Have avoided it so far but perhaps I might. Some errors in the Left Comm position that I could comment on.
You fancy editing at MarxistPedia? http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/L...ternal_debates
I'm sure there are more good ones. Skeptics type societies sometimes do good ones.
Yeah, I thought so.
Good podcasts links hey!
Well I think branches of the Labour party in Liverpool under control of the Militant Tendency were flouting Labour party agreed policy in the 1980s. Hence why Peter Kilfoyle suspended Liverpool District Labour party. Difficult for me to think of an ICC analogy but if the ICC agreed to campaign on the slogan 'the rate of profit is falling' and a section campaigned on the slogan 'the rate is profit is rising' then that would be flouting policy. If a member was arguing it or writing it I don't think that would be a problem except for a cadre party.
Sorry, not sure what you're actually suggesting here. What is your dividing line between 'in opposition' and 'flout policy'? As I've said, in the case of the ICC there are individuals who are not expected to defend Luxemburg's economic theories because they don't accept them. There are sections which have called for the repudiation of sections of the ICC's body of theory but they haven't been dissolved. Are these 'oppositions', or are they 'flouting policy'?
can't remember if you answered this point, but most current large parties in the west don't follow the model that branches are dissolved if they are inactive or in opposition only if they actively flout policy. These features are peculiar to cadre parties, a model socialists ought to drop in order to seriously grow.
Thanks, I'll take a look at that. I think I disagree with you that the name of the organisation is a 'secodary matter'. If the majority wanted to call it 'The Socialist Party (of Great Britain)' and the minority wanted to call it 'The Flan-Flingers' and Pig-Picklers' International of Trumped-up Codswallop' I think the majority would be quite right to expel the minority, both by closing branches and expelling individuals. If one joins a group, one should stick by its rules. Sure, argue that rules should be changed, but accept that sometimes you're going to lose the argument. I think that if it's so important that you refuse to follow agreed policy, you should leave, simple as.
Incidentally if you want to read more about the 1906 Islington branch split you can in the World Socialism group particularly this topic http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=7087
