reply to replies

["mike pearn" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cdes,
 
Hopefully this will be my last word on the current
election of the Imperial President. Given that I have been in a  minority
in this debate I can only hope that cdes will be patient if this post is longer
than I would wish.
 
To be begin by answering Chris Carrick may I point
out once again that you have assigned to me a position that I do not hold and
have given no reason for inferring from my posts. Namely that I see the working
class as being blue collar only. What total nonsense a survey of my own extended
family would include a teacher, a clerical worker, shopfitter, nurse, etc. A
couple pretty well paid none blue collar and all working class. Nuff
said.
 
Chris asks why is Naders program specious? Actually
Chris I answered this already in that I pointed out that in truth no
organisation is willing to campaign for this program it is simply a document and
not a guide to action. As such it is specious as my dictionary gives it
'superficially attractive but of no real interest or value'.
 
As for consumer rights. Well only an idiot would
oppose seatbelts and Nader deserves a great deal of credit for his work in this
field. But no workers will not be radicalised by campaigning for such rights.
One might campaign for better rights for consumer protection but if you cannot
get credit as a low waged or unemployed worker such 'rights' are a joke.
Radicalisation is far more likely to arise through campaigns for the right to
consume! By which I mean for wage rises and associated benefits, the old
fashioned ever continuing class struggle at the economic level. Further more
such campaigns are almost always confined to the constitutional path of lobbying
and the remuneration of lawyers to fight battles on our behalf. Between say 65
and 75 masses of workers, students and all types of people were radicalised by
economic struggles and anti-imperialist struggles but Nader campaigned for
seatbelts. This says something about his 'radicalism'.
 
With reference to students we can agree on much and
yes they are more conservative today. But there is far more pressure on them to
get jobs, and pay bills than 20 or 30 years ago. They cannot afford to be as
radical as their some of their parents in the sixties and seventies. And again
sure they will play an important role in any future upturn in social struggles
but my point remains that workers as workers are central to the capitalist
system and to its overthrow. Therefore they should be central to the concerns of
would be Marxists.
 
Chris also objects to being referred to as a
liberal. This is your right of course but I meant the term as a political
definition and see no reason to change it. However Chris would seem to think
that referring to me as "either ignorant or a liar" is fine. C'mon I discussed
Naders program so you knew that I was not ignorant of it so its clear you wished
to portray me as a liar. This nonsense has no place in even the internet marxist
movement! And please dont claim this was merely a harsh term as you must know
better.
 
In response to Gary I am again flattered as now it
seems that i have written a gracious reply to him. Sadly he again saddles me
with a position I do not hold; that of Zinoviev on the party question. Not true
Gary I spent many years in the SWP(Britain) and while I still identify with much
of that groups politics I reject their parody of Leninism. Later I was in the
SLP and it is a matter of record that I played a small role in that group
fighting for the democratic rights of the membership. I might add that nothing I
wrote could be interpreted as giving support to any particular view on party
building.
 
Phil Fergusons comments continue the argument in
similar terms and he too would seemingly have me guilty of Zinovievism. However
he is correct to write that the United Front tactic is one that properly
speaking describes actions between mass parties of revolutionaries
and reformists. I confess then to being guilty of inexactitude. Not the
crime of the century I would offer in mitigation. More importantly I would still
argue that revolutionaries, neccesarily meaning revolutionary groups, must
utilise the united front tactic and method with reference to reformist
tendencies including workers dominated by such ideology. However Phil then goes
seriously off course when he dimisses the term reformist workers. In discussing
his own experience he makes a number of valuable points but reduces the argument
as to workers reformist conciousness to either voting Labour or strike action.
But this does violence to the true situation which is more political in nature
as can be seen in a variety of situations. Thus we must see reformist
conciousness as being Janus like, it is not simply progressive in nature but can
also be reactionary in certain instances. For example during the 1979 Winter of
Discontent here in Britain it was reformist tendencies that restrained sections
of the class from taking on the Labour government. And Phil many of those who
wished to give "our government" more time were concious supporters of Benn and
the, then powerful, Communist Party. It was not the simply the case that the
union bureaucrats betrayed the struggle although this did happen. What did
happen was that reformist tendencies such as the CP and those who looked to the
Labour left were willing to restrain the workers they representeed as stewards
and union conveners. But during elections the majority of those same workers,
earlier betrayed by the reformist leaders, were willing to vote Labour as that
Party was and to a lesser degree still is, seen as the party of the NHS, etc.
That Phil found no workers willing to own up to being Labourites is hardly
surprising given the industry he discusses but he should know that this is not
the case in older industries where Labour affiliation runs deeper. Thus in
recent disputes in the car industry we have seen a layer of rank and file union
leaders, shop stewards and convenors, acting to hold back the
struggle.
 
In short my position on reformist workers is that
this particular form of class conciousness they exemplify is in long term
historical decline and Janus like in nature. It is also specific to better
organised higher skilled groups of workers and is to be associated with the
declining forces of Stalinism and Labourism. None of which has anything in
common with the position that Phil asigns to me and then proceeds to polemicize
against. As for his condescending aside that workers are not to be defined by
voting patterns perhaps he should read what I write and not what he thinks I
write.
 
Finally a brief comment on Dayne Goodwins defense
of Naders anti-racist credentials and his posting of a statement on same by
Nader. Its curious that all of Naders evidence as to his record in fighting
racism refers to not to supporting the struggles of Black people against Police
racism or for Civil Rights but to points on his program. Even if we examine
these statements we will find nothing here that is specific to the needs of
Black people generally still less to Black workers. Thus in education Nader says
he is an anti-racist because he opposes cuts which disproportionately hit Black
people. Fine but this is not a question specific to Black people it is a class
issue. Indeed the reporter from The Black World Today comments on what he calls
Naders universalistic approach. Race blind would be more accurate. But to go one
step further it is a strange and poor anti-racism that is to be confined to
electoral politics and the court room. Nader has lived through a series of
struggles that have simply passed him we would be fools to forget that he has no
record of active participation in struggles for Black liberation.
 
By the time many read this they will have voted for
Nader. Given that Capital will continue to reign in the USA even if he were
elected through some fluke this is not so terrible a crime. But to attempt to
build a green party that shackles the independent representation of the
proletariat that would be a crime and sadly for many on this list futile as
well. Perhaps it is as well to remark that which ever of capitals
representatives takes his place as the worlds top cop our power is not to be
found the ballot booth but in the factories, shops and
offices.