Tahir wrote:
> In a nutshell it seems to me to be a too facile and
> immediate formula for surrendering the autonomy and integrity of the
> individual. Socialism is something higher, not lower, than liberal individualism.
I do agree with this and despite my somewhat facile earlier remarks to Rob, I think
we have to start from the proposition that the concept of the Party, of its
historical role and its locus at the heart of a psychodrama which connects the
individual to the whole, is incredibly problematic, faught with difficulty and
danger, and also incredibly central: it is just THE issue of issues for any kind of
political project which aims at the social autonomy of the working class in and thru
the collapse of the ancien regime.
However we must not be afarid to go on. Lou Proyect and I and many others have been
batting this thing back and forth for years, and will continue no doubt.
> I also think that the "party" is more usefully thought of as an
> international party rather than one for each nation.
Couldn't agree more and Stan and I have been talking offlist about exactly this, and
about what it means IN PRACTICE.
I am glad you are raisng questions of Bordigism, Council Communism, Mattick etc.
This too is tremendously important. I enjoin us all when using names which may be
unfamiliar to other Listers, to add a few details, biography etc, so that we are all
singing off the same hymn-sheet more or less. There are now 250 members of the
CrashList, about half of whom, as far as I can see, were born after 1970. They are
the people, not those of my generation, who will do whatever is to be done.
>The replacement of Bordiga by Gramsci at the
> head of the Italian party is a question which also deserves a second
> look, together with the whole question of revolutionary abstention.
Again, this is surely so, surely another important starting point.
mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
