Socialist Labour Party

Jeffrey Booth booth2 at husc.harvard.edu
Sat Nov 18 10:33:02 MST 1995


Tim W.,
	Every time you post about Britain, it seems you're stuck in the
early 80's.
	Militant stopped using an entrist tactic in the Labour Party
years ago.  Militant is now an independent party called Militant Labour.
Ted Grant left Militant years ago, before Militant Labour was launched.
Since the Miners' strike in '84-85; Militant and subsequently Militant
Labour have had good relations with Scargill.  Among other things,
Scargill really admires the mass, anti-poll tax movement led by
Militant/Militant Labour.
	As for the nature of the British Labour Party:  since the late
80's it's been dead in terms of any mass movements, internal activity or
democracy.
	Regarding entrism as a tactic:  one of the contributions Grant
made to Marxism was to expand the tactic of entrism to objective
conditions that were not at all favorable to the development of Marxism
and by doing so, Militant was able to help keep the ideas of Marxism alive
for a new generation of working class youth who joined the Labor Party or
got active around the Labour party.  However, with the fairly recent right
wing takeover of the Labour Party, the youth ignore and even detest the
Labour Party and Grant stuck with the entrism tactic too long.
				
				-- Jeff Booth
				   Labor Militant 				


On Sat, 18 Nov 1995 TimW333521 at aol.com wrote:

> The participants on this list who live in Great Britain are in a better
> position than us in the U.S. to judge this proposal for a new "socialist"
> labour party.  However, I wish to offer a word of caution.
>
> First, I find it extremely interested that the Grant Group (Militant), which
> has been part of the Labour Party since its foundation in 1951, seems to be
> interested at this point in a split.  I wonder if its judgement is any better
> than the Cliff Group (SWP) which split from the Labour Party in 196?, or
> Healy in 1964?
>
> Second: why now?  Has something QUALITATIVE taken place within the BLP?  Is
> Blair really that different from Wilson?  Or is it simply that this new
> proposed Scargill-based party seems to be a better pond to fish in than the
> BLP?  Does it not always boil down to the impatience of the entrist-oriented
> Trot?
>
> If I have understood the "entrist" tactic -- and admittedly I may not have --
> the idea was that one was to be part of the Labour Party as long as the
> working class was part of it.  Then, at the point of REVOLUTION, or at least
> a radical mass upsurge, that party would break apart out of real class
> contradictions and the revolutionary party would emerge.  Is Britain at such
> a point now?
>
> Just some questions.  How about some answers?
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list