[Marxism] Loren Goldner on the crisis

[Aaron Aarons]

In response to:
>Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:25:05 -0600
>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>

CC: << I myself prefer to describe Ultra-Leftism (or Left Opportunism) as any political practice that is grounded in an overestimation of the strength of capital, an underestimation of the strength of the working class. >>

AA: Huh? If you want to justify equating the terms "Ultra-Leftism" and "Left Opportunism", you need better arguments than a pair of parentheses. Also, to describe Ultra-Leftism as you do, the burden is on you to show that those you allege to be "Ultra-Left" in any particular case have a "political practice that is grounded in an overestimation of the strength of capital, an underestimation of the strength of the working class."

CC: << It is quite apt to take organizational and/or cultural forms. One 'classical' form is the belief that any political development of individuals that takes place 'outside' the careful guidance of a vanguard party will inevitably be right opportunist (reformist). >>

AA: So you're arguing that only believers in the centrality of a vanguard party can be "Ultra-Left"? At least it's a relief to know that I can't be called "Ultra-Left(tm)", although I presume that others will still call me ultra-left!

CC: << That, I have always assumed, was what was behind the "Single Issue" line of the SWP in the anti-war effort, which remains for me the "classical" form of ultra-leftism. >>

AA: As one who was involved in the anti-war movement in those days, I never heard anybody, except perhaps the CP milieu and other reformists whose demand was for negotiations to end the war, refer to the SWP line as "ultra-left"! Virtually every group that claimed to be revolutionary regarded the SWPs line as right-opportunist.

CC: << The assumption was that in a ulti-issue movement a wide variety of political perspectives would develop outside the 'reach' of the party, and because of the enormous power of capitalist ideology all those developments would be forms of petty-bourgeois opportunism. On the other hand, a single-issue movement would not give room for such independent political thought, and all development beyond the single issue would tak placee under the careful guidance of the One True Party. >>

AA: I'm curious if there is any evidence for this, perhaps in SWP internal bulletins? If so, it would be sectarianism, not "ultra-leftism", although it might be Ultra-Leftism(tm).