Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:05:24 GMT
From: Steve Wallis <S.Wallis-AT-mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Violence and Revolutions (was: Conservatives win..)


Marcus wrote:

> I didn't "dredge up statements from several years ago". I actually 
> looked at your *program* Militant: Where we stand.

This was a pamphlet written five or six years ago (actually entitled
"What we stand for").  It is certainly not our current programme.

We are in the process of developing an updated "What we stand for" but
we have produced other material in the meantime which come closer to
our current programme (e.g. "Militant Manifesto for Socialism").

> In it, it is 
> claimed that Militant are opposed to violent revolution, see 
> socialism as coming through an "enabling bill in parliament backed by 
> the labour movement" which will nationalise the top 200 hundred 
> companies.

Actually, the argument in the pamphlet was that it was *possible* that
socialism could be achieved that way.  As far as violence is
concerned, the argument was that a peaceful revolution was *possible*.
We used the example of the October 1917 revolution as a justification
for this - the revolution itself was almost bloodless, it was the
attempted counter-revolution by the old ruling class that was
extremely violent.

The pamphlet was written in the days of entrism within the Labour
Party, in order to counter claims that we were undemocratic or wanted
violence for the sake of it.  Having to use such awkward phraseology
(which could easily be misinterpreted) was one of the costs of entrism
[IMO we could have phrased it better, but it is easy to say that in
hindsight].  I defy you (or anybody else) to find any similar
statements that Militant Labour has made since we have ceased using
the tactic of entrism.

So do we oppose violent revolution?  No - we're prepared to do
whatever it takes to achieve socialism.  However, if the overwhelming
majority of the working class can be mobilised via general strikes,
etc., and if workers appeal to the rank-and-file of the army and
police to win many of them to the side of the revolution, then a
relatively peaceful socialist revolution is entirely possible - and
the bosses could have great difficulty in launching an effective
attempt at a counter-revolution.

We don't have illusions in parliament either - we know that reformist
leaders will sell out.  The main reason that we stand in elections is
to get a platform for socialist ideas.  However, socialist victories
in elections (whether it's a few members of Scottish Militant Labour
winning seats on local councils, or a victory for a mass workers'
party at a general election on a radical socialist programme) can give
a big boost to workers' confidence to fight back - and to overthrow
capitalism.  Achieving a socialist revolution is a huge task - which
will require the support of the mass of the working class in order to
succeed - and we think that it is necessary for Marxists to stand in
elections themselves, and for demands to be put on those who purport
to represent the working class, as part of that task.

Steve Wallis
Militant Labour
Manchester, UK

-- 
               **** stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ****
       **** if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ****
    **** more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ****

   /----------+ Centre for Policy Modelling,         Email: S.Wallis-AT-mmu.ac.uk
   \/\  Steve | Manchester Metropolitan University,    Tel: (+44) 161 247 3884
\    / Wallis | Aytoun Building, Aytoun St.,           Fax: (+44) 161 247 6802
 \/\/---------+ Manchester M1 3GH, UK.        http://www.fmb.mmu.ac.uk/~stevew


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

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