Socialist Labour Party

Adam Rose adam at pmel.com
Fri Nov 24 02:02:14 MST 1995


>
>     Adam wrote:
>
> >Call me old fashioned, but I am part of a party which is a
> revolutionary
> >party, which says its a revolutionary party, and whose members join it
> >on that basis. We state unambiguously and clearly that the key to
> change
> >in society is action by the working class, outside of parliament. We
> >have proved that it is possible to achieve some influence building
> like
> >this.
>
>         Carlos Replies:
>
>         Here is the key, Adam, you say "achieve some influence building
>         like this".  You are proposing an slow, linear development
>         until the SWP reach mass influence.  I think that only lead
>         you, with good luck, to a linear, molecular, individual growth.
>         In terms of maitaining an structure, is not bad, in terms to
>         mobilize the working class behind a revolutionary program is
>         just wishful thinking, IMO.
Adam:

Sometimes we have built by slow, linear development, and sometimes by
huge spurts, depending on the situation. Sometimes we have been in the
position to lead large scale struggles, sometimes not.

This just seems obvious. How else can revolutionaries operate ?

We have some influence, not enough, and we need more.
If we have enough, we will be able to play the key role in any
workers struggle against Blair. If we don't, this struggle may well
be beaten and the hard right, perhaps like Gingrich, perhaps the
Nazis, will become a problem. These are the stakes in the next
year or so.

Seems obvious to me. I can't really understand what your point is.

Carlos:
> 	But revolutionary politics is not
>          about revolutionary, confortable "micro-climates" but about
>         acting as a level to mobilize as many as you can behind revo-
>         lutionary politics.  Is the SWP that level?  If they are, what
>         is your point of support to multiply its energies?

Adam:
"Point of support" - what does that mean ?
I think it means "organisation to hide in".

Carlos:
>	 -- Is the
>         SLP the possibility to be the point o f suppor for the
>         revolutionary level to
>         multiply its efforts?  That's the question on the matter of
>         the SLP tactic ...  Isn't it?
>

Adam:

The SLP doesn't exist yet !

If it did, the sort of party Scargill imagines would be tied politically
to reformism and practically to the Trade Union Bureaucracy. Revolutionaries
would have to build an organisation of their own to win workers away from
reformist ideas and to acting independently of the Trade Union Bureaucracy
when neccessary.

Given the relative numbers involved, while the SWP is part of the debate
about left alternatives to Labour, it's ridiculous to suggest the SWP
should join the SLP. We'd probably have enough members to force the new
party to change its name to the Socialist Workers Party.

I think this whole debate has lost touch with reality.
Carlos, you have mistaken Steve's wishes for what has actually happenned,
and started your argument on that, false, premise.

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


















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

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list