Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: labor party
- Subject: Re: labor party
- From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:18:15 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, James F. Miller wrote:
>
> I disagree with Mike that the new Labor Party is a "proletarian
> party." It is a maneuver carried out by a non-proletarian labor
> officialdom. The fact that the labor bureaucrats function in the
> labor movement does not make them into proletarians, either
> sociologically or politically. The labor functionaries constitute
Louis: Comrade worker-bolshevik Jim, could you explain the reasoning
behind the SWP's decision to support long-time black Democrat Louis Stokes
when he decided to run as an independent candidate in the mid-1960s?
--- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- Thread context:
- Re: Re: Third International,
K Helmeczi Fri 28 Jun 1996, 21:30 GMT
- labor party,
James F. Miller Fri 28 Jun 1996, 20:18 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- labor party,
James F. Miller Mon 01 Jul 1996, 06:08 GMT
- Re: US IMPERIALISM SEEKS TO EXPAND ITS FASCIST DICTORSHIP AND FRONT,
hariette spierings Fri 28 Jun 1996, 19:03 GMT
- A case of contardiction between industrial and financial capitals?,
Vladimir Bilenkin Fri 28 Jun 1996, 18:54 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]