Re: Challenge to Paul/Jeff/Marcus: A case for Triangulation?

["Marcus Strom" <MSTROM@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim wrote the below. I am not from 'the other side of the pond', but
live on the other side of the globe. These differences are important.
I will soon do a thorough going dismantling of Militant's politics -
Jeff has made a few misrepresentations of Militants program.
Briefly: Jeff refers to the call for 'community control of police' a
transitional demand. This is not what Militant's program says.
I will bring the program to my desk some time this week and quote
from it regarding the police, revolution, parliament and the state.
They cow-tow to bourgeois respectability (and yes, it was Sheridan in
the _Guardian_, I'll bring that along too).

Jim, the differences have nothing to do with which side of the pond
you're on - if the working class is an international class, then it
needs an international program (Militant recognise this - their
Australian program is quite similar to the British one). Also,  if
the class struggle is taken through its contradictions to a postive
resolution; ie a workers socialist revolution, and in order to
achieve this it needs a party and a program, then these differences
are actually quite important. I will maintain that the logic of
Militant's program is counterrevolutionary. This claim is not made in
a subjective / sectarian way: people in Militant are among the better
people I've worked with in Britain and Australia (Jeff, I was even on
picket lines facing the cops with your comrades in Scottland), but
their program is wrong. It is sectarian of Jeff to rant and rave and
dismiss any critique of militant from the left. It is the repetition
of the Labourist crap that if you aren't in 'the' party (the Labor
Party), you aren't in the movement. Militant's program is not all
that different from the old CPGB's and the current CPB's "British
Road to Socialism". You are kidding yourself if you think socialist
'revolution' will be through an Enabling Bill in Parliament (backed
by the labour movement) - the bastion of the bourgeoisie. The word
'backed' is a dead give away. Jeff you didn't address this point. You
cannot equate nationalisation under 'democratic' control with
socialism (as the first 'stage' of communism where class society
still exists, with the working class the ruling class). And if this
isn't really the case, then it should be in your program! It is
dishonest and patronising to have the 'real' program only available
to those in the organisation. It will be politically developed people
who read your program anyway - aren't they smart enough yet to
understand that a demand is only a minimum and is transitional to
achieving revolutionary goals? Where does it say in your program that
'community control of police' is a transitional demand. All the
things you said about tactics on a demonstration regarding the police
I agree with. At times, a tactical withdrawal, with communication
with the cops may be in order, at times, it may be correct to attack
the cops head on. These are tactical considerations for the day to be
considered in the overall strategy of the particular campaign.

Does the spectre of the Revolutionary Socialist League still hang
over Militant? Does it still exist? Does it still have the real
program and Militant's "Where we stand" just propaganda?

The Revolutionary Socialist League was the name of the organisation
the was before Militant (which formed in 1963?). It was a trotskyist
group which favoured deep entrism in the Labour Party. Its leaders
became the leadership of Militant Labour. If you have a program -
publish it, don't make it a secret tome for the initiated.
Militant's program as it exists is quite reformist. This means one of
two things: either militant is very naive and believes that the
bosses will allow their cops and their parliament to come under
workers control through the Labour Party with a socialist program
(!), or they are very dishonest and elitist and only allow the
initiated to know their true program. Either way, it does not display the
method of a revolutionary, communist organisation.

                                           *   *   *   *   *   *

To fall into the trap of saying that 'rioters' are middle class
anarcho trouble makers!! It sounds like an editorial of the Sun or
Daily Telegraph, not of a revolutionary marxist organisation.

I have a lot of respect for the Militant in terms of the base in the
class they have made - they must be doing something partly right,but
they will not build the revolutionary party that our class needs to
overthrow capitalism.

More when I have the quotes in front of me.

Comradely,

Marcus


>       I have to say that from _this_ side of the pond, the differences
> between you lot over there doesn't seem worth the bile...
>
>       Let's stick to goring the Thatcher/Major Tories and calling
> Labour's bluff...

> Date:          Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From:          Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:       Challenge to Paul/Jeff/Marcus: A case for Triangulation?

> On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Jeffrey Booth wrote:
>
> >
> >     Well, I was once again going to ignore Cockshott's misinformation
> > about the left in Scotland.  But that claim below about his little group
> > being the only working class organization was too much.  Cut the crap,
> > Paul.  Militant Labour is the largest, most working class marxist
> > party/organization in Scotland.
>

>
>       BTW:  Did anyone read the review of the Thatcher bitch's
> autobiography in Monthly Review (She's mad, I tell you; MAD!...)?
> (Jimmy Devine reviews a book in there too...)
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>     ++++++++++++++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++++++++++
>     +++++++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig +++++
>     ++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Those who would give up essential Liberty,            Benjamin Franklin
> to purchase a little temporary Safety,                        Pennsylvania 
> Assembly
> deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.                   Nov. 11, 1755
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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