Socialist Labour Party
adam at pmel.com
Mon Nov 27 01:15:28 MST 1995
> On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Adam Rose wrote:
> > 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.
> Louis: Boiled-down essence of sectarianism here. Scargill is a generic
> socialist with credentials as the leader of the miner's struggles.
> Anything he leads has the potential to become massive.
I'm sorry, Louis, this is simply not true at the moment.
You + others are mistaking the scale of some people's
wishes for reality.
With the election approaching, workers are desparate to get rid
of the Tories. Voting Labour is the way to do this.
Scargill's call has resonated with a layer of activists. ( Actually, more
with ex activists ). But not a single MP, not a single Trade Union official,
has spoken up in favour of the SLP. Scargill himself has not said anything
more about it.
> The appeal of the SLP is that it will allow people to
> have Adam's views on the class nature of the former Soviet Union, my own,
> people with a CP tradition, etc. just as long as they are united on the
> tasks of the class-struggle facing the English working-class.
But an SLP, if it is formed, cannot be united on the
"tasks of the class-struggle facing the English [sic] working-class".
Scargill wants the SLP to win the affiliations of trade unions. If it
is to do this, they will be hampered from critisizing left trade union
leaders. On the other hand, probably many potential members would
want to do this.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism