[Marxism] Re: David Murray and FI reunification

DAVID MURRAY dmurray at studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
Wed Jun 23 22:36:44 MDT 2004

While I don't have any time for the Fourth International, I must say
that their response to the Cuban revolution was *generally* a lot better
than Grant and his tendency who, at the time, were already deeply
esconced in the British Labour Party and arguing that the road to
socialism in Britain was through a Labour government passing an
'Enabling Act' which would take over the top 200 companies.  All, of
course, without the need to overthrow the British capitalist state. 
Phil if you mean uncritical worship of Castro and the papering over of the 
growth of Cuban stalinism. The Guilty as charged. But you only need to look at the results
of this 'greater understanding'. The USFI in Britain supported the contempt (I mean RESPECT)
coalition which is the biggest mistake ever. The LCR in France supported Chiraq into power.
The Brazillian USFI is still looking both ways, and failed to properly campaign against the
expulsion of a number of their members from the Brazillian PT. The DSP supported Australian troops
into East Timor, but for some reason opposes them in the Solomon islands.
That Grant and co. did not understand the role of guerrilla warfare in
Cuba is hardly surprising when they had already abandoned the idea of
revolution in Britain.
However you constantly misrepresent our position with regards to Parliament. Sectarians
like you seem to forget that it is a transitional demand, and was neccessary to lower our banner
partly to gain the ears of workers and youth, most of which were at the time in the 
Brittish Labour party. hardly ensconing.
You also ignore the other part, which was that teh workers government must be backed up by
the mass of workers outside.To quote the pamphlet:
But the limitations of such measures must also be understood by the labour movement.
the capitalists will never permit their state to be gradually taken away from them. Experience has shown that only a decisive change in society can eliminate the danger of reaction and allow the
'democratisation' of the state machine' to be carried out through to a conclusion
with the establishment of a new state controlled and managed by working people.
'A peaceful socialist transformation of society would be entirely possible if such bold steps were taken by a labour government. However it is equally certain that the road chosen by the leaders of the labout movement - of preverication and half-measures - will mean enormous suffering
for the brittish working class. Despite the 'democratic' mask which the Brittish capitalists
have been forced to don over the last twenty years, if their system is threatened they will not
hesitate to resort to what Trotsky called 'cold cruelty' which they displayed in the past,
both in their
dealings with colonial peoples and towards the Brittish working class"
(From, The State a warning to the labour movement)
Hardly parliamentary reformism Phil. If you're so keen to reprise this pamphlet in your posts
Phil, remember these bits as well.
That Grant and co. did not understand the role of guerrilla warfare in
Cuba is hardly surprising when they had already abandoned the idea of
revolution in Britain.
Grant and co certainly did know, guerilla warfare was organically related to the 
rise of Stalinism in Cuba.
'Grant and CO.' Phil were the closest left-wing organisation to come to 
'revolution' in britain with the Liverpool movement and the Poll Tax movement in the 1980s and 90s.
Hardly an abandonmentof the idea of revolution Phil. Or maybe we should have followed
the example of your mates in Sinn Fein, taking part in the government of the Brittish imperialist state
doing everything you have tried to accuse the Grant tendency (broadly speaking) of.
Dave Murray

David Murray

More information about the Marxism mailing list