RE: [Marxism] Barnesites change mind on Labour Party - but withoutexplanation

["Charlie Parks" <jcparks5550@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phillip Ferguson wrote: "One of the interesting things is that not one of
the criteria which the
Barnesites used to argue that the British LP *is* a workers party is
dealt with in the article."

I would actually be more interested to know how they arrive at the
description of Brit. Labour and the Democrats as "social imperialists." I'm
familiar with "Labour imperialism," as applied to such things as the Attlee
government's policies in Iran pre-Mossadeq, but this is not very much like
the "social imperialism" of the USSR in invading Hungary and Afghanistan,
the latter of which seems far more deserving of the appellation "social
imperialism" than the former(though this is not to endorse it), insofar as
it was at least intended to install or prop up "socialist" governments,
whereas the imperialism of Labour (old and new) and the Dems scarcely needs
to be qualified with "social." The kind of governments and economies the
Democrats have wanted to export or maintain in various parts of the world
have never been Third World versions of the New Deal; indeed, they have
almost always been the stuff of Hayekian/Ayn Randian fantasies.  --CP



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism