Steiner and Brenner's polemic against the Northist SEP

Hello,

I know I am new to this group, so let me start by expressing my gratitude for being allowed in.

That having been said, I was wondering if we could have a discussion about the polemics that took place between the Socialist Equality Party and Trotskyists Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner; perhaps some general comments are in order at first before building it up. The polemics are not simply aimed at David North, of course, but the problems that Marxism faces in numerous areas, including (but not limited to) theory, philosophy, psychology, and the building of the revolutionary party itself. Here is the link:

http://permanent-revolution.org/

The "polemics" section at the bottom if you want to sample the entire chain, or simply click on the main polemic, "Marxism without its Head or Heart". I hope this will be as of much interest to you as it was to me.

Nobody has anything to say about these writings? Truly? I understand that many of them are quite long, but shouldn't we give them a try and discuss some of the issues the writers address?

The Northites have been so thoroughly and utterly discredited for so many decades that it is hard to get much interest in a critique of their theories.

In the light of North's business dealings and his anti-unionism, it is more than questionable whether or not they can even be considered part of the workers movement, rather than just an Internet hobby of a printing business.

-M.H.-

North and the SEP have been discredited, but I disagree that this automatically makes reading the polemic superfluous. As I said in my initial post, the polemic isn't all about North and the SEP. Quite a bit of it addresses such things like the importance of the dialectic and Marxism's relationship to psychology, among other topics.

Also, while I agree that we can easily draw attention to North's anti-unionism, I think that's the easy way out. The SEP can't be reduced to North alone, nor do I think that North engaging in business is sufficient enough to discredit him. If I recall reading as such, Engels was a businessman as well for a time. The party's political line should be the main target here, in my opinion. North is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge you to read at least a little of what Steiner and Brenner have to say, if you have the time.

North and the SEP have been discredited, but I disagree that this automatically makes reading the polemic superfluous. As I said in my initial post, the polemic isn't all about North and the SEP. Quite a bit of it addresses such things like the importance of the dialectic and Marxism's relationship to psychology, among other topics.

Also, while I agree that we can easily draw attention to North's anti-unionism, I think that's the easy way out. The SEP can't be reduced to North alone, nor do I think that North engaging in business is sufficient enough to discredit him. If I recall reading as such, Engels was a businessman as well for a time. The party's political line should be the main target here, in my opinion. North is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge you to read at least a little of what Steiner and Brenner have to say, if you have the time.

If it really has interesting new ideas about dialectics and psychology, better to post it to "theory" than here.

As for North, one fundamental rule of dialectics is the transformation of quantity into quality. That Engels ran or at least did the bookkeeping for a textile factory hardly discredits the First International. The relationship between North's printing enterprise and the SEP is at a qualitatively higher level, not just quantitatively. And that the SEP is against unions is a marker of that.

I didn't read Steiner/Brenner's musings on dialectics etc., but I did go elsewhere on the website and read what they had to say about the history of the WL and then the SEP. That, I figured, they would have some worthwhile insights on, as longtime SEP leaders.

The statement is marred by extreme personalism, if North accuses them of "petty bourgeois subjectivism" he probably has a point. But there is interesting stuff in it, and in particular what they have to say about the printing press issue is quite interesting. Even as far back as when the Detroit press was first established, they were simply following Gerry Healy's model.

Here is how they describe what that model was:

"[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Healy had done something similar in Britain, moving the bulk of the Workers Revolutionary Party’s printing operation out of London to the industrial estate of Runcorn in1976. ( Healy’s motive in this move was to free the party from the restrictions and pay grades imposed by the printers union in London. When he set up operations in Runcorn, the plant was staffed by party members who volunteered their labor for little or no recompense. Healy also took advantage of government subsidies and tax incentives that were being offered to new [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]businesses opening up in this area.)"[/FONT]

http://permanent-revolution.org/pole...piral_ch03.pdf
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]For Healy to do something like this was typical Healyite sleaziness, which reached its apogee a decade later with the WRP becoming a paid agent of various reactionary Arab regimes, most famously with the WRP, as exposed by North among others, photographing Iraqui leftists and giving the photos to agents of Saddam so that they could be imprisoned and tortured and killed.[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]North's own version of this kind of class treason was to--become an anti-union capitalist, and turn his SEP into an internet subsidiary of his firm.[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]-M.H.-
[/FONT]

Does being anti union mean that one is anti working class? I don't think so. Unions across the globe over the past thrity years have agreed a wholesale reduction in wages and conditions while at the same time surrpressing any effective fightback by at least in the Uk obeying anti union laws.

I think we need to recognise the tension between the membership of the unions and the machienry itself. This tension should be utilised by Marxists to build a fighting alternative to the unions.

I have read North's account of the development of trade unions and as a marxist can't see anything objectional in it. It follows in a Trotskyist tradition where the left union leaders are criticised for the ideological confusion that they represent.

@revhope: Both sides of the polemic are in agreement that the trade unions have heavily degenerated in the US, especially since the air traffic controller's strike in the 1980s. Neither their degeneration, nor the prospect of building alternatives, is the point of contention. What Steiner and Brenner were saying in their polemic is that the SEP has barely taken any initiative in making these "fighting alternatives", and that the party has pretty much abandoned actively intervening in the struggles of the working class; to say the least, the party does not follow its own analysis here. It is not enough to acknowledge what a party says, but what it does. In this respect the SEP's attitude is very flawed. Without active intervention, achieving class consciousness of the socialist variety is impossible. Trotsky himself opposed such abstentionism like North's: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...ns-britain.htm

But for more information regarding their disagreement with North and their full position regarding this matter, I encourage you to read their reply to North's analysis in Chapter 5 of "Marxism Without Its Head or Heart: http://www.permanent-revolution.org/.../mwhh_ch05.pdf

@Marxist Historian: I wish I had more time to fully reply to your last post. The most I can say right now is that I heavily disagree that North has any point in accusing Steiner and Brenner of "petty-bourgeois subjectivism" and I don't know where you're getting that from. Furthermore, Steiner and Brenner were never leaders of the SEP; they were not even members, but party sympathizers and occasional contributors to the WSWS.

Agree with Megamantrotsky on his point of the importance of intervention to assist in the faciliation of socialist consciousness within the working class. Here in the UK problem is that those organisations that do intervene do it from an almost opportunist perspective ie SWP, SP, Respect etc. There seems to be a lack of an organisation that actively intervenes no matter how small the group is in workplaces with a militant Marxist programme.

Will check out the pieces.

@Marxist Historian: I wish I had more time to fully reply to your last post. The most I can say right now is that I heavily disagree that North has any point in accusing Steiner and Brenner of "petty-bourgeois subjectivism" and I don't know where you're getting that from. Furthermore, Steiner and Brenner were never leaders of the SEP; they were not even members, but party sympathizers and occasional contributors to the WSWS.

The "petty bourgeois subjectivism" noticeable in Steiner and Brenner's lengthy screeds is not due so much to the content as to the tone. They both spend a remarkable amount of words on defending their personal honor, page after page. It's all "how North persecuted and slandered me, me, me." That is subjectivist, and that is classically petty bourgeois.

Of course, my guess is it's all perfectly true, which says a lot about North, but that's another matter.

As to Steiner/Brenner, I recall that at one point one of the dynamic duo, by their own account, was an editor of the WL's Bulletin! Odd if he wasn't a member.

Or do you merely mean that they were members of the WL but not of the subsequent SEP? Surely a minor detail.

-M.H.-