Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:54:28 -0800
From: iwp.ilo-AT-ix.netcom.com (CEP )
Subject: Re: Socialist Labour Party


You wrote: 

>If the SLP is formed before the next election, then that would 
primarily be
>to prepare for the struggles that will unfold afterwards.
>
>Tim correctly doubts:
>> if more than a handful of workers
>> would vote for such a party when it could mean a loss of the 
elections to the
>> Tories.
>
>However, there are many constituencies where the Tories (and Lib Dems) 
don't
>stand a chance of getting in.  The SLP could get sizable support in 
such
>constituencies, as Militant Labour has demonstrated by standing 
independently.
>
        Carlos Replies:

        I have the question.  Even in the case that an electoral 
        intervention cost the Labor Party to lose the elections
        What's the problem?  If it is so to the right as to no
        warrant entryism for the Marxist ....???>


>---
>
>Adam suggests that Militant should have merged with the SWP in the 
mid-80s.
>In my opinion, there were and still are too many differences between 
us in
>terms of strategy and tactics (let alone theoretical differences) for 
a
>merged organisation to function effectively - it would probably have 
turned
>into a huge faction fight and a split at a later date.


        Carlos Replies:

        I raised the question before of a unity between SWP and         
        Militant and I received a NO answer from both Militant and
        SWP members in another group.  Now, the question is for
        Militant, not about the 80s, but about now.  If they
        are willing to make entryism in the SLP, why not propose
        a join work in the SLP with the SWP?  There are more            
        differences between Militant and Scargill than there are
        between SWP and Militant.  Isn't it?  IMO, theoretical
        differences may be discussed while you have a common project.
        Britain is one of those rare places in which Marxist party
        may contain reformist, centrist and revolutionary wings and
        make it work, both electorally and otherwise.  It is a rare
        opportunity to both advance Marxist influence in general and
        reconstruct Marxism in its original form of free debate
        of differences while striking together, voting together.
        If Marxism is to be rebuilt, this is a phase through we all
        have to go through.  Isn't?


 You (SW) wrote:

  Mergers should be on
>a principled basis of agreement on the important issues.
>
>He seems to merely look at things numerically.  The SWP may have 
gained more
>recruits in the short term (with their sectarian tactics alienating 
most
>of the left) but they will never build a mass revolutionary party 
capable of
>transforming society using such tactics.  On the other hand, such a 
party
>could well be built out of the Socialist Labour Party, and Militant 
Labour
>will try to ensure that this happens.

        Carlos Replies:

        Are you merging with the SLP on principples?  I doubt your
        principples are similar to those of Scargill.  So, mergings are
        not necessarily have to include agreement on all issues, all
        principples, but some general ones.  I have no doubt that if
        Militant get involved in the SLP project, some agreements on
        general principples will exist, but tactical and strategical
        goals would be more important.  The point being, between the
        SWP and the Militant, the left wing of the SLP will have more
        influence.  Why is this fear of a multi-layered tendential
        left wing party in which inside regroupment will include
        several, not one, revolutionary tendencies acting upon deeper
        agreements but still having differences to discuss?

        Carlos
        iwp.ilo-AT-ix.netcom.com


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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