Labor or Labour; same old rightist bureaucrats

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Wed Aug 28 03:30:46 MDT 1996


Steve writes;
>
>In the past, Trotskyist entrist work has been characterised by
>political secrecy, lack of open theoretical struggle and often
>liquidation into the social democratic party; ala Militant and the
>IMG. This is not the project that we are engaged upon. The open
>struggle of revolutionaries within the new formations of the class is
>being conducted with the perpective of proving a political point to
>the advanced workers who are engaged therein. Precicely that the last
>thing the working class needs is a Labour Party mark II, that the
>communist party we do need is to be faught for through open
>ideological struggle resulting in the unity in action of
>revolutionaries from disparate backgrounds.

Naturally the above sounds fine if true. However from a distance i can not
know exactly what the above means in practice!
>
>As Robert says, this struggle may be conducted through several
>tactical approaches. What makes this tactic appropriate at this time
>is the way that Scargill's initiative has raised the 'party' question
>among a section of the working class willing to split to the left
>from Labour. The party question is the cornerstone of the process of
>reforging the Communist Party of Great Britain. It is the fight over nature of
>the party we need which is being faught out in the SLP by
>revolutionaries.
>
>Robert continues
>> 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...  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.
>
>Not so Robert, I am happy to put you right on this question. The
>right of the SLP already have broken organisationally from Labour.
>They are the very " reformist  opposition to the openly
>pro-capitalist leadership" to which you refer. We counterpose
>revolution to reform.

Actually the above might be true. I remember the split a few years back in
Britain
>
>The organisational gains, faction and programme,  are represented in
>the Revolutionary Platform documents you will already have seen M1.
>Not a Communist Party, but a step towards one.

I assume you mean the program which i saiod was "not bad"..

Bob Malecki




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





More information about the Marxism mailing list