[Marxism] Muslim notables?

[Ambrose Andrews]

On 07/11/2007, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:

> > This is what we do with
> > people like the excellent Tony Benn in the StWC.  He is someone who would
> > never deny being a reformist, and I don't think anyone in the SWP has
> > anything but respect for the man.  People like Benn have been working with
> > us for years and have never experienced any difficulty in doing so.  In
> > fact, as the document makes clear, we have a long tradition of working with
> > reformists in, for example, the ANL.  We have always preferred a smart
> > reformist to a dumb sectarian, and we will continue to argue for such a
> > strategy.
>
> Sigh. You just don't get it. Reformist is a term of abuse. If Benn uses
> it to describe himself, that doesn't legitimize it. There seems to be a
> genuine confusion in your movement about the term, so it is entirely
> possible that you don't grasp my point. For example, Duncan Hallas wrote
> an article titled "Do We Support Reformist Demands?" in 1973. This is
> totally alien to how Lenin or Trotsky dealt with the matter of
> *democratic reforms*.

The *Title* of the paper is totally inconsistent with Lenin and
Trotsky's approach?

(I would have thought the answer to the question would be more important)

Am i mistaken or are you using the assummption that 'reformist' is a
term of abuse to illustrate or prove your assertion that 'reformist'
is (under all circumstances, from all sources, and in all contexts) a
term of abuse?

  -AA.

-- 
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambrose at vrvl.net
home:+61_262305976
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambrose at jabber.fsfe.org
sip:znalo at ekiga.net
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1