Labor Party

MD575151 at MD575151 at
Thu May 16 21:52:07 MDT 1996

Jorn writes, then I write;
>Right - but we must not and should not get dissolved in the bourgeois
>and reformist ideas of "the masses", i.e. the workers.
>We should *go* where the masses are - but with a *revolutionary*, not a
>reformist party.

  "the masses"  are in bourgeois and reformist organizations.  We must go to
those area (where the masses are) with a revolutionary ajenda.  If "the
masses" are considering forming a labor party it is our responsibility to try
and make it as revolutionary as possable.  If anyone wants to join a truely
revolutionary socialist party I am in full support.  But the reality is that
most people fear us "radicals".  This can change, but only if we are willing
to work for it.


>I certainly would rather fight reformist ideas among my fellow workers
>than outright bourgeois ones.

   Good point.  I would say that we are not facing only one fight at a time.
 We must fight both bourgeois ideas and reformist ideas at the same time.
 The fact that workers are forming a party with the word "labor" in it shows
that there is the desire for something un-bourgeois.  This is a good start.
 Now that this mark has been acheived we must fight burueacracy withing the
movement as well. This cannot be done by ignoring burueacracy.  You have to
get involved and tear up the burueacrats from the inside out.

>So if the workers somehow set up such a
>party - on a mass scale - then it would be a step up.
>But you turn upside down if you think that revolutionaries should first
>build a mass reformist party and *then* win people to revolutionary
>ideas. Why this detour? Oh, yes:

     No.  There IS a reformist party in the making.  right now.  That much is
a fact.  It is now our job to go in there with a revolutionary program.  If
the party will not accept us, then the workers will know what kind of party
it is.  They will not know unless someone goes in and fights.

>So the mere existence of a Labor party will overrun the bureaucrats?
>We shall influence the masses via a bureaucratic machine?
>In Scandinavia that is certainly not the direction things are going.
>And here reformist workers' parties are a reality - not just an idea
>in the heads of some socialists.
   No.  all I was saying was that when thousands of workers get organized the
bureuacrats may be supprised to find that the workers will want a real party.
 Ufortunatly in Europe their are many reformist parties.  That is why we must
prevent this one here from doing the same.  This can not be done by critising
it from the outside or just plain ignoring it. You must go on the floor at
some LPA convention and argue your points as a supporter of the LPA.


>The confusion continues: Either socialist change or we get tossed out.
>If we got kicked out - or left - we would just stand at point zero.

   We would not stand at "point zero" (if you mean "where we started").  The
workers will see that the socialists were fighting alonside them.  When the
Labor Party turns reformist (if it does) then it will fail the asperations of
the workers.  The socialists will have been the one who were fighting for a
revolutionary program, they were not merely sitting on the sidelines waiting
to "see what happens."

>But the real problem is this: If we can't build real forces through a
>revolutionary party, how should we be able to put pressure on a mass
>reformist party and change it's line?

   We can not build forces through a revolutionary party (yet) because the
subjective conditions do not exist at the moment.  There is, however, a
movement towards labor unity--this is expressed through the LPA.  That is a
step towards class consoiusness.  Once people are aware of their class aims
they will become more and more revolutionary.  We MUST change the line of the
LPA.  It is not up to us under what conditions it arises.  It is arising
under bureuacratic conditions.  This we must fight.  IF we cannot change it's
line then it WILL be a reformist party.  Can we do it?  We should at least

Jorn brings up a lot of good point in the latter half of his post.  These are
some points I will have to think about.  I in no way fully support the LPA.
 There is much to critisise.  But I think that it is worthy of support.  What
is the lists feeling on this;  should we at least fight to keep the LPA from
turning reformist, can it be helped?

      ---Mike Dean

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list