Anglo-Saxon Labour Party trend and Discontent with Unions

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Wed Jun 19 03:13:28 MDT 1996


Hi Zeynep,

Been watching your posts for a few days now. They appear to be a tendency of
partically mindless activism, partially a family of revolutionaries,
partially a poor little Turkey third world mentality, partially anti
Leninists and finally a blend of various reformist and stalinist ideas under
the guise of being something new..

In fact the basic political trends and movements going on today have hardly
changed. Perhaps more confusion along the demarcation lines and some new
technology, however the basics are still their and your letters have not
changed my mind in any way..

>Do you think that the fact that there is now a search for a "Labour Party",
>rather than the existing Dems and Labs (yup, I'm abbreviating too) both in
>Britain and US points to a trend?

A trend? Hardly in Britain the talk around the labor party has been going on
at least from 1917 and onwards. The basics discussion has and will be
breaking the strangle hold that the reformist tops have over the base.
Perhaps the only real change is that there are far less bureaucrats from the
aristocracy of the labor movement who control things now. Today it appears
to be a caste of professionals who have never set foot on the shop floor who
are running things. But the reformist line is still the motor that holds
people in check.

In the United states the talk of a labor party is hardly a new trend. Been
going on for a long time. Perhaps the only real difference is that this
iniative comes at a time when all things point towards a renewal of
imperialist rivalry internationally and that racist civil war is coming
closer and closer in the United States for everyday that goes..

>When people used to ask us a few years ago "why a trade union" (that is a
>basic question in this country, with union density very low, and anti-union
>laws very harsh) we'd say "for better wages for a better life." Now, that
>answer does not work, because union's are losing their ground as the way
>they operate nows is derived from their "welfare state", "corporatist" era.
>So, it seems the case in other countries.

The above i find very superfiscal and impressionistic. I think that the rise
in the general attack on the workers movement internationally is going to
give new life to both the trade unions and also the reformist parties. That
is exactly the reason they are their. The trade unions as combat
organisations and the reformists to control them so that they don,t go to far..
>
>Is it possible or justified to say, that currently, the working people in
>imperialist countries are also wondering "the unions don't really work the
>way they are, and none of these parties can really protect our rights in
>this sea of insecurity". And looking for answers?

The recent rise in class struggle in Europe shows that people who normally
turned away from the unions or at best were passive members are being forced
by concrete reality to mobilise in defense of the real attack on there lives
and living standards.There will more then likely be a new round of activity
involving these traditional workers organisations as the struggle deepens or
do you think people will sidestep them and automatically start building
"Soviets" or "workers councils?
Do you think that the reformist are just going to stand by and leave the
"marxists" on this list just take over?
>
>And how do you think the discontent in France and Germany with union
>leadership (very obvious in France, increasing in Germany) will find its
>reflection in the politics? Can the SPD in Germany, or the CPF and/or the
>Socialists in France still claim to be the answer?

Yes, of course it will. It will be reflected in the concrete struggle and
people inside of these organisations.The above organisations will certainly
try to provide answers.However a historical split of these parties will be
both neccessary and good in the formation of a more revolutionary vanguard.

>Last, of course related to the "performance" of the real left (us, us, us);
>could not the fascist/nationalist right mobilise this discontent in a very
>unwanted (to say the least) manner?

This last i hope is a joke. "us,us,us," are a number of political trends
who,s politics are opposed to one another in just about everything. Here
too, events will cause a revolutionary regroupment. There is not family of
revolutionaries. It will be the communists and the vanguard of the
proletariat linked to a program of workers power which will be decisive in
polarising the left in the future. It will be tactics like the United Front
in action and open discussions around program and politics in the mass
workers movement that things will be worked out and a new party of
revolutionaries will be built. The deviding line between revolutionaries
will be proletarian independence against all wings of the bourgeois and
internationalism...

And yes if we are not successful, facism is organising its face and soldiers
in the wings. They have a solution! Unless we are capable of coming up with
our own solution..

Warm Regards
bob

PS: This means also a class line and not a sex line...

And the real people suffering in Turkey above the workingclass are the
national minorities (the Kurds) and women who are doubly oppressed because
of there situation. Turkey is hardly a third world country! It is a country
with a very power army and has its own imperialist pretentions and interests
in that part of the world..In fact plays a very important role along with
Greece and the Serbs.. So come off it with this poor little third world shit
will you...




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list