Labor or Labour; same old rightist bureaucrats

Robert Malecki malecki at
Tue Aug 27 05:18:15 MDT 1996

Steve writes;
>I think that Tyler and Robert Malecki  share the perspective that the
>Labor party, as launched in Ohio June 1996 is becoming the creature
>of the trade union and labour bureacrats. Also that this organisation
>will call upon the ruling class, ie the state, any time it needs to
>to exclude the left from influence.

>May I share a view on the matter from Britain. The kind of party that the
working class needs is a mass
>revolutionary combat organisation of the class, ie a communist party.
>This is true in US as it is in UK. We should develop strategies in
>our struggle which will start to determine the character of that
>party now. We achieve our ends under the conditions of the means we
>adopt to fight for them. We must defeat the bureacrats and labourites
>in the hearts and minds of the working class.

>In the US, where the communist party has degenerated thourgh
>opportunism, and no other sect or party  offers mass leadership to the class,
>the formation of a labor party displays  a left moving trend which
>should be welcomed. Welcome the leftward trend, that is, engage it
>and take it forward to its maximum potential.

The fact that the labor party tops in the US are trying to form a labor
party has two edges. The first and foremost is to derail any leftward
movement along the road of revolutionary politics.
>It is an outstanding feature that this new party is not being
>established as the result of an upsurge in the class struggle. It has
>not come from a strike combine or a political movement. Rather, it is
>from a section of the labor bureaucracy which feels it has lost its
>influence in the national political agenda.

Exactly! And here in Europe the traditionalists are also finding themselves
in the exact same position as the Social Democracy lurches into the bougeois
>What revolutionaries should interest themselves in, however, is any
>groups of workers who are enthused sufficiently to identify
>themselves with it. Many of these workers will be looking for
>answers which, we know, the bureacrats cannot provide. But
>revolutionary organisation can.

>The political character of the new party may be fluid, and as long as it is,
>revolutionaries should fight to determine that character favourably.
>Revolutionaries should fight to get in, and against expulsions.
>Organise factionally within the new party and link our politics with
>the struggle for a mass  revolutionary party.

Why is it that entrism is the only tactic you appear to uphold! Not in
itself a tactic which in certain cases is justifiable. But at all times and
everywhere in order to pressure the Labor parties to the left is not
correct. Trotskyists have a program and a history they are fighting for.
Whether they elect to do and entry in a particular situation or elect to
build independent organisations outside of Labor. At this point it appears
to me that conditions are favorable for a split and the building of new
parties outside of the Social Democracy..

>If the labor party finally goes nowhere, so what! Our struggle does,
>and in any case we know that a labor party is not after all what we
>need. Treat the labor part as a battle field to take on the
>bureacracy, and win workers to the class struggle. Use it a training
>ground for workers looking to the  left for answers. But above all
>make organisational gains.

Treating the Social Democracy as a battlefield one can do from both in and
outside of the party. It depends much more on what program (!) one is
fighting for and the ability to attract workers and poor people to that
program. What organisational gains can be made that you mention above?
>Democracy is our most potent propaganda in this battle. For without a
>doubt the bureacrats will use every plot, scheme and trick to
>suppress it and you. Organisation is our most potent weapon, do not be affaid
>to organise factionally, if possible openly, and above all, in a blaze of
>publicity. Fight for a democracy in the labor party and argue
>revolution vs reform. Once we have a free voice, with workers in need
>of answers, we will make political gains.

If the above is true. Then tell us what program as a faction are you
prepared to fight for on doing and entry into Labor? Or is it building a
left opposition on agreeing to disagree in the labor party that is your goal?

>This is how I read the situation. In a similar way to the British
>situation with the new Socialist Labour Party launched by the miners'
>leader Arthur Scargill. The rightists in this organisation;
>bureacrats and labourites, are having one hell of a difficult time
>expelling myself and my comrades. We are conducting a determined
>struggle for factional rights and for the primacy of politics.
>Steve Riley

The rightists in Social democracy today are openly pro capitalist
politicians. It is the left wing that is the reformist wing and has to be
exposed. But i doubt that this is what your entry in the case in England or
the United States is about. I think that those who are doing and entry
operation are basically trying to mobilise their forces around the reformist
opposition to the openly pro-capitalist leadership of the Social Democracy.
At best back to the good old times. This does not mean that revolutionaries
to not defend past reforms against attacks by the ruling class. But it is
not enough to build a revolutionary alternative inside the Social democracy
based on these reformist demands. We have to fight both in and outside of
the Labor Parties for the TP, including a workers government. That is what
determines the tactic of doing an entry operation, if the situation arises,
for wripping off a good section of a Labor Party moving to the left..

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki

PS: What does the below mean?
>Version: 2.6.3i
>     --- from list marxism at ---

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list