> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>>Marvin Gandall wrote:
>> >
>> > Certainly, the
>> > indictment of his critics is that he has drawn a one-sided and
>> misleading
>> > picture of US labour - one resembling the caricature of it by the
>> right. If
>> > this is so, in Fitch's case would be unintentional, but it would flow
>> from
>> > the same questionable starting point where much of the left begins its
>> > analysis: that all contemporary problems are reducible to deficient
>> leaders
>> > in the unions and the mass parties who are seen as somehow at odds
>> with
>> > their members, when, in fact, it is conditions which produce leaders
>> who,
>> > for the most part, reflect the consciousness and values of their base.
>>
>>This emphasis on leadership tends to characterize many followers of
>>Trotsky, as well as those who worry about who the DP will nominate in
>>2008, but is it really widespread enough to justify your phrase, "much
>>of the left"? I don't think so.
>
> But it doesn't even apply to Fitch, who constantly emphasizes structural
> issues that make even the best leaders go bad. He never questioned the
> good intentions of TDU - he's known Ken Paff for more than 30 years. I
> wish people would read the damned book before commenting on it.
======================================
Fair enough, but on the other hand, we can't read every book and article
that comes along - there's so much more that comes to our notice now because
of the internet - which is why lists like these are important, in the same
way book and movie reviews are. to help filter what might be worth pursuing
from what isn't. You can only glean this by interrogating those who have
read and commented on the material. We all do it.
Of course, for me the more interesting question, which goes well beyond Fitch, is why have all these well-intentioned movements and their leaders fallen short? I don't agree with Carrol that it's only the Trotskyists who subscribe to the "crisis of leadership" idea, although they've theorized it the most; I do think it's pretty much true of the far left in general, at least in my experience. It's the only way to justify criticism of the unions and of the parties currently supported by the mass of organized workers, and to remain convinced that the kind of sweeping change and break with these organizations that you're calling for is not, at best, premature in the circumstances, ie. ultra-left.