Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:53:22 +0200
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: LCMRCI and the purpose of this list.


This is a post to the left-unity list that might interest some subscribers
on m1.




Anders E wrote:

>1) I think Louis P. should moderate his language. It is counter-productive.

Louis P is not open to dialogue. This advice is wasted.


>Conclusion - to add to the charter something like this:
>
>The list shares the view that the regroupment processes in various countries
>(like PT in Brazil, Solidarity in the US, Enhedslisten in Denmark,
>Rifondazione in Italy, VSP in Germany etc.) are basically positive. To study
>and discuss these processes is one of teh major objectives of the list.
>
>The list starts from a critical attitude to the traditional "leninist"
>concept of the party as practised by most revolutionary groups after the
>second world war.


The trouble here, Anders, is that the discussion is about *revolutionary*
unity. Look at the record of regional and municipal PT government in
Brazil, and you won't find anything *revolutionary* about it.

Set up a Sao Paulo Forum list by all means, but it won't be a list
promoting revolutionary unity.

I'm surprised nobody so far has taken the implicit list purpose distinction
between movements and parties as a starting point for discussion.

I think it's because a party is an absolute necessity for revolutionary
success. On the other hand, revolutionary  or potentially revolutionary
mobilizations can be developed in very useful ways and indirectly speed up
the processes of building a party adequate to today's tasks.

So I would ask subscribers how they would rate the lessons for left unity
provided by three great recent British mobilizations:

1) the Great Miners' Strike of 1984-85

2) the Anti-Poll-Tax movement that brought Thatcher tumbling down, and

3) the current heroic Dockers' Strike in Liverpool.

Cheers,

Hugh




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