Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:17:50 -0800 From: iwp.ilo-AT-ix.netcom.com (CEP ) Subject: Re: Socialist Labour Party You (Adam Rose) wrote: > > >And why not straight to a revolutionary party ? >Why are you so desparate to submerge yourself in reformist clothing ? > >It's almost as if you don't really believe workers can be won to >an open revolutionary party - which is clearly not the case. > Carlos Replies: Sure, the question is a tactical decision, not strategic. You may be a revolutionary tendency or party and still believe that if a phenomenon of regroupment of potential revolutionaries occur somewhere else, you should be there to attract to a revolutionary program. Lenin and Trotsky tried that very succesfully with socialdemocrats, anarchists..etc. Before them, Marx and Engels envisioned the First International as an international united front. Lenin have its own faction inside the 2nd. International (which, by the way) had a terrible right wing positions (remember the Rosa Luxembourg/Lenin/Martov and others tendency in the 18..(?) International Conference of Socialdemocracy on the question of immigration... Even when they were succesful in a revolution (1917), Lenin, and Trotsky, INSISTED IN REGROUPMENT IN THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL. Didn't they? The idea of maintaining a pure unspoiled group of revolutionaries outside any historic process of regroupment that occur in the real world doesn't look very smart IMO. Adam wrote: >Call me old fashioned, but I am part of a party which is a revolutionary >party, which says its a revolutionary party, and whose members join it >on that basis. We state unambiguously and clearly that the key to change >in society is action by the working class, outside of parliament. We >have proved that it is possible to achieve some influence building like >this. Carlos Replies: Here is the key, Adam, you say "achieve some influence building like this". You are proposing an slow, linear development until the SWP reach mass influence. I think that only lead you, with good luck, to a linear, molecular, individual growth. In terms of maitaining an structure, is not bad, in terms to mobilize the working class behind a revolutionary program is just wishful thinking, IMO. Momentum for social change and revolution do not last forever. The working class and the oppressed do not have the stamina or the idealism to keep fighting for long periods of time. Prolonged confrontation ALWAYS HAS BENEFITED THE RULING Class (remember stalinism as a reaction to the Russian Civil War?). You cannot sustain a regular, little by little, approach to build the revolutionary movement. You need to grasp the opportunities as they are presented to you. Now, I do not know if the SLP is one of those opportunities, but if it is not that should be dicussed in terms of numbers, quality of the regroupment and possibilities of the revolutionaries to win over a significant number of its participants to revolutionary politics in certain period of time. The question where you, as a revolutionary, feel more confortable is not the question at all. Of course you will feel better in a party that have small numbers and more programatic homogeneity. But revolutionary politics is not about revolutionary, confortable "micro-climates" but about acting as a level to mobilize as many as you can behind revo- lutionary politics. Is the SWP that level? If they are, what is your point of support to multiply its energies? -- Is the SLP the possibility to be the point o f suppor for the revolutionary level to multiply its efforts? That's the question on the matter of the SLP tactic ... Isn't it? Comradely, Carlos--- > --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005