SAMPLE-DIGEST 31K #621

Chris, London 100423.2040 at compuserve.com
Tue Feb 27 14:02:18 MST 1996


On Sunday Charles MacKay wrote

Subject: Re: > 100 messages / day  PLEASE READ

Yes, please post the sample digest.


-- OK.

To subscr'be routinely send the following messages to
majordomo at lists.village.virginia.edu

Subscr'be marxism-digest

Unsubscr'be marxism

[names typed in full. You do not have to unsubscr'be marxism
straight away]

Chris
London, co-moderator.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:	INTERNET:owner-marxism-digest at jefferson.village.virginia.edu, INTERNET:owner-marxism-digest at jefferson.village.virginia.edu
TO:	(unknown), INTERNET:MARXISM-DIGEST at JEFFERSON.VILLAGE.VIRGINIA.EDU
DATE:	27/02/96 19:52

RE:	marxism-digest V2 #621

Sender: owner-marxism at jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9]) by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id OAA22242; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:33:20 -0500
Received: from jefferson.village.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa01736;
          27 Feb 96 14:31 EST
Received: by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.7.1/1.34)
	id TAA93322; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:31:23 GMT
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:31:23 GMT
Message-Id: <199602271931.TAA93322 at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
From: owner-marxism-digest at jefferson.village.virginia.edu
To: marxism-digest at jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject:   marxism-digest V2 #621
Errors-To: owner-marxism-digest at jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Precedence: bulk


marxism-digest           Tuesday, 27 February 1996     Volume 02 : Number 621

In this issue:
==============

  Hugh Rodwell           Revolutionary upsurge after WWII ( =?iso-8859-1?Q?
  m.lepore at genie.com     Re: Cuba thread policy
  Louis N Proyect        Reply to Jorn
  Ralph Dumain           Re:  Militias
  Ralph Dumain           Re: NOI demographics
  Adam Rose              Pat Buchanan
  Adam Rose              Re: Capitalist Crisis in US (Louis P)
  Louis N Proyect        Re: NOI demographics
  Louis N Proyect        Re: Cuba thread policy and reading suggestion
  Christopher Gunn       "Wets"? (was: Re: Pat Buchanan)
  Lisa Rogers            Re: Cuba thread/seminar policy: reading
  "Bryan A. Alexander"   Re: swp
  Louis N Proyect        Computer Programmers from India
  wdrb at siva.bris.ac.uk   RE: re:Scargill,SLP(fwd)
  hariette spierings     Re: Popular Justice and The Rule of Law (Soviet la

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:28:56 +0100
Subject: Revolutionary upsurge after WWII ( =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= etc)

J=F8rn wrote:

>(Trotsky wrote the Transitional Program in 1938. His perspective was that
>after the
>coming WWII workers would rise as they had done after WWI. Events proved
>it mainly
>wrong - but his perspective was in no way "far out". The point is that the
>Transitional Program was a sort of a "short cut" to the REAL problem for
>revolutionaries: That there were no REAL forces at our disposal that would
>be able
>to challenge reformist and stalinist domination over workers' ideas. In
>that sense
>the Transitional Program was a "desperate call").

I think Brad Mayer and myself have shown in previous postings that there
was in fact a huge worldwide upsurge of both workers and the oppressed
masses after WWII. How else can you explain the enormous concessions made
(both political in terms of access to regime/government and economic in
terms of improvements in standard of living, welfare state etc) by
imperialism to the working class and the oppressed nationalities of the
world?

This is the question, J=F8rn. It's not rhetorical. Please answer it.

I mean, you don't believe the concessions were either a) normal capitalist
procedure, or b) the expression of a historical local peculiarity such as
'the benevolence of imperialist leaders at the end of WWII', do you? And
you do accept the fact that huge concessions were in fact made, don't you?
So what was happening?

Cheers,

Hugh




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

------------------------------

From: m.lepore at genie.com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 13:10:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Re: Cuba thread policy

 Lisa:
    >    No squawking about 'is it socialist' or 'isn't it', because
    >    it doesn't much matter to the discussion that this list
    >    should have.

 I intend to be cooperative and to adhere to the purpose of this list to
 the best of my ability.  Now all the list owners have to do is to be
 crystal clear about what the precise purpose of this list is.  (And if
 this has already been explained, I'm sorry but I missed it.)

 It stands to reason that if we cannot discuss "is it socialist?" [for
 any particular "it"] then likewise no one should go around saying
 that it *is* socialist.  If no one may suggest that Leninism (etc.)
 is untrue to Marxism, then, logically, it is equally off-topic for
 anyone to refer to Leninism (etc.) in a way that takes it for granted
 that it _is_ true to Marxism.

 In other words, the only way for this policy to be logically
 consistent is to avoid any mention of any theorist who came after
 Marx died in 1883.

 If you try to administer such a policy in any other way, and what it
 sounds like to me is someone saying "my interpretation is assumed to
 be right and yours is assumed to be wrong."

                                  Mike Lepore  mlepore at mcimail.com




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

------------------------------

From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3 at columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:33:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Reply to Jorn

Jorn:
- ----
> But I think it should be a warning to all of us (also in the US) that =
> nazi threats have been a factor in most European countries (like France, =
> Italy, Austria, Belgium and others) during the last 5 or so years.
>

Louis: I hope that the Europeans on the list can speak about this. Some
French list members had a heated debate about the CP and LePen, but I of
course couldn't follow their debate.

>
> Jorn:
>
> By accepting on the one hand the need to "build a socialist party" and =
> on the other hand rejecting ANY attempts in this direction, I think you =
> owe us an explanation to how this can be achieved. Your concrete =
> criticisms (of the SWP (US) and others) are probably valid (I don't know =
> enough to go into this more concretely). But I think you offer NO =
> suggestions to how socialists can overcome these faults.
>

Louis: The Socialist Party I am trying to help build will be one that
does not define itself on the "Russian" questions. Your group has one
interpretation on such questions, Hugh Rodwell's has another. This typically
is a split question in Trotskyism. I am saying we have to move beyond this
framework. This divides the left. Solidarity and the Committees of
Correspondence in the United States are two loosely-knit organizations
that point in the direction of the type of party we need. I consider them
transitional formations. I belong to CofC, but support Solidarity as well
and urge people to either join or work with them. I also encourage people
to take a look at Green parties in their locality, or LPA, or any other
promising formations.

We also have to abandon this whole "democratic centralism" nonsense. What
this means in practice is that members of such "vanguard" formations
defend the party line in public and can not violate party discipline by
changing their mind *publically*. What this means, practically speaking,
is that I can debate you or Hugh Rodwell until I'm blue in the face, but
you'll never take a position contrary to your party's. You wouldn't risk
expulsion, would you? This method of functioning has to go. Lenin's party
understood discipline as functioning related to *actions* like demonstrations
and strikes. This became twisted in the early years of the Comintern to mean
discipline of speech and thought.

I think the party we need will have to include conflicting ideas not only
on whether the Stalinists were a class rather than a caste, but on
whether or not Stalin was a greater revolutionary than Trotsky. The
important demarcation for a party is not questions like these but how to
defeat the capitalist class. I know you think that these questions should be
intimately connected, but I disagree. All that this leads to is
sectarianism, and sectarianism is the biggest problem the Marxist left
faces.


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

------------------------------

From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at igc.apc.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:49:55 -0800
Subject: Re:  Militias

When I read this silly "Race TRaitor" in print, I had two
interrelated gut reactions: (1) Ignatiev has a rather strange
afinity with his supposed opponents in the militas, a curious
affinity, indeed! (2) his vicious anti-semitism is rather bizarre
for a Jew, but sadly consistently with my experience of the Jewish
left.

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

------------------------------

From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at igc.apc.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:54:34 -0800
Subject: Re: NOI demographics

Mr. expert on fascism outght to know that fascist movements are
always a combination of the petty bourgeoisie and the
lumpenproletariat, not the proletariat in between.  NOI is so
classic a fascist formation, it takes a great deal of badly
directed intellectual energy to overlook theobvious.  Of course,
when I hadf to deal woth black profesioanls who bragged about
attending the march -- the kind of people who always volunteer for
everyting in the community, especially to run things -- I said to
myself -- predicatability, thy name is Washington.

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

------------------------------

From: Adam Rose <adam at pmel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 15:14:30 GMT
Subject: Pat Buchanan

Louis asked me what I thought of Pat Buchannan.
Here's my reply.

- ----- Begin Included Message -----

>From adam Tue Feb 27 13:41:29 1996
To: lnp3 at columbia.edu
Subject: Re: marxism-digest V2 #618
Content-Length: 1464


Well, he's just a right winger.

Just because he isn't the type of right winger we've become used to
since Thatcher and Reagan, doesn't mean he's that unusual. People thought
Thacher was a Nazi, because she wasn't the type of right winger we were
used to then. Calling her a Nazi was more often than not an excuse to
get depressed because she was invincible, and make alliances with the
Liberals.

I could see a similar split developing amongst the British Tories in
opposition, between an authoritarian, racist Portillo and a discredited
"wet" like Clarke.

In say Italy, there is the Nothern League, which is populist, racist and
right wing. Their rallies look to me like pretty intimidating. I wouldn't
want to be black in the place where their rallies are taking place.

Nevertheless, they are not Nazis. The Nazis are in the National Alliance ( ex
MSI ). They are at present persuing a "respectable" strategy, but the Nazi
street fighters are there, although numerically small, in the background.

I'd guess it's like the difference between David Duke + Pat Buchannan. ( Or
in Britain between the BNP + Portillo ) My problem is I can't argue it
concretely because I can't give enough examples.

I think concretely, if you have a Buchannan activist in your workplace, you're
inevitably going to have a lot of "vigourous" arguments. But if you have a
real Nazi, you campaign for the union to get the bastard sacked. That's the
difference in practise.

Adam.


- ----- End Included Message -----



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

------------------------------

From: Adam Rose <adam at pmel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 15:02:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Capitalist Crisis in US (Louis P)

> So here's a real political task for the united forces of a revolutionary
> left - find the correct demands for this period!

How can you find demands which fit a whole period ? What a load of rubbish.

At the beginning of the 1992 Miners demonstrations, we raised the slogan
of a general strike, because it fitted. Of course, we didn't just raise it
as a slogan but we also did our best to bring it about. It didn't fit the
week before, and it no longer fitted the week after. Later we raised
slogans along the lines of "march on parliament" with the idea of laying
seige to parliament and making it vote in favour of the miners.

When this didn't happen, we didn't raise another slogan but started an
argument about why it hadn't - Scargill was tied to the left winger Knapp,
and Knapp to the TUC and Labour Party.

I'd guess that in France recently things changed even quicker. Also, in order
to bring in more workers in private industry in to the action, quite sectional
demands would have had to be raised, as well as demands for the movement as
a whole.

And finally, if you're a member of a group with about 10 members, there's
no point raising any demands at all. Who are you demanding these things
from ? The owner of the pub where all 10 of you meet ?

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


- ---------------------------------------------------------------


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

------------------------------

From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3 at columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:18:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: NOI demographics

Louis: Ralph is quite correct on this. The classical fascist movements do
incorporate the lumpen proletariat and the petty-bourgeosie and I guess I
haven't really given this as much thought as it deserves. It should be
said, however, that Malcolm X came out of the lumpen proletariat, into
the leadership of the Nation of Islam in the 50s, where he started his
development as one of the great revolutionaries of the modern era.

Ralph, of course, will be the first to tell you that
Malcolm X was a horrible reactionary nationalist who sold out black
people. On this question he stands shoulder to shoulder with the
Spartacist League and every other sectarian Trotskyite outfit.


On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote:

> Mr. expert on fascism outght to know that fascist movements are
> always a combination of the petty bourgeoisie and the
> lumpenproletariat, not the proletariat in between.  NOI is so
> classic a fascist formation, it takes a great deal of badly
> directed intellectual energy to overlook theobvious.  Of course,
> when I hadf to deal woth black profesioanls who bragged about
> attending the march -- the kind of people who always volunteer for
> everyting in the community, especially to run things -- I said to
> myself -- predicatability, thy name is Washington.
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>


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

------------------------------

From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3 at columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:31:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Cuba thread policy and reading suggestion

Louis:

I'm a little confused. Is this Cuba thread the same thing as the seminar
proposal a while back that you made?

In any case, I'm all for it, especially considering the stepped-up
attacks on Cuba. As far as the question of whether it is socialist or
not, we simply have to expect that those people who view it as a
capitalist country will make their ideas known.

I have a book by Claes Brundenius on "Economic Growth, Basic Needs and
Income Distribution in Revolutionary Cuba". He is one of my favorites. I
would like to report on this and the other book. I am also interested in
a book by Carrollee Bengelsdorf on "Problems of Democracy in Cuba". I
also have a fairly new book on Cuba from Monthly Review that I've been
meaning to crack.

I think, by the way, the best antidote to flame wars and sectarian
recruitment pitches is discussion based on readings. That has certainly
been true of the fascism discussion. What causes this list to degenerate
are people's off the top of the head observations that seem more akin to
talk radio than anything else.



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

------------------------------

From: 1k1mgm at KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Christopher Gunn)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:20:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: "Wets"? (was: Re: Pat Buchanan)

Adam Rose <adam at pmel.com> wrote

>[....] a discredited
>"wet" like Clarke. [....]

What does this term ("wet") mean in terms of European political
discourse?  It's come up a couple times just in today's list traffic,
and I'm sure it doesn't mean in what it does here in Kansas
(old Catholic-Puritan conflicts pivoting around alcohol prohibition
and related issues).  Help with terminology please!

Kit Gunn, Univ. of Kansas



Christopher Gunn                Molecular Graphics and Modeling Laboratory
1k1mgm at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu       University of Kansas
Phone: 913-864-4428 or -4495    Malott Hall
                                Lawrence, KS  66045




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

------------------------------

From: Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers at state.ut.us>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:24:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Cuba thread/seminar policy: reading

>>> Louis N Proyect <lnp3 at columbia.edu>  2/27/96, 09:31am >>>
I'm a little confused. Is this Cuba thread the same thing as the
seminar  proposal a while back that you made?

Lisa: Yes.  Whatever we call it, I don't want it dropped, but it can
be slow and easy.  It's all a voluntary/anarchist endeavour.  It
needs no name, and NO sniping.  Bryan is still helping to 'organize'
to the extent that it needs organizing, which is not much.  The
anarchist and the anthropologist are *in charge of *not* being in
charge*, or something like that.

>>I have a book by Claes Brundenius on "Economic Growth, Basic Needs
and  Income Distribution in Revolutionary Cuba". He is one of my
favorites. I  would like to report on this and the other book. I am
also interested in  a book by Carrollee Bengelsdorf on "Problems of
Democracy in Cuba". I  also have a fairly new book on Cuba from
Monthly Review that I've been  meaning to crack.

Lisa:  I suggest that some other interested people volunteer to
review one of these books each.  If we have more than one person
reporting on a book, that is good too.  Louis, please complete the
references you mention, so folks can get a look at them if they like.
 The 'other book' is the one I listed chapters of?

So, we're starting to generate a list of volunteers:

Louis         Brundenius _Economic Growth etc._
              Sandor and Halebsky _Struggle and Transformation_
              ?book? from Monthly Review
??            Pick any chapter/s, in Struggle and Transformation
??            Bengelsdorf, _Problems of Democracy in Cuba_
Carlos        ??
Adam          ??
Rosser        ??
Lisa          undecided
BryanA.       will be posting some more suggested readings

>>I think, by the way, the best antidote to flame wars and sectarian
recruitment pitches is discussion based on readings.

Lisa: I'd say it's a much more _informative_ alternative, and will
give us something to talk about other than Party Positions.  More
_enjoyable_ too for those that do not enjoy chest-thumping, attempted
intimidation primate dominance displays....





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

------------------------------

From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan at umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:33:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: swp

This is getting silly and repetitious:

Bryan Alexander					Department of English
email: bnalexan at umich.edu			University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418				Ann Arbor, MI  USA    48103
fax: (313) 763-3128				http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan

On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, James Miller wrote:

> PAT BUCHANAN: A FASCIST?
>
>    I agree with the article in the Militant
> newspaper labeling Buchanan a fascist.
>    Louis says that the political climate in
> the US today is not favorable for the rise of
> a mass fascist movement. This is true. But
> this doesn't settle the question of whether
> Buchanan is a fascist. A person can be a
> fascist long before the times are right for
> the growth of a mass fascist movement.

I said this before, and clearly: Buchanan is a fascist type of politician
who is not acting *now* in fascist times.

>    Louis says that Buchanan is a
bourgeois > politician. This is also true. All fascists
> are bourgeois politicians. But their arena
> of activity is not parliamentarism; it is
> the street. Buchanan is doing things that
> point toward the organization of fascist
> gangs.

OK - and the evidence for this? read on:
>    I think if you listen to what he is
> saying in his primary speeches, you will
> see that he is not going for the votes the
> way other bourgeois politicians do. His
> statements are unconditional on many key
> questions: abortion, the family, God,
> protectionism, gays, immigrants, etc.
> This shows he is building a movement of
> support outside the electoral arena. For
> him, the elections serve not to get him
> elected, but to give him a platform he
> can use to help build an extra-parliamentary
> mass ultraright movement.

This shows nothing of the sort!  Look, I *teach* rhetoric for a living,
and can tell you the difference between speech content and political
organization.  Just because he talks this way doesn't mean he has a bunch
of brown shirts chanting "Crossfire first, the White House next!"  This
is *not* Marxist analysis.  This is, however, a prime site for our work.
	But there's more:

>    Louis says
that there are no fascist > gangs attacking unions, progressive
> organizations, etc. But there are shootings
> of abortion providers, anti-semitic vandalism,
> a growth of violence-prone militias, threats
> against immigrants and gays. There is an
> intensification of scapegoating and the
> politics of resentment. These are signs of
> a growing social crisis and political
> instability.

First of all, this neatly finishes and skips the point of Buchanan's
followers.  Second, aside from the militias, you could say this of any
point from 1980 through now.  Third, as for the militias: can you show us
links between Buchanan and them? or even a structural association? No?

>... But more and more workers are
> thinking about political solutions, radical
> solutions. Some of them look to the ultra-
> right. Some of them look to the labor
> movement. They want to see the rules of
> society changed in their favor. This is
> the opposite of a search for individual
> solutions.

This needs much more development: where? which industries? etc.

>    Buchanan is not a full-blown fascist, like
> Hitler was in 1923. But he is a fascist of
> the type that is to be expected in the US
> today. He would not be having the kind of
> success that he is if the political ground
> were not prepared for the emergence of this
> kind of politics. His success in the
> primaries is evidence of the existence of
> a constituency that responds positively to
> a fascist political approach.

Emergence, maybe.  Nascent.  Potential.  Embryonic.  These are good
words, not organization or movement.
	And keep in mind the narrow limitation of his success so far.
>...


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

------------------------------

From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3 at columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:07:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Computer Programmers from India

Louis:

"At 23, Ashok Shantha Narendra Kumar is on the fast track. A recent
computer science graduate from one of the best schools in India,
Naren, as he's known, is a hotshot programmer at Bangalore-based
Infosys Technologies Ltd., one of the most respected contract
programming firms in the country. He hasn't been to the U.S. yet, but
will likely visit soon.

Programmers like Naren, twentysomething and ambitious, are hotter
than Indian curry in a market that can't seem to churn them out fast
enough. Starting salaries average 150,000 rupees a year. High by
Indian standards, that's less than $4,500 a year, or about one-tenth of
what a comparable U.S. programmer makes.

For that reason, Naren represents the competition -- some would say
unfair competition -- for people such as Julie Cairns-Rubin of
Somerset, N.J. A former analyst in the information systems unit at
SeaLand Service, Inc. in Edison, N.J., Cairns-Rubin is one of nearly
100 SeaLand IS employees whose jobs were transferred overseas last
year to be performed by low-cost foreign programmers from off-shore
firms in the Philippines and India.

After years of working in a largely mainframe Cobol environment at
SeaLand, Carins-Rubin is retraining in client/server application
development. She has a bachelor's degree in business, a minor in data
processing, 11 years of experience at SeaLand and no job. She is
seething.

'Corporations are saying they need to do this because this country
doesn't have the same skills and experience that [foreign
programmers] have," Carins-Rubin says. 'But that's a real phony
excuse. Corporations are doing this because they are getting a lot of
cheap labor, that's all. Greed is what is driving this whole thing.'"


(From Computerworld, 2/26/96)


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

------------------------------

From: wdrb at siva.bris.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 17:53:23 GMT
Subject: RE: re:Scargill,SLP(fwd)

    Carlos asks:

    Then, what is your reason to join the SLP, only to have a left
    cover for your usage?

Will  replies:

I dont know exactly what youre asking here Carlos....
a left cover for my usage??  Im joining the SLP because
(a) its not planned on the Lenninist vanguard model  (b) the
Labour Party has smashed its left wing  and (c) some of the
best working class socialists in Bristol have joined the SLP

 Carlos say   Parties are representing classes, or
vanguard of classes, or both.  If you would like to join
something that specifically reject parts of the class, or its vanguard,
then you should join a church, not a political party.

Will replies: I dont think any party in the UK represents
the working class or even significant fractions of it in any
 way other than that the Labour party is an
electoral party that is not the Tory party. None of
the small groups that ive seen could conceivably be
considered to be the vanguard of the working class
in any real way. The only thing that ive seen in my life that
could have been considered as the vanguard of the
british working class in any way were the striking mining
communities in 1985/86.



Carlos continues:
 Militant was *not* witch-hunted for being a party within a party
 (the labour Party had, have and will have that) but because its
 politics were making an impact in the membership.  The Bevanists,
 the "Tribune" and many others before and during the Militant's
 period in the Labour Party can fit the same description.


Will replies:

Well - perhaps your right up to a point here. Militant were
making local gains in some areas, notably Liverpool.
Certainly their politics was unpopular with the labour
leadership as was the rest of the labour lefts.

But I think your dead wrong to say they were only one
of many groupings in the LP. Sure, all parties are full
of conspiracy and sub-group. But Militant were different
from the Bevanists, Tribune etc precisely because they
were organised on Leninist lines. It is dishonest to suggest
otherwise....Militant definitely regarded themselves as
different because of the way they were organised. In
practice this form of organisation meant that (i) all their
members repeated exactly the same speeches all the time
(and even grew Militant accents- a sort of bastard
Liverpudlian complete with Peter Taffe hand movements)
- - this also made them very boring and (ii) Militant members
never did anything for the labour party branches they were
in unless it was regarded as in Militants interest.

Militant were a trotskyist group following a long term
strategy of entryism into a bourgoies workers party.
They were organised along Lenninist lines. If you
dont think this is the case all I can say is that you
are being unfair to Militant.


Carlos continues:

Moreover, the "Corresponding Society" around Scargill, the
"committees"of former CPGB members are "parties within the SLP".
Are you in favor expelling them, too?

Will replies:

Id be interested in hearing more about the corresponding society around
Scargill. I do not know whether the SLP will get anywhere. But if it
is full of small groups competing to be the new bolsheviks
by following what they conceive as Lenins recipe for a revolutionary
party then im sure the SLP will be dreadful and will die quickly.
Perhaps members of Militant will join and then parade themselves at the
early conferences in order to paralyse the launch with endless arguements
about expelling people. There are a lot of left wing working class people
in the UK who will never join the dogmatic, sectarian neo-lenninist sects.
In Bristol I know many working class people just as left wing as you
and me who have either been through Militant, SWP,WRP etc and
are bitter about the experience or who would never join such
organisations in the first place.

Militant have improved tremendously since they split both in terms of their
politics and their conduct. If they have the confidence of their value
they will continue as an independant party.

yours etc

will brown

Bristol  england


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

------------------------------

From: hariette at easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:28:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Popular Justice and The Rule of Law (Soviet law)

>Otherwise I agree with Luciano: like the achievement of bourgeois
>literaure, the acheivements are bourgeois law--and therea re real
>achievements--are a precious heritage, worthy of presevation. Also, of
>coursem develkopment.
>
>--Justin
>

Funny Marxist!   When classes are abolished and the state dissapears (is
abolished by the "withering away process" - and that is the aim of Marxism -
where will law (bourgeois or proletariat) would stand?

If you want to preserve the edifice of bourgeois law under the laughauble
and absurd - from the point of view of the proletariat, since bourgeois law
EMBODIES the rule of that class over the proletariat - why not preserve the
bourgeois state?  It is only by means of the bourgeois state that bourgeois
law can PRESERVED AND DEVELOPED!.

No wonder people like you - worshippers of every REPRESSIVE achievement of
the ruling classes (for that in a nut shell is "the law" under class
society) -  show such a concentrated and undisguised hatred for the
revolution.



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

------------------------------

End of marxism-digest V2 #621
*****************************




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

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list