Date: Wed, 29 Nov 95 08:05:13 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: Socialist Labour Party



> 
>     Why is that the SWP couldn't foresee the changes in the
>     LP that made possible even the idea of an SLP? 

We've never ruled out the possibility.
But Scargill's announcement was a bit of a surprise - to me, and
I think to everyone else.

>     Why is
>     that is so much resistance from the SWP to work, not
>     just in unity in action, but in united workers front or
>     in a revolutionary united front with other revolutionary
>     Marxists tendencies such as Militant? 
>

What are you talking about ?
We work in united fronts all the time - I could append
a rather similar list to Steve's at this point, except 
mine would have the ANL in it and his wouldn't.
But a united front for an agreed joint action isn't the same 
as merging political differences. Strike together, march 
separately, as Trotsky said.


>     When I raised the question of your growth you responded
>     that was possible for prolonged period of times a linear
>     process of growth until the situation become revolutionary,
>     or that is what I understood.

I specifically denied that's what I meant.

>     Believe me, your organization
>     will never lead a revolutionary process if it doesn't train
>     itself to the convulsive growth of those few instants of
>     historical upheavals.
> 

Obviously. And we have, thank you very much.

>     Why should be Scargill, and not The Militant and the SWP who
>     will launch the idea of the SLP is they are more important than
>     what Scargill represents? 

Why should revolutionaries propose the formation of a reformist party ?
In what way does this help either the class struggle or the revolutionary
left ?

( BTW, The CP did something similar in the 20's and it got them nowhere ).

Incomprehendingly,

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK








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

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