Talk:Larry Trainor

It was precisely this that contributed to the SWP developing into an insular and ossified sect isolated from the mass movement, a trend that continued to develop even when the radical movement was in its heyday. Fundamentally, it reflected right wing "redneck" workerist resentnment and hostility to the movement-that is at the heart of trostkyite sectarianism generally-coupled with a bureaucratic and small shopkeeper mentality. This led to an increasing obsession with petty rules and apoliticalization at the expense of political activism and solidarity, a mentality manipulated by reactionary goverment agents like Ed Heisler. Thus, all protestations to the contrary, it reflected a reactionary mentality characteristic of religious sects who seek not to lead society, but counterpose themselves to it, which was exactly the attitude of the Party towards the radical movement. Ironically, Trainor himself was the victim of this. A good and somewhat comical take on this was provided by two hippie characters in the Party named Sudie and Geb who wrote a Marcusian screed in this period "Against A Proletarian Orientation."-Tom Cod

________________

This is an interesting anonymous comment. Certainly Trainor both reflected and deepened a tendency in US Trotskyism to be somewhat fearful of, and cautious towards, recruiting from outside the trade unions. It is very likely that this acted as both a strength and a weakness at times. It was a semi-sectarian defence that ensured the survival of the organisation but also allowed to to connect with the upsurge less easily than European Trotskyism. While it helped to partly protect the SWP from the disorienting Stalinophobia what disoriented the supporters of Max Shachtman and Pierre Lambert, it also separated the SWP from the mainstream of the radicalisation in the 1970s in a number of ways that included its cultural conservatism. However, it would be mistaken to say that this reflected hostility to the movement, or to assume that the SWP is indicative of the rest of Trotskyism. The SWP's activists -- and even Trainor -- were active in supporting the Black struggle, the movement against the Vietnam war and the student and youth radicalisation. However, the SWP failed to integrate and learn from the new generations of radicals, largely because of its relative conservatism. The SWP's organisations in Britain, France and elsewhere also participated in the broader movement, but they were able to adapt to that movement more easily. Activists like Tariq Ali and Alain Krivine, who joined the USFI groups in Europe, would have been repelled by the SWP, a point that Ali makes in his autobiography. Generally, the Trotskyist movement is not hostile to the broad movement and the exceptions, such as the current led by Gerry Healy, are expections. It would be hard to image the SWP supporting movements that appeared in other countries and which were enthusiastically and materially supported by Trotskyists in those countries: from Rock Against Racism to the European Social Forum. However, the seeds of such openness were in the SWP, as is shown by the American Socialist Union, the Freedom Socialist Party and Solidarity (US). --Duncan 14:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

___________________________

Thanks, I would say that the International Socialists (ISO) and Workers World Party, in terms of ostensible trot groups, had and continue to have, a healthier social attitude and posture in this regard notwithstanding other political problems with them. Actually during much of this period the SWP drifted into a subtle Schactmanite anti-communism evidenced by demoralizing attacks on Vietnam, Cuba and Angola among other things. In this regard, the Party's turn in the 80s represented an important rectification (obviously without acknowledging anything but eternal infallability) with its solidarity with the Sandanista Revolution, which other trot groups belittled and mocked in the manner of yuppie philistines recycling the lies of Reagan in the interest of Wall St under the cover of orthodox marxism. They're for a revolution all right-its just that the one going on now has to be opposed-is the political mode of these groups. This is not new, the notorious "New York Intellectuals" of the 30s having defined this mode, moving from "left wing" "trotskyists" in the orbit of the America First crowd to the leading exponents of cold war liberalism in the 50s and 60s, moving farther right to "neoconservatism" in recent times-TC