I would be interested to see if Sheppard addresses this
or where, rather when, he points to the problem later.

I think Louis made a good point. I think Barry is having a problem on the
structural level of addressing this. Interestingly, he's close to the RSB in
Australia. I don't know if they maintain the highly centralized 'faux-Cannonist'
internal structure.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "generalstrike2000" <generalstrike2000@...>
wrote:
>
> Instead of berating people for not reading documents that we don't know even
know exist, wouldn't it expedite things if you shared that information, instead
of taking some goddamn elitist attitude, "well you should just know where to
look." Yes I know those aren't your exact words, but close enough. What in the
hell does writing books have to do with any of this? Christ, I already know your
answer? "you should know that"...that's what you were going to say, isn't it?
>
> I just don't know how to begin to thank you for your most helpful assistance.
>
> --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A. Lause" <MLause@> wrote:
> >
> > Ken,
> >
> > You write, "What evidence? The last two weeks is the first I've heard the
side of the story of former IT'ers. Yes you given you're account, but others
have given theirs. How was I or anyone else to know what happenned? Divine
intervention?"  I repeat for the um-teenth time that the reason the SWP itself
stated, published, printed in ink on paper why it expelled the IT was.
> >
> > So there's no reason to engage in hearsay...unless, of course, you want to. 
Nothing I can do about that other than point out the obvious.
> >
> > I've done nothing here but state the facts.  If that makes you feel
"browbeaten," I'll apologize and let you recover your frazzled nerves.
> >
> > While, I appreciate your concern, my own blood pressure is actually running
a bit low.  Of course, this is just what I know about my blood pressure based on
what the doctor says.  Maybe some people who don't know me and can't be bothered
might argue that I'm actually in danger of having a stroke.  They can even vote
on it. (Yawn.)
> >
> > But the fact is that, in this same year, two of my books have come out and
I'm extremely happy about it.  They're getting read and going to be read a great
deal more.  In the end, that sort of thing is vastly more important in shaping
my mood than how people I've never met on an email list might "feel" about the
facts of a 36-year old tendency fight.  Or whether or not someone on that list
can't be bothered to read a simple email or look up a document.
> >
> > But I'm sure that's just my eccentricity.
> >
> > ML
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Ken, I think somewhere in here are some tangled wires.



The SWP leadership said exactly why they were expelling the IT.  Because
they were a party.  The SWP leadership cabal even called them the "IT
Party", as if that were their actual name and/or that was what they
actually were.  It would have been surreal humour if it was not the
means to a purge in the real world.



Mark was not really suggesting you go and look up documents - we know
this is all news to you about the IT, and that's a fair enough thing for
you to say.  There's no reason why you should know about it before you
read it here.   But that wasn't Mark's point, from what I could see.



Mark's point was that he was simply repeating what the charges were.
It's  not like anyone is disagreeing and saying no, the charges were
different.  For instance, David Walters doesn't disagree that the
charges were as Mark indicates; he just disagrees with where some of the
responsibility for the purge should be placed.  He thinks the IT was
partly to blame, although less to blame than the central leadership.



You didn't really need to go look at documents.  It's not like Barnes or
Sheppard or whoever has suddenly changed the charges.  They charged the
IT with being a party.  Mark said, basically, "They charged the IT with
being a party."  It was, of course, a lie.  And BWS
(Barnes/Waters/Sheppard) knew it was a lie.



One of the people here, I think it was Tom Bias, has recalled working in
the printshop at the time and being told by Al Hansen that the IT were
being put out in a way that left an impression with Tom that it was all
bullshit.  Actually, Tom, if you're here, you might repeat what your
experience was at the time for Ken.



Anyway, Ken, I hope this helps clear things up.



Phil













From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of generalstrike2000
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 4:04 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





Instead of berating people for not reading documents that we don't know
even know exist, wouldn't it expedite things if you shared that
information, instead of taking some goddamn elitist attitude, "well you
should just know where to look." Yes I know those aren't your exact
words, but close enough. What in the hell does writing books have to do
with any of this? Christ, I already know your answer? "you should know
that"...that's what you were going to say, isn't it?

I just don't know how to begin to thank you for your most helpful
assistance.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Mark A. Lause" <MLause@...> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> You write, "What evidence? The last two weeks is the first I've heard
the side of the story of former IT'ers. Yes you given you're account,
but others have given theirs. How was I or anyone else to know what
happenned? Divine intervention?" I repeat for the um-teenth time that
the reason the SWP itself stated, published, printed in ink on paper why
it expelled the IT was.
>
> So there's no reason to engage in hearsay...unless, of course, you
want to. Nothing I can do about that other than point out the obvious.
>
> I've done nothing here but state the facts. If that makes you feel
"browbeaten," I'll apologize and let you recover your frazzled nerves.
>
> While, I appreciate your concern, my own blood pressure is actually
running a bit low. Of course, this is just what I know about my blood
pressure based on what the doctor says. Maybe some people who don't know
me and can't be bothered might argue that I'm actually in danger of
having a stroke. They can even vote on it. (Yawn.)
>
> But the fact is that, in this same year, two of my books have come out
and I'm extremely happy about it. They're getting read and going to be
read a great deal more. In the end, that sort of thing is vastly more
important in shaping my mood than how people I've never met on an email
list might "feel" about the facts of a 36-year old tendency fight. Or
whether or not someone on that list can't be bothered to read a simple
email or look up a document.
>
> But I'm sure that's just my eccentricity.
>
> ML
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Instead of berating people for not reading documents that we don't know even
know exist, wouldn't it expedite things if you shared that information, instead
of taking some goddamn elitist attitude, "well you should just know where to
look." Yes I know those aren't your exact words, but close enough. What in the
hell does writing books have to do with any of this? Christ, I already know your
answer? "you should know that"...that's what you were going to say, isn't it?

I just don't know how to begin to thank you for your most helpful assistance.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A. Lause" <MLause@...> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> You write, "What evidence? The last two weeks is the first I've heard the side
of the story of former IT'ers. Yes you given you're account, but others have
given theirs. How was I or anyone else to know what happenned? Divine
intervention?"  I repeat for the um-teenth time that the reason the SWP itself
stated, published, printed in ink on paper why it expelled the IT was.
>
> So there's no reason to engage in hearsay...unless, of course, you want to. 
Nothing I can do about that other than point out the obvious.
>
> I've done nothing here but state the facts.  If that makes you feel
"browbeaten," I'll apologize and let you recover your frazzled nerves.
>
> While, I appreciate your concern, my own blood pressure is actually running a
bit low.  Of course, this is just what I know about my blood pressure based on
what the doctor says.  Maybe some people who don't know me and can't be bothered
might argue that I'm actually in danger of having a stroke.  They can even vote
on it. (Yawn.)
>
> But the fact is that, in this same year, two of my books have come out and I'm
extremely happy about it.  They're getting read and going to be read a great
deal more.  In the end, that sort of thing is vastly more important in shaping
my mood than how people I've never met on an email list might "feel" about the
facts of a 36-year old tendency fight.  Or whether or not someone on that list
can't be bothered to read a simple email or look up a document.
>
> But I'm sure that's just my eccentricity.
>
> ML
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re replacing "error" and "blunder" with stronger terminology....I'll accept that
as a friendly amendment. Purge is more accurate.

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> "Error" or "blunder" sounds a bit too much like an honest mistake, Ken.
> They deliberately set out to get rid of the IT by whatever means
> necessary.  It was a (thoroughly undemocratic)purge.  Well, the words
> "thoroughly undemocratic" are probably superfluous because you can't
> really have a democratic purge.  It ratcheted things up another level in
> terms of the degeneration of the organisation.  No-one could be all that
> surprised about what occurred in 1983-84 after what had occurred in
> 1973-74, although I guess that section of the leadership which had been
> involved in the 1973-4 purges who ended up themselves being purged in
> 1983-4 would have been surprised.
>
>
>
> At least some of those people then looked back reflectively, like
> Breitman did, at the 1965 resolution and realised how wrong they had
> been to support it.  Sheppard, of course, hasn't even done that.
>
>
>
> He's a bit like those Soviet leaders who were prepared to say bad things
> happened on Stalin's watch and rehabilitate Bukharin and various others,
> but not Trotsky.
>
>
>
> And keep in mind that, politically, I supported the LTF and was
> completely anti the politics of the IMT (and thus the IT in the US).  So
> it's not like I was an IMTer, let alone an ITer.  But I was really
> uncomfortable about the US stuff when I read the documents at the time
> and, as I pointed out before, I was only a high school kid new to
> revolutionary politics when all that shit started.  There was simply *no
> justification* for the treatment meted out to the IT.   It was
> indicative of a serious sickness already manifesting in the US SWP.
>
>
>
> (Lastly, while anyone who has been on this ist for any length of time
> will be well aware, I'm not a Cannonist, but I'm still quite impressed
> with the leeway given to the 1939-40 Opposition to present their views,
> have space in publications of the organisation to present their views
> publicly and so on.  By the 1960s, never mind 1973-74, all of that seems
> to have gone.  Why Dave W would want to even partly defend that change,
> that degenerative process, I do not know.)
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of generalstrike2000
> Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 3:29 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I know you want to wrap this thing up, but just a few final points,
> since I'm the one that started this shit storm. After learning more due
> to the recent exchanges, I'll take the position that the expulsions, at
> least when they happened was an error on the part of the leadershp.Too
> much of an understatement? OK, blunder. Even if some, note the use of
> the term, some, acted a bit extreme, the membership would have benefited
> from a proper debate. I will stipulate that it was unjust to expel the
> entire tendency for the actions of a few. I feel that's a reasonable
> compromise on my part.
>
> The second thing , there is no, repeat no reason that I or anyone else
> should know what happenned "based on the evidence". What evidence? The
> last two weeks is the first I've heard the side of the story of former
> IT'ers. Yes you given you're account, but others have given theirs. How
> was I or anyone else to know what happenned? Divine intervention? Phil's
> intervention on what happened in the UK was useful. What would even be
> more useful would be an organized account of what happened, here and
> abroad. I'm not talking book length. Maybe just a few pages,
> incorporating both your and Phil's accounts.
>
> Thirdly, due to my experience with the SWP leadership, I don't respond
> to being browbeaten. Based on your similar experience I'm surprised that
> you would resort to such a measure. When faced with this type of attack
> I tend to dig in and resist, even if I'm wrong. I'm in the fourth
> quarter with goal to go in the life span, so don't even think about
> suggesting I should change.
>
> Lastly, if you don't stress down, you're going to have a stroke. I'm on
> daily blood pressure medication, and yet compared to you I'm the epitome
> of calmness! You remind me of that old vaudeville routine, "Niagara
> Falls", where at the mention of those two word, one of the two
> characters goes homicidal. Except with you it's "IT expulsions... slowly
> I turn" (as you advance toward the other person with your hands in
> stranulation mode at throat level), '"inch by inch, step by step......."
>
> P.S. Are you prepared to categorically deny that even one of the
> blinking lights in the cosmos isn't an etraterristerial vessel? Are you?
> Well? Ha, just as I thought!
>
> --- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Mark A. Lause" <MLause@> wrote:
> >
> > Part of what David says about the IT is correct, and reflects what
> people like myself who were in it said almost at the time it was
> happening.
> >
> > Much of it is utter crap and reflects some New Age faith that he can
> channel collective motives--or, at least, his ability to convince
> himself that he can do so.
> >
> > As to my alleged preoccupation with having been expelled, it's DW and
> not me who wants to dress up and go see the ROCKY HORROR FACTION FIGHT
> for the 237th time. I do remember what happened and won't let people get
> away with lying over it, but I am too old to waste time writing anything
> for people who refuse to read it for comprehension.
> >
> > The kind of ritual non-discussion that took place 36-37 years ago,
> where whatever you say or write gets ignored, was probably an utter
> waste of time and breath. At the time, I felt duty required it. Maybe it
> did. But it sure as hell doesn't require a repeat of the process today.
> The documents say what they say and the record's there for anyone who
> wants to see it.
> >
> > It's DW's privilege if he wants to discuss something with me without
> reading what I say and while ignoring what the SWP itself said at the
> time, but I'd rather discuss string theory with a junkie. At least, it'd
> be a new experience for me.
> >
> > Finally, I am not someone who engages in reenacting the battle of
> Gettysburg, which was a vital turning point in history, so I have no
> interest in reenacting the 1973-74 tendency fight in the SWP--or any
> tendency fight in the SWP. There are more important things to do. Write
> a book. Clean a cat box. Watch a mindless TV program...if you've not
> seen it before.
> >
> > There are books to read...and write. Cat boxes to clean. Mindless TV
> to watch...just so long as you're not watching repeats of the same thing
> .
> >
> > ML
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ken,

You write, "What evidence? The last two weeks is the first I've heard the side
of the story of former IT'ers. Yes you given you're account, but others have
given theirs. How was I or anyone else to know what happenned? Divine
intervention?"  I repeat for the um-teenth time that the reason the SWP itself
stated, published, printed in ink on paper why it expelled the IT was.

So there's no reason to engage in hearsay...unless, of course, you want to. 
Nothing I can do about that other than point out the obvious.

I've done nothing here but state the facts.  If that makes you feel
"browbeaten," I'll apologize and let you recover your frazzled nerves.

While, I appreciate your concern, my own blood pressure is actually running a
bit low.  Of course, this is just what I know about my blood pressure based on
what the doctor says.  Maybe some people who don't know me and can't be bothered
might argue that I'm actually in danger of having a stroke.  They can even vote
on it. (Yawn.)

But the fact is that, in this same year, two of my books have come out and I'm
extremely happy about it.  They're getting read and going to be read a great
deal more.  In the end, that sort of thing is vastly more important in shaping
my mood than how people I've never met on an email list might "feel" about the
facts of a 36-year old tendency fight.  Or whether or not someone on that list
can't be bothered to read a simple email or look up a document.

But I'm sure that's just my eccentricity.

ML


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've seen it. It's very valuable. Actual hand written letters by Trotsky in
broken English, letters by Cannon to people living in occupied Europe, etc etc.

The whole thing is under copyright by the SWP and cannot for the most part be
put on line. Hoover does 'own' it in that they paid money to house it and own
the phycisal material, but the content, so to speak is under the thumb of the
Small Shopkeepers Party.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "illtownfiend" <illtownfiend@...> wrote:
>
> Most of you on this list probably already know about this and if its already
been a topic please forgive me. I was online looking up old collections of
writings and photos and came across the SWP collection at the Hoover Institute.
The SWP has a register/archive with the Hoover institute and its listed on the
Online Archive of California(hope I got the name right) and you can contact the
hoover people for access to the collection which includes stuff from 1922-1992.
But nothing is available online for public consumption. My question is has
anyone actually seen the stuff in the boxes available at the Hoover Institute?
Secondly if so, did you  view anything in the collection that cant be bought
online at the Pathfinder website, in  a Pathfinder bookstore, or cant be found
second hand, thats worth noting?
>
> Jim B.
>
> E.O., N.J.
>
> ps., If ur not going to make such a collection available online, why even
bother.
>

"Error" or "blunder" sounds a bit too much like an honest mistake, Ken.
They deliberately set out to get rid of the IT by whatever means
necessary.  It was a (thoroughly undemocratic)purge.  Well, the words
"thoroughly undemocratic" are probably superfluous because you can't
really have a democratic purge.  It ratcheted things up another level in
terms of the degeneration of the organisation.  No-one could be all that
surprised about what occurred in 1983-84 after what had occurred in
1973-74, although I guess that section of the leadership which had been
involved in the 1973-4 purges who ended up themselves being purged in
1983-4 would have been surprised.



At least some of those people then looked back reflectively, like
Breitman did, at the 1965 resolution and realised how wrong they had
been to support it.  Sheppard, of course, hasn't even done that.



He's a bit like those Soviet leaders who were prepared to say bad things
happened on Stalin's watch and rehabilitate Bukharin and various others,
but not Trotsky.



And keep in mind that, politically, I supported the LTF and was
completely anti the politics of the IMT (and thus the IT in the US).  So
it's not like I was an IMTer, let alone an ITer.  But I was really
uncomfortable about the US stuff when I read the documents at the time
and, as I pointed out before, I was only a high school kid new to
revolutionary politics when all that shit started.  There was simply *no
justification* for the treatment meted out to the IT.   It was
indicative of a serious sickness already manifesting in the US SWP.



(Lastly, while anyone who has been on this ist for any length of time
will be well aware, I'm not a Cannonist, but I'm still quite impressed
with the leeway given to the 1939-40 Opposition to present their views,
have space in publications of the organisation to present their views
publicly and so on.  By the 1960s, never mind 1973-74, all of that seems
to have gone.  Why Dave W would want to even partly defend that change,
that degenerative process, I do not know.)



Phil



From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of generalstrike2000
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 3:29 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





Mark,

I know you want to wrap this thing up, but just a few final points,
since I'm the one that started this shit storm. After learning more due
to the recent exchanges, I'll take the position that the expulsions, at
least when they happened was an error on the part of the leadershp.Too
much of an understatement? OK, blunder. Even if some, note the use of
the term, some, acted a bit extreme, the membership would have benefited
from a proper debate. I will stipulate that it was unjust to expel the
entire tendency for the actions of a few. I feel that's a reasonable
compromise on my part.

The second thing , there is no, repeat no reason that I or anyone else
should know what happenned "based on the evidence". What evidence? The
last two weeks is the first I've heard the side of the story of former
IT'ers. Yes you given you're account, but others have given theirs. How
was I or anyone else to know what happenned? Divine intervention? Phil's
intervention on what happened in the UK was useful. What would even be
more useful would be an organized account of what happened, here and
abroad. I'm not talking book length. Maybe just a few pages,
incorporating both your and Phil's accounts.

Thirdly, due to my experience with the SWP leadership, I don't respond
to being browbeaten. Based on your similar experience I'm surprised that
you would resort to such a measure. When faced with this type of attack
I tend to dig in and resist, even if I'm wrong. I'm in the fourth
quarter with goal to go in the life span, so don't even think about
suggesting I should change.

Lastly, if you don't stress down, you're going to have a stroke. I'm on
daily blood pressure medication, and yet compared to you I'm the epitome
of calmness! You remind me of that old vaudeville routine, "Niagara
Falls", where at the mention of those two word, one of the two
characters goes homicidal. Except with you it's "IT expulsions... slowly
I turn" (as you advance toward the other person with your hands in
stranulation mode at throat level), '"inch by inch, step by step......."

P.S. Are you prepared to categorically deny that even one of the
blinking lights in the cosmos isn't an etraterristerial vessel? Are you?
Well? Ha, just as I thought!

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Mark A. Lause" <MLause@...> wrote:
>
> Part of what David says about the IT is correct, and reflects what
people like myself who were in it said almost at the time it was
happening.
>
> Much of it is utter crap and reflects some New Age faith that he can
channel collective motives--or, at least, his ability to convince
himself that he can do so.
>
> As to my alleged preoccupation with having been expelled, it's DW and
not me who wants to dress up and go see the ROCKY HORROR FACTION FIGHT
for the 237th time. I do remember what happened and won't let people get
away with lying over it, but I am too old to waste time writing anything
for people who refuse to read it for comprehension.
>
> The kind of ritual non-discussion that took place 36-37 years ago,
where whatever you say or write gets ignored, was probably an utter
waste of time and breath. At the time, I felt duty required it. Maybe it
did. But it sure as hell doesn't require a repeat of the process today.
The documents say what they say and the record's there for anyone who
wants to see it.
>
> It's DW's privilege if he wants to discuss something with me without
reading what I say and while ignoring what the SWP itself said at the
time, but I'd rather discuss string theory with a junkie. At least, it'd
be a new experience for me.
>
> Finally, I am not someone who engages in reenacting the battle of
Gettysburg, which was a vital turning point in history, so I have no
interest in reenacting the 1973-74 tendency fight in the SWP--or any
tendency fight in the SWP. There are more important things to do. Write
a book. Clean a cat box. Watch a mindless TV program...if you've not
seen it before.
>
> There are books to read...and write. Cat boxes to clean. Mindless TV
to watch...just so long as you're not watching repeats of the same thing
.
>
> ML
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark,

I know you want to wrap this thing up, but just a few final points, since I'm
the one that started this shit storm. After learning more due to the recent
exchanges, I'll take the position that the expulsions, at least when they
happened was an error on the part of the leadershp.Too much of an
understatement? OK, blunder. Even if some, note the use of the term, some, acted
a bit extreme, the membership would have benefited from a proper debate. I will
stipulate that it was unjust to expel the entire tendency for the actions of a
few. I feel that's a reasonable compromise on my part.

The second thing , there is no, repeat no reason that I or anyone else should
know what happenned "based on the evidence". What evidence? The last two weeks
is the first I've heard the side of the story of former IT'ers. Yes you given
you're account, but others have given theirs. How was I or anyone else to know
what happenned? Divine intervention? Phil's intervention on what happened in the
UK was useful. What would even be more useful would be an organized account of
what happened, here and abroad. I'm not talking book length. Maybe just a few
pages, incorporating both your and Phil's accounts.

Thirdly, due to my experience with the SWP leadership, I don't respond to being
browbeaten. Based on your similar experience I'm surprised that you would resort
to such a measure. When faced with this type of attack I tend to dig in and
resist, even if I'm wrong. I'm in the fourth quarter with goal to go in the life
span, so don't even think about suggesting I should change.

Lastly, if you don't stress down, you're going to have a stroke. I'm on daily
blood pressure medication, and yet compared to you I'm the epitome of calmness!
You remind me of that old vaudeville routine, "Niagara Falls", where at the
mention of those two word, one of the two characters goes homicidal. Except with
you it's "IT expulsions... slowly I turn" (as you advance toward the other
person with your hands in stranulation mode at throat level), '"inch by inch,
step by step......."

P.S. Are you prepared to categorically deny that even one of the blinking lights
in the cosmos isn't an etraterristerial vessel? Are you? Well? Ha, just as I
thought!

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A. Lause" <MLause@...> wrote:
>
> Part of what David says about the IT is correct, and reflects what people like
myself who were in it said almost at the time it was happening.
>
> Much of it is utter crap and reflects some New Age faith that he can channel
collective motives--or, at least, his ability to convince himself that he can do
so.
>
> As to my alleged preoccupation with having been expelled, it's DW and not me
who wants to dress up and go see the ROCKY HORROR FACTION FIGHT for the 237th
time.  I do remember what happened and won't let people get away with lying over
it, but I am too old to waste time writing anything for people who refuse to
read it for comprehension.
>
> The kind of ritual non-discussion that took place 36-37 years ago, where
whatever you say or write gets ignored, was probably an utter waste of time and
breath.  At the time, I felt duty required it.  Maybe it did.  But it sure as
hell doesn't require a repeat of the process today.  The documents say what they
say and the record's there for anyone who wants to see it.
>
> It's DW's privilege if he wants to discuss something with me without reading
what I say and while ignoring what the SWP itself said at the time, but I'd
rather discuss string theory with a junkie.  At least, it'd be a new experience
for me.
>
> Finally, I am not someone who engages in reenacting the battle of Gettysburg,
which was a vital turning point in history, so I have no interest in reenacting
the 1973-74 tendency fight in the SWP--or any tendency fight in the SWP.  There
are more important things to do.  Write a book.  Clean a cat box.  Watch a
mindless TV program...if you've not seen it before.
>
> There are books to read...and write.  Cat boxes to clean.  Mindless TV to
watch...just so long as you're not watching repeats of the same thing .
>
> ML
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Part of what David says about the IT is correct, and reflects what people like
myself who were in it said almost at the time it was happening.

Much of it is utter crap and reflects some New Age faith that he can channel
collective motives--or, at least, his ability to convince himself that he can do
so.

As to my alleged preoccupation with having been expelled, it's DW and not me who
wants to dress up and go see the ROCKY HORROR FACTION FIGHT for the 237th time. 
I do remember what happened and won't let people get away with lying over it,
but I am too old to waste time writing anything for people who refuse to read it
for comprehension.

The kind of ritual non-discussion that took place 36-37 years ago, where
whatever you say or write gets ignored, was probably an utter waste of time and
breath.  At the time, I felt duty required it.  Maybe it did.  But it sure as
hell doesn't require a repeat of the process today.  The documents say what they
say and the record's there for anyone who wants to see it.

It's DW's privilege if he wants to discuss something with me without reading
what I say and while ignoring what the SWP itself said at the time, but I'd
rather discuss string theory with a junkie.  At least, it'd be a new experience
for me.

Finally, I am not someone who engages in reenacting the battle of Gettysburg,
which was a vital turning point in history, so I have no interest in reenacting
the 1973-74 tendency fight in the SWP--or any tendency fight in the SWP.  There
are more important things to do.  Write a book.  Clean a cat box.  Watch a
mindless TV program...if you've not seen it before.

There are books to read...and write.  Cat boxes to clean.  Mindless TV to
watch...just so long as you're not watching repeats of the same thing .

ML


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

assistant.secretary@... wrote:
>
>
> Re: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
> Maybe this is dumb?
> When does volume 2 appear?

I've heard that is going very slow. There are 2 factors. The death of
Caroline Lund hit Barry quite hard. Also, he has trouble coming to terms
with the deeper structural problems of the SWP that made the implosion
possible.

Who knows?



When Barry Sheppard gets round to finishing it, I guess.



Phil







From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of assistant.secretary@...
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 2:06 p.m.
To: SWP
Subject: Re: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





Re: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2

Maybe this is dumb?
When does volume 2 appear?

M
------------------




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2

Maybe this is dumb?
When does volume 2 appear?

M
------------------

David wrote:

>It was highly unfortunate because it *ended* any discussion of politics
about what the USFI was doing (and probably this was clearly the
intention of the SWP leadership, including Sheppard). So much, and in MY
experience, EVERYTHING noted about the ITers was true, and not a lie,
Phil.





Just to clear things up.  My point was that the SWP laws lying, not you.





>What I read from Mark is that he can't get over it and thus the
expulsion of the IT was an inevitable. I don't think so. I think had the
IT acted in a far more disciplined manner as a faction they would of
never been able to give the SWP an excuse, even the poor one in terms of
"label" (organization in organization, 'their own party', etc).



Come on Dave.  Can you really believe that they wouldn't have gotten
expelled if they had somehow behaved in a more disciplined way?  The
only way they wouldn't have got expelled was if they had've done
virtually nothing to rock the boat at all.   In other words, if they
hadn't have formed a tendency and hadn't have argued their corner.
Their mere existence was a provocation and the leadership were intent on
expelling them for that reason.  And a mere ten years later, when the
next minority arose, one whose loyalty was completely beyond even having
aspersions cast on it, they were met with the postponement of the
convention and kicked out in the interim.  It didn't matter what they
did, other than total prostration, they were going to get their asses
kicked out of there.








>The IT was 'treated terribly' Phil...they were fucking expelled and
THAT was wrong. But you are using deflection to argue that IT wasn't
that 'bad' because the 'real bad guys' was their own Faction. Bullshit.
The IT did what it had to in order to get expelled because the KNEW what
would happen if they were caught doing it. They were and that's the
problem. You and Mark are acting if the are victimless. Sorry...I was
there. I was on the receiving end of the IT's dual recruitment
*strategy*. I don't even care, now, that this was the case, but they
knew the score, *then*. It was "hey, don't tell anyone about this
meeting we'll get disciplined" kind of shit.

>Babes in the woods they were not, not matter how bad Barnes/Sheppard
were.

This is a bit like a scenario where a serial killer attacks someone and
the someone knees the serial killer in the balls and then the lawyer for
the serial killer claims in court the victim is not blameless  either or
that the victim had 'goaded' the serial killer.  The SWP had already
tightened the screws on internal democracy, using the RT experience to
do that in a way that Cannon himself seemed not to agree with.  No
opposition was going to be tolerated later on, especially people who
thought that maybe the SWP should follow lines democratically decided on
by the International.  (That, of course, was also always part of the
problem.  The SWP had lines for revolutions all over the place but if
anyone suggested they implement decisions made by the FI that the SWP
leadership didn't like, they'd tell the FI to bugger off.)



My old mate Fred Ferguson was a supporter of Gregorich and Passen.  He
told me that the SWP did everything but expel them; political life was
made impossible for them, they pretty much couldn't do party work, so
they started studying 'Capital' and soon they left.  No doubt the
accusation against them would be that they 'boycotted' the party.   I
believed Fred because he was a very straight-up working class guy and
also because his story gels with plenty of other experiences.  The
Kirk-Kaye group weren't expelled either, for instance, but life had been
made so difficult for them too that they either had to crawl on their
bellies and eat shit or leave.



The group I'm part of has been in existence in its current form for
seven years.  We've expelled one person - and it was for crossing a
class line (she was elected as president of a students association and
started acting like a boss, trying to take conditions off the students
association employees, collaborating with the Returned Servicemen's
Association etc etc; and even in her case she was first suspended, had
the chance to stop, but carried on and was then expelled.  The
suspension and expulsion was by the branch she was part of.  No national
body in our organisation has any power to suspend or expel anyone.)



Phil






This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Most of you on this list probably already know about this and if its already
been a topic please forgive me. I was online looking up old collections of
writings and photos and came across the SWP collection at the Hoover Institute.
The SWP has a register/archive with the Hoover institute and its listed on the
Online Archive of California(hope I got the name right) and you can contact the
hoover people for access to the collection which includes stuff from 1922-1992.
But nothing is available online for public consumption. My question is has
anyone actually seen the stuff in the boxes available at the Hoover Institute?
Secondly if so, did you  view anything in the collection that cant be bought
online at the Pathfinder website, in  a Pathfinder bookstore, or cant be found
second hand, thats worth noting?

Jim B.

E.O., N.J.

ps., If ur not going to make such a collection available online, why even
bother.

Lots of people are listed there.  Most of them have no relation to the
outfit at all.



But now that you mention it, I have seen Lee Walkington's name a few
times in the Militant.  He may well be a non-active sympathiser.



One of the great ironies about the Australian Barnesites, of course, is
that Ron Poulsen and Lee Walkington and Lynda Boland were IMT leaders in
Oz.  Basically the only (Australians) who stayed with Barnes were people
who came from the IMT and had led the original IMT supporting group in
Oz.  And, of course, in Britain, most of the key older CL people are
former IMTers and virulent opponents of the US SWP.



(Actually, that reminds me of some more stuff about Barry Sheppard but
I'll give him a break for a while.)



Phil







From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ambrose Andrews
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 1:28 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [swp_usa] Re: Note to John Percy





2009/12/17 Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...
<mailto:philip.ferguson%40canterbury.ac.nz> >:

> But as far as I know there is only one person from the Aussie SWP
still left in the CL in Australia (Ron Poulsen).  Keig, Deutschmann,
Snookal and the others have all long gone.

Lee Walkington was listed in "Endorsers of the Militant Fighting Fund"
in 2006.

but then, So was Sue Bradford.

-AA.

--
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambrose@... <mailto:ambrose%40vrvl.net>
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambrose@... <mailto:ambrose%40jabber.fsfe.org>
skype:znalo7
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8 3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Kirk/Kaye document is very praising of Murry Weiss and Myra Tanner
Weiss.  Kirk/Kaye also seem to suggest that they got kinda screwed over
by Dobbs/Kerry and that Cannon was very supportive of Murry and Myra,
and especially in backing Myra being vice-presidential candidate when
Dobbs/Kerry weren't so keen.



Phil







From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Philip Ferguson
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 1:26 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





An interesting document is the Kirk-Kaye one on the nature of the
Dobbs/Kerry leadership. They argue it was more radical Laborite than
Bolshevik - for instance, marked by economism.

Phil

From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
Of David
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 1:17 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2

I can go along with that. I think part of this key to this, always
looking for answers, etc was the post-Cockranite split period (which
firmed up Dobbs leadership over others) into the early mentoring of
Barnes period. We don't have the documents up on this but seems to go to
the binary nature of the SWP internal personality. The eventually
pushing of Milt Alvin off the PC was sort of a codification of this.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> Ken, no-one has said Cannon=Barnes. I doubt anyone here believes any
> such thing.
>
>
>
> Cannon's conception of a revolutionary party was wrong, but Cannon was
> also a courageous working class fighter. Barnes is just an absurd
> office general turned tinpot despot.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of generalstrike2000
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:38 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
>
>
> > I don't feel that Sheppard has an obligation to agree with the
> propositon that Cannon=Barnes. I sure as hell don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the
message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

2009/12/17 Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...>:

> But as far as I know there is only one person from the Aussie SWP still left
in the CL in Australia (Ron Poulsen).  Keig, Deutschmann, Snookal and the others
have all long gone.

Lee Walkington was listed in "Endorsers of the Militant Fighting Fund" in 2006.

but then, So was Sue Bradford.

   -AA.


--
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambrose@...
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambrose@...
skype:znalo7
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1

An interesting document is the Kirk-Kaye one on the nature of the
Dobbs/Kerry leadership.  They argue it was more radical Laborite than
Bolshevik - for instance, marked by economism.



Phil



From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of David
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 1:17 p.m.
To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2





I can go along with that. I think part of this key to this, always
looking for answers, etc was the post-Cockranite split period (which
firmed up Dobbs leadership over others) into the early mentoring of
Barnes period. We don't have the documents up on this but seems to go to
the binary nature of the SWP internal personality. The eventually
pushing of Milt Alvin off the PC was sort of a codification of this.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ,
Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> Ken, no-one has said Cannon=Barnes. I doubt anyone here believes any
> such thing.
>
>
>
> Cannon's conception of a revolutionary party was wrong, but Cannon was
> also a courageous working class fighter. Barnes is just an absurd
> office general turned tinpot despot.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of generalstrike2000
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:38 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com <mailto:swp_usa%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
>
>
> > I don't feel that Sheppard has an obligation to agree with the
> propositon that Cannon=Barnes. I sure as hell don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the
message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.

Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
information.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can go along with that. I think part of this key to this, always looking for
answers, etc was the post-Cockranite split period (which firmed up Dobbs
leadership over others) into the early mentoring of Barnes period. We don't have
the documents up on this but seems to go to the binary nature of the SWP
internal personality. The eventually pushing of Milt Alvin off the PC was sort
of a codification of this.

David

--- In swp_usa@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ferguson <philip.ferguson@...> wrote:
>
> Ken, no-one has said Cannon=Barnes.  I doubt anyone here believes any
> such thing.
>
>
>
> Cannon's conception of a revolutionary party was wrong, but Cannon was
> also a courageous working class fighter.  Barnes is just an absurd
> office general turned tinpot despot.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:swp_usa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of generalstrike2000
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 6:38 p.m.
> To: swp_usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [swp_usa] Re: The Party, Volume 2
>
>
>
>  > I don't feel that Sheppard has an obligation to agree with the
> propositon that Cannon=Barnes. I sure as hell don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
> not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
> guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and any attachments.
>
> Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more
> information.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>