Re - uniquely befuddled and an outright swindler

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Aug 13 16:15:00 MDT 1996


>
>> Nick H,  in his own uniquely befuddled way, writes:
>
>Why thank you, Louis. "Unique" - how kind.
>
>
>> Nick,  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.    So Communists would be
>> better off to abandon independent political action altogether and join the
>> Democrat Party to fight to "transform" it from "within."    Surely,  my
>> friend,  you jest.    And, as I have stated half a hundred times,  I
>> disagree with the Party leadership in their decision to support Clinton
>and
>> the Democrats.     Next to yours,  however, their decisions appear almost
>> ingenious.
>
>
>Err, that is the logic of the CP majority, surely, not mine. I would say
>that, given the class nature of the Democrats, you should not go near them
>with a barge pole. Any of them. Not just the ones you personally don't like
>(that way lies disaster). Political parties do not have class natures that
>excludes certain nice people.
>


So, what is the class nature of the LP?  This mr. Holden, err.... has been
throwing around bogus "quotations" alleging that Lenin regarded the Labour
Party as a "working CLASS party".  Nothing further from the trutht.

Here is what lenin specifically has to say about the class character of the
British Labour Party:

"It is not so much a question of how many members there are in an
organisation, as what is the real, objective meaning of its policy, does
this policy represent the masses, i.e. the liberation of the masses  from
capitalism, or does it represent the interest of the minority, its
conciliation with capitalism?  (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, 1916).

"Of course, for the most part the Labour Party consists of workers, but it
does not logically follow from this that every worker's party which consists
of workers is at the same time a "political workers" party; that depends
upon who leads it, upon the content of its activities and of its political
tactics.  Only the latter determines whether it is really a political
proletarian party.  From this point of view, WHICH IS THE ONLY CORRECT POINT
OF VIEW, the Labour Party is not a political worker's party BUT A THOROUGHLY
BOURGEOIS PARTY....."   (V. I. Lenin, The Communist Party and the Labour
Party, Speech at the Second Congress of Commintern).

"One of the most common sophisms of Kautsky is his reference to the
"masses"; we do not want to break away from the masses and mass
organisations!  But think how Engels approached this question.  In the
nineteenth century, the "mass organisations" of the English trade unions
were on the side of the bourgeois labour party.  Marx and Engels did not
conciliate with it on this ground, but exposed it.  They did not forget ....
that the trade union organisations directly embrace the minority of the
proletariat......"  (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism).

Today, out of a workforce of 27 million workers, only 7.5 - just over a
quarter - belong to trade unions.  The remaining 19.5 million, which
includes the pooorest and the lowest paid - the deep masses of the
proletariat - do not.

What is this agent of the British imperialist Labour Party mumbling about?

Down with British imperialism!

A.O.



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





More information about the Marxism mailing list