Just Labour Party?

CAGJimKane at aol.com CAGJimKane at aol.com
Wed Aug 14 01:07:05 MDT 1996

Nick Holden objects to my characterisation of his position as meaning that
*above all* he reckons we should be fighting in the Labour Party. Considering
that he has argued nothing else in his posts, his objections are without

So, "vast numbers" of workers conduct their political activity in the Labour
Party, do they? You come from Leicester, I think, from what you said earlier
about the election there. How many workers are there in Leiecester? How many
go to Labour Party meetings? A vast number? Hardly. As comrade Adolfo has
pointed out, the vast majority of workers are not even in the unions, let
alon inside the Labour Party.

And wasn't it you who told us we should be getting the workers *into* the
Labour Party? Now, by sleight of hand. they are already there, apparently.

No, there are not "vast numbers" of workers active in the Labour Party.
Communists need to be where the workers are, and they need to be organising
them. By concentrating on Labour, you are diverting your attention away from
the unorganised, and the poorest sections.

And your method of argument is beginning to wear rather thin. When Karl
Carlisle took you to tasks over sloppy argument and inconsistencies, you
complained that "you took for granted" all number of things. Now you use the
same method against myself and comrade Richard Bos.

Let me give you the chance to set the record straight. Tell me, clearly,
without assumung anything, why independent communist activity (ie not in or
through the Labour Party) is a diversion/unnecessary/damaging (you choose).

For Communism


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

More information about the Marxism mailing list