What do you mean by that?
I think the following is a good response to that this is from Real History of The Militant something you outta read some time even though Taffee's wrong on many things his criticisms of you guys seem to be dead on. You can view the entire document here.
http://www.marxist.net/grantreply/reply2frame.htm?ch1.htmImportant political differences occurred over the world financial crisis in 1987. As soon as the 1987 share crash took place, Grant was predicting a world economic slump, "within six months", along the lines of 1929-32. His thinking was unfortunately, reflected in the pages of Militant. In its initial comments on these developments it stated: "A major slump in production and trade is assured, perhaps even before the summer of 1988". His co-thinker, Michael Roberts, stated that the October crash "is a barometer predicting the impending storm that will exceed anything experienced by capitalism in the post-war period, possibly matching the great slump of the 1930s". This approach was vigorously opposed by me and Lynn Walsh in the British Executive and National Committees, and by me, Tony Saunois and Bob Labi in the International Secretariat of the CWI. As usual, Woods slavishly supported Grant. It was not possible to have a dialogue with Grant on this issue. Instead, there were bitter denunciations of Bob Labi, for instance, for daring to question this analysis, earning Bob the reprimand from Grant that "he did not understand the ABC of Marxism". We argued that the huge reserves of Japan and West Germany could allow the bourgeois, at the cost of storing up difficulties for later, to temporarily bale out the economy and thereby world capitalism. Grant’s approach would completely disorientate our members in Britain and internationally. If his astronomical, not to say astrological, prediction did not come to pass it would set in a mood of disappointment, if not dejection, amongst our members.. It was necessary to approach this issue in a balanced way, something foreign to Grant, Woods and Sewell. World capitalism still possessed huge layers of fat, which it could eat into, in order to stave off an immediate crisis. We argued that short-term measures could be taken, which would only have the effect of piling up problems and aggravating the crisis at a later stage. Contrary to the analysis of Grant, this is exactly what happened. A revival of world capitalism took place in the aftermath of the October 1987 crisis. Indeed, the huge injection of credit fuelled a growth of world capitalism at a greater rate than the period prior to the crash. This ended with the recession of the early 1990s. But timing in politics and, it should be added, in the art of political economy, is important. Grant had made a habit of criticising Gerry Healy – which he repeats in his book – for continually predicting a new 1929 over a period of decades, but he made the same ‘catastrophist’ error in 1987. No doubt, if a new 1929-type crisis should occur, he will declare he was right all along! Even a permanently stopped clock is right twice a day. This approach allows the capitalist ideologists a field day in picturing the Marxists as incapable of analysing real processes in a balanced fashion.
Haha man this is not serious. Do yopu think a small group can influence Labour at this point?
Don't be silly i never said they could i said their not a force now because of the failures in that past and a leadership that stumbles through new tactics like no tomorrow. I enjoy how this is the 2nd time you take my statement out of context and attach words to it that i did not say. This seems to be a common fallacy in your tendencies logic.
Come with some points instead of this mindless blabber. If you don't have a point then drop it. We have been firm on our positions the last 10 years. It seems you don't have a point though, that's probably why you resort to this to put out a smokescreen covering up that you are clueless.
Its funny how you quickly resort to insults in place of politics.
Because if you remembered them you wouldn't be so clueless. It seems you think we could have build a massparty. Sorry mate but that's not how it works.
I never said you could build a mass party again your taking my words out of context and mis representing them. I hope your interpretation of posts on this thread is not like your interpretation of Marxism.
But we have lot's of youth. But unlike you we don't call it a tendency. And yes the young people are connected with the work in the unions and LP. But still that doesn't build a mass party in 5 years as you seem to think.
I seriously doubt that you just recently stumbled onto how to sorta approach the Youth Question before the past couple of years you were stumbling around in the dark on the question sorta like a group of Anarchists with no tactic or reall analysis.
Nope im just pointing out the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. Quite embarresing for "future leaders of the American revolution as well as the world revolution."
Sure you are :confused:
Stop being so pathetic.
Right after you
Ohh you mean like the counter on your site?
its been growing ;)
You need to focus on both things. Theory and practice, you have lleft out the theory. It's funny looking at how you have taken our position on bolivia. Just a shame you couldn't write aproper article on it with a througough analysis.
We got our theory down thanks very much and yes a balance must be maintainned but i fail to see how your U.S. Section has that balance.
They must be pretty quit then. But considering your normal stance on the truth I won't take your word for it.
Look whose talking your interpretation of the split flip flops whenever its convenient for you. Others on the left that we have spoken to even noted as well how you don't have any clear story or line on the split just some mindless rantings and personal attacks on our leadership.
Once again mindless blabber not explaining anything. You oibviously copuldn't answer my point. Btw the new course is a hilarious document. It makes a "tendency" out of something you yourself claim to be only a step.
Ok first of all i find it odd how you constantly try to push that appendix we released out of the New Course as the actual book itself. The actual 1st Edition was quite a long document addressing over 2 and a half years worth of History. Since this seems to escape you let me quote a thing or 2 out of the books.
Once I was added to The National Committee, I began to propose ideas to make the organization better. Comrade Peterson discounted my ideas. Peterson had always considered my ideas and methods to be those associated with a “loose cannon.” It was no surprise that he would always reject them outright without any honest consideration what so ever. At times he liked to give the illusion that he was giving them honest consideration but the fact was that he was actually running them by Alan Woods most of the time. After we left WIL we did find out that the bulk of the time it was actually Alan Woods who was giving comrade Peterson his constant marching orders. Comrade Peterson like a mindless drone would usually carry out the bureaucratic will of the international.
Allot of the time because of this lack of explanation of anything how to get from point A to point B we ended up having to make things up ourselves. In doing this we were quite successful however when ever we seemed to rely on comrade Peterson for direction we ended up having set backs to our work. Campus work it seems was a topic Peterson and Alan Woods were quite alien too. This of course was most likely due to their lack of understanding of Lenin. Mainly they seemed to be missing the points Lenin makes in “Tasks of The Youth Leagues” and also some of the points Lenin makes in “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”. This constant tactical bankruptcy constantly shined through at every turn at some point later on we would decide to pretty much just act of our own accord. Still I did rely on comrade Fisher for advice at this time and all the way until his departure comrade Fisher was the most helpful in terms of tactical guidance. It was because of comrade Fishers constant reminders of education over recruitment that we would orient ourselves more and more over time in this direction. By this point it was becoming clear that comrade Peterson was completely inept as a leader and that he was merely a mindless drone.
Both some excellent excerpts from The New Course For Trotskyism by Sidney Martinez btw the 2nd Edition is coming out so don't forget to get your copy ;)
Logged
