Re: Labor Party

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

A tasty morsel here.

MD575151@xxxxxxx writes, in reply to Malecki:
> The labor party will not magically spark a revolutionary fire.
> But, it is a step up from strikes.

I disagree, partially.

For workers who previously identified with the democrats or republicans it is
a step forward. So for the majority, it IS is a step forward.

But for the minority of workers who are socialists, it is a step backwards,
away from class struggle and change from below, towards elections and change
>from above. I'm prepared to bet that this is literally so with a few 1968
survivors in the LPA.

In the UK, this is the dual nature of Blairism and Scargill's SLP.

Millions of voters transfering their vote from Tories to Labour is
a reflection of the class polarisation under the Tories, a ( pale )
reflection of the same forces which have produced white collar
trade union militancy ( teachers, council workers, bank workers, nurses ).

But thousands of ex revolutionaries moving behind Blair via 1980's
Bennism ( the Labour Left ) reflects a layer of activists giving
up on the working class. [ Some of these will end up in Blair's
cabinet : Jack Straw, Magaret Beckett, Hariet Harman . . . ].


The SLP represents a break to the left from Blairism, mostly passive,
on the part of thousands of labour movement activists. This too, is a
step forwards.

But Scargill himself[ and a few "Trotskyists" ] has moved, from being an
effective rank + file leader, via leadership of the National Union of
Mineworkers, to the parliamentary politics that ten, even four years ago he
despised.


Adam ( the crocodile ).

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---