Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 18:57:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: Labor Party and our actions concerning i


> >> On the labor party
>
> We also don't hold the proposal for a labor party hostage to democratizing
>the unions. For a while we used a wrong formulation on this. We would say,"for
>a labor party based on a democratized, revitalized, fighting labor movement."
>This is confused tactically.
>
> We have the right and the obligation to demand of the current, elected
>leadership of our unions that they stop supporting the Democrats right now.
>The elected leadership of the unions, as they are now, should break from the
>capitalist parties and help launch a labor party.
>
> Jack Barnes, The Changing Face of US Politics, Pathfinder Press, 1981,
> 1994 <<
>
>
>
> I can't resist throwing this quote into the discussion with Jim Miller and
>Mike Dean. What is wrong with applying this approach today? Wouldn't it be
>more fruitful to demand that the officialdom make this "labor party" a real
>workers organization that fights for workers interests than simply abstaining
>based on the class composition of the current leadership?
>
> Isn't actually building the labor party into an effective force something the
>labor bureaucrats fear? Ok, socialists will never hijack the party from the
>officialdom, but socialists can and have, in other situations, hijacked the
>membership, the people who are actually doing the work. I suspect there are
>more Mike Deans out there.
>
> On the program, if you go back and read your Engels, he is pretty clear that
>he regarded a worker's party taking concrete action as more important than its
>program, particularly at the beginning stages.
>
Even Jon, when he takes his head out of the engine, makes some sense!

Well done. 

malecki




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