Re: labor party

[m-14970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hugh Rodwell)]

>At 8:58 PM 7/23/96, James F. Miller wrote:
>
>>I argued that if any of the radicals in the "labor
>>party" tried to make something of the party other than
>>what the bureaucrats wanted, the union officials would
>>just chuck them out, because the party belongs to the
>>union officials.
>
>For what it's worth, Labor Party loyalists say the reason the Buffalo
>chapter's charter was rescinded was because it was endorsing candidates for
>elective office, a violation of the founding convention's guidelines.
>
>It's odd to see an enthusiastic defender of a party line having a problem
>with this.

Specious stuff, Doug.

The Labor Party hacks would choke if you said they were trying to implement
a democratic centralist regime. What they are doing is to apply
bureaucratic, authoritarian methods in a party aiming for mass adherence
(at least in words, presumably) and therefore popular appeal. Desperate
behaviour.

Jim M is talking about a completely different kind of discipline.

I see the same thing operating at work all the time. All the 'shock,
horror' hypocrisy at revolutionary parties demanding discipline and
commitment, while the boss imposes the harshest and most bureaucratic
discipline with no regard whatever for principles, values or effects.

Funny that the vilification and sniping is reserved for militants like Jim
who accept discipline as a consequence of their principles and commitment,
while hardly an eyelid is batted when reactionary traitors ram their zombie
discipline down the throats of (so far) much greater numbers of workers.

The 'problem' is with the contradiction between the claim of national
representation of labour's interests and the objectives and methods in
which this claim is materializing.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---