Talk:Larry Trainor

message: 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)
replies: text: You have some excellent insights. I hope you register for an account and spend some more time here. I think it might be be fair to extend your point: It is arguable that the SWP's introversion into a life centred on bookselling and the ossification of its positions into orthodoxy now place most groups with a Trotskyist origin closer to the social movements. I would be interested to compare the anti-Stalinism of the SWP to that of mainstream Trotskyism. Tne Fourth International gave critical support to Maoism's critique of Stalinism, as it had to Tito's. While their positions were not the same, it is interesting that the US Trotskyist who most favoured this approach, Arne Swabeck, found himself outside the SWP while Livio Maitan could retain his leading role in Europe. The SWP differed with the mainstream view that these leaderships were centrists, who could be pushed into revolution, rather than counter-revolutionary Stalinists. This is reflected well in Hansen's writings on China and in the debate between Fred Feldman and Pierre Rousset on the Vietnamese Communist Party. However, the SWP's attacks on what it saw as Stalinist-influenced errors by the Cuban, Vietnamese and Angolan leaderships were also balanced with a level of support which clearly differentiated them from currents like the ISO, ICFI and the Workers' Struggle group in France. On that point, the SWP was probabaly closer to the mainstream in Trotskyism. The viewpoint that those struggles were not revolutions is recognizably close to the politics of the ICFI, ISO and others on the 'Stalinophobic' left than it is the SWP, of the USFI more broadly. --Duncan 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an interetsing point of view. It worth considering how far economism is a concession to the interests of the labour aristocracy rather than to the ruling class directly. I was not aware of Raptis being held by the SS. Are you sure you're not thinking of Ernest Mandel? Lastly, the charges leveled at 'Pabloism' are really about the view of folk like Bert Cochran and John Lawrence, who broke with Pablo, and the FI, at the latest by 1954. --Duncan 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I only know this obituary  by Maitan, which makes no mention of him as a 'partisan fighter jailed and tortured by the SS in WW2'. Can you point me to the one which you have read? --Duncan 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Comments

message: ::What was Trainor's post-SWP history?  Is he still living?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.205.220 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Comment

message: Some folks I know who knew Larry Trainor considered the earlier version to be tendentious rather than neutral. Some deletions were made by Mary Scully. I added three references and some neutral text. David keil (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi David, it's Duncan here from International Viewpoint. I've restored the material you removed with your last edit. I'm not sure if you meant to remove it but it's referenced material in a biography that is still short. Wikipedia is really focussed on things that are referenced (the unpublished memories of others is excluded as original research. Removing references is a really unusual thing to do here. --Duncan (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All...we need more information...like his date of birth and death. 
DavidMIA (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions