Challenge to Cockshott (fwd)
spoons at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Wed Sep 13 02:11:58 MDT 1995
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:10:08 GMT+10
From: Marcus Strom <MSTROM at nswtf.org.au>
To: marxism at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Re: Challenge to Cockshott
You 'defend ' yourself by attacking a puny critique of Militant. The
day to day issues are important - and I'm sure Paul is in a far
better position to bring these up. But the key issues I have tried to
draw to yours and the lst's attention are the programatic positions
of Militant. These you haven't addressed. The key one being
"socialism will be brought about through an Enabling Bill in
Parliament backed up by the labour movement". This Bill in parliament
will nationalise the top 200 companies (why not 203, or 198) *with
full compensation to small share holders and to large shareholders
[get this] in _proven need_". How can you seriously call militant a
revolutionary organisation (you don't even claim it as a vanguard
-what's the point then) with this crap in your program. Please
By the way. I'm not anglo saxon!
And the reason why the bourgeois press drags Militant's name through
the mud has nothing to do with Militant - it is an attempt to put a
red hue on Blair's newLabour. It is an attack on the Labour Party -
they don't really give two tosses about you (maybe one)
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 10:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jeffrey Booth <booth2 at husc.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: Re: Challenge to Cockshott
> So, I get into work this morning and my marxist list mail is
> filled with attacks on Militant Labour from various anglo-Saxon
> ultra-lefts. What a suprise. For the non-anglo-saxon left, just want to
> let you know that Militant-bashing is a thriving cottage industry for the
> bourgeois press and a myriad of little left groups at tea time.
> Now, I ask myself, do I respond to all this shit and risk getting
> fired or missing out on some great organizing oppurtunities or do I let
> it go. How 'bout a compromise? I'll respond today. Tomorrow, you
> all can have the last word and Militant Labour's name will be mud in
> academic circles. Oh, well.
> On Sun, 10 Sep 1995, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> > Paul
> > ----
> > On the origins of the anti-poll tax unions. The first was
> > set up in Maryhill ( a district of Glasgow ) in April 1987
> > at the initiative of Linda Garthland and Matt Lygate,
> > both of whom were WPS activists. By January 1988 the Union
> > had over 2000 paid up members in the Maryhill area.
> > The I was involved in setting up the first union in the
> > west of Scotland in Leith in the summer of 1987.
> > By the end of 87 there was already a federation of local
> > Anti-Poll Tax unions in the Edinburgh area.
> > This is prior to the meetings at which Jeff claims that
> > Militant planned the whole campaign.
> Read my post. Didn't claim that. When I showed up on the scene,
> things were already going. Future plans were being made. Militant had
> nothing to do with setting up the first anti-poll tax unions? Let's get
> that in writing!
> > Tommy has an axe to grind. For an independent source
> > look at Danny Burns book Poll Tax Rebellion.
> Tommy's axe is directed at big businees and it's state. in the
> book, he's quite charitable to the sectlets if that's what's bothering you.
> -- Jeff Booth
> > Paul
> > ----
> > >
> > > I do not claim that the WPS led the anti poll tax campaign.
> > > The WPS initiated it and organised the first anti-poll tax
> > > unions,
> > Whoa. This is the part that gets me. I attended a Militant meeting in
> > Europe in 1988 where a lot of this stuff was starting and /or being
> > planned by Militant.
> > --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism