Talk:Lanka Sama Samaja Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lanka Sama Samaja Party has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I think it is clear due to the foreword that the text is an approved text by the leadership of the party, making it not a neutral article. Electionworld 22:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But this article is helpfull you to expand it.
Thank You.
A very interesting and informative article. But completely and more or less uncritically pro-LSSP. I would suggest to the the editor who posted this that it be sent to the Marxist Internet Archive where it can be placed in the Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On Line part of that site. The MIA is the largest non-group archive of marxist literature on line, prestigious enough to be mirrored by the British Library, and would be a far better home for this article than this wiki.
Jock Haston
I think the original is from Leslie Goonewardena's Short History. I added some of the remaining bits. V 220.247.243.12 03:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] An omission
Glancing over this article, I find that the most striking characteristic of the history of this political party has been overlooked. In the 1930s following Trotsky's expulsion from the Soviet CP, his followers around the world were also expelled from every local CP -- except in Ceylon, where the Trotskyites were numerous enough to turn the tables! I believe this was something of an embarassment to the Soviets until the fall of the Berlin Wall. -- llywrch 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- its a remarkable historic feature, but n ot quite that simple. the original LSSP was neither Trotskyist or pro-Moscow. It was a broad, general socialist (even social democratic), with a somewhat ecclectic nature. Once the Trotskyists were able to take over the party, the pro-Moscow wing was expelled. The Trotskyists were, however, not particularily numerous. Rather the party as a whole was very small. I don't think it was particularily embarrasing to the Soviets, as 1) the CP established itself as an equal to LSSP quite quickly and 2) LSSP was, for a trotskyist party, quite pragmatic in international relations. LSSP joined the same broad fronts as the CP and its youth wing was attached to the Soviet-dominated WFDY. --Soman 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think this article could have given you the wrong impression. The founders of the LSSP included a large core, perhaps a majority, that had been won to socialist ideas by the Trotskyists while students in Britain. The LSSP was the only [mass] workers party in Sri Lanka: because it was the first and only it was natural that socialists of all trends should find themselves drawn towards it. Because a core element of the Trotskyist strategy in the Second World War was the defence of the Soviet Union, and since the post-war strategy was to ensure the Trotskysists were in the same mass party as the broad masses, it's not that surprising.
The departure of the 'Stalinists' was fundamentally about their own political needs, rather than any Trotskyist take over: the pro-Stalin current around Keuneman wanted to collaborate with the British war effort, which much of the LSSP did not.This is nicely explained in a 1964 article by Ernest Mandel. --DuncanBCS 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)- I object to the last passage. The split between USP (which evolved into the CP) and LSSP occured before UK and Soviet were allied, and USP leaders like S.A. Wickremesinghe were jailed by the British for their opposition to the war. --Soman 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, you are right about the timing. The CP was founded after the change of line, the USP was founded before then. I've struck out that last comment. Thanks for your correction! --DuncanBCS 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- (1)To say that 'the CP established itself as an equal to LSSP quite quickly' is an exageration. Electorally, the LSSP was always at least twice as strong and it was the hegemonic force in the trade union movement. It even had an underground presence in the armed forces until 1966. Nobody ever seriously considered the CP to be anywhere near as powerful as the LSSP.
- (2) I think that the seriousness of the Trotskyism of the LSSP is being undervalued here. Trotskyism is not measured merely in terms of international relations, but also in activism. The CP always followed the Moscow line and compromised often. The LSSP was grounded on the principal of workers' democracy and its core party and broader support base understood this. Even before entering the coalition government in 1964 the party felt the necessity to theoretically justify this in terms of the class nature of the SLFP and to have this approved before a party conference.
- (3) The LSSP was not the first workers' party. The first was the Ceylon Labour Party of AE Goonesinghe (in which R Premadasa started out). However, the LSSP was the only party consistently to fight for independence in what was basically a white-racist society; compromise in the 2nd world war meant compromise with white racism, which is why the CP was never able to obtain the mass base enjoyed by the LSSP. Trotskyism was measured by activist vis-a-vis Stalinism in concrete terms such as these. Vinodm 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, you are right about the timing. The CP was founded after the change of line, the USP was founded before then. I've struck out that last comment. Thanks for your correction! --DuncanBCS 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I object to the last passage. The split between USP (which evolved into the CP) and LSSP occured before UK and Soviet were allied, and USP leaders like S.A. Wickremesinghe were jailed by the British for their opposition to the war. --Soman 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think this article could have given you the wrong impression. The founders of the LSSP included a large core, perhaps a majority, that had been won to socialist ideas by the Trotskyists while students in Britain. The LSSP was the only [mass] workers party in Sri Lanka: because it was the first and only it was natural that socialists of all trends should find themselves drawn towards it. Because a core element of the Trotskyist strategy in the Second World War was the defence of the Soviet Union, and since the post-war strategy was to ensure the Trotskysists were in the same mass party as the broad masses, it's not that surprising.
