SECTARIANISM, PROGRESS, and the use of Language
Today the SPUSA exists like the First Socialist International with a membership of the many various political and philosophic views that existed then and now which led to the founding of First, Second, Third, Fourth Internationals all marching into the future; or,
Marching as if a legion of Doom into the future, to repeat errors of its past in some bizarre fictional trekkie adventure with an infinite number of factions and internationals in it future serializations.
Today the SPUSA faces many of the same issues that I myself as a gambler would have to bet against for it is difficult teaching the old dogs new tricks.
For it is to be learned weither those in the SPUSA can gain with hindsight insight the experiences to look beyond the present and past or it will face an unknown future.
The SPUSA is not at present a very big group it is an expeditionary force on the frontiers of dialogue, discussion, and sectarianism.
In discussion with the SPUSA leadership and members one will note with honesty and ability that its views are varied, that those views are expressed overtly or covertly find expression in varied forms; and for all practicality a minimal long term basis of work does not exist:
As individuals are left to their own creativity, remedies, just as one faction or another, sought to gain influence, in imposing its own vision on that party and future there is an inherent contradiction: of self-interest versus groups interest.
The arguments provoked, and encouraged on the most personal basic levels, are needless in what does not incorporate a perspective representing all socialist views, in what is allegedly internationalism but is not, nor perhaps should be but in all honesty should be reflected as such but is not.
It incorporates even those who in great insight and wisdom would allow “stands firmly and openly on the right of anyone to use [language freely] *** racist, sexist, homophobic, insulting, threatening, and otherwise abusive behavior [in] oppos[ing] any moderation whatsoever”; and those who would regulate and legislate such discussion which also I find in error.
That extreme support of free speech is very diverse but which interesting I find myself supporting though on a political level it seems to support what everyone does not, in a dialogue for a very diverse group that encourages dialogue:
But only if that dialogue can be framed with a constructive basis which it has not been always as often the views proffered are sectarian. In terms of issues not of wording but context which most often is drawn from those parties and contingents around it and which are pre-existing which I do not support.
The SPUSA exists today like the first SDS, or the first Socialist International before the split with the Second Socialist International, before its split with the Third Socialist International, before its split with the Fourth Socialist International, before its split with the Fifth Socialist International, etc ad lib, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Today what exists on the left in the world most of all is distortion, rhetoric, deceit, factionalism it does not represent the ideals of an international socialist movement in all essence to the contrary supports the reactionary mindset that surrounds them and allegedly opposes.
So the issue is forward or backward, refusing to learn from one’s errors and mistakes and languish forever in the same cesspool forever, arguing the same issues, acting in the same childish fashion or progressing forward?
As an Independent and affiliated socialist for the last forty years if anyone thinks they can impose their views on me lets just say they are more than a bit mad as they are viewed as daffy, especially in the expectations related to a socialist group that was not formed in the Leninist model and which is supposed to be at once libertarian socialist and democratic.
A party which is not protected by leadership, membership decisions, rules, policies official and unofficial, but by the actual context supporting those virtues or not which is not what can often be legislated.
The leadership can say whatever it wants but will the membership as a whole truly answer, follow and implement such decisions?
Very often not as the letter of the law is followed but not the spirit in that many acts of legislation by nature polarize alienate and are hypocritical failures pretending to support what they can not achieve!
The membership voice can be with great difficulty heard, but will the leadership truly hear the membership, or will it pay lip service to the membership’s sentiments by stating it is the function of leadership to lead and not always cater to the members immature sentiments?
Rules may be enacted but are those rules the real rules or are there policies secreted in someone’s desk drawers, and do those policies have written and unwritten components in being implemented?
Surely the discover of secrets reports, secret archives, secret conversations and the like worldwide answers that question.
I say most often yes life is risky and that one must accept risks in this day and age, but that that has limitations which are framed with a context of personal, communal, local, regional, national, and international significance.
At present I have not found the SPUSA leadership or membership up to my standards of dialogue as it is severely lacking. Perhaps I can overlook such deficiencies but in the same lights who overlooks mine where my names is attached to every GOD DAMN commentary that refers to me.
I am sick and tired of seeing my name in print but linguistically it shows how incapable humanity is to exist without the use of words or labels and that the god or socialism which exists prior to it adherents is superior to that of what comes afterwards in their speaking.
The western industrialized world’s habits of language is something which I find abhorrent the labels, the details, the mannerisms, it is all reminiscent of a corporate report detailing cost analysis of sneakers made in a dozen countries, or materials from a dozen or so sources, that refers to the most intimate clinical remarks, detailing that shirt collars took on the average 2.5 seconds to sew:
That suggests production can be increased if workers above certain ages were terminated, and profits could be increased in benefits were cut, that lunch was curtailed music was pumped in or turned off.
BUT I am not a machine sorry no turn you own god damn self on and off don’t involve me because you do so selective choosing what you hear and listen to and what you don’t merely for you to find reason to harp on some issue that you find of particular interest.
Why? Maybe you don’t really know.
With the advent of language, computerization and software what socialists of most sorts have become known for is their sectarianisms that becomes manifest in various ways but with one result disaster.
That is why I support also no rules on discussion beyond a limitation of time and space allotted through participation and that such materials should not be of an organizational character labeled as such but representing the individuals abilities to discuss in dialogue the topics issues and matters they raise, which should be discussed fully by specific mention without names except where it is posted.
Some can ask comrade so and so is acting badly it needs to be addressed, how can that be done without mentioning they name?
I ask, are we supposed to discuss issues or write police reports automatically scanned and transcribed naming names as we ourselves add in speaking such names.
Ancient Christianity has some good lessons to be learned on functioning when the environment is hostile they didn’t use overt signs and label but contextual references and it was only when they became institutionalized hundreds of years later that they were subverted by the Emperor of Rome.
As I can sign this and some may view it as signed but for which again I argue is counter productive and most probably be ignored for who of those amongst you could truly answer in satisfaction of what is required?
I say none.
EXPERIENCES ON THE LEFT 