Hugh Rodwell
Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:17:10 -0800
Bob M offers an alternative view on handling the huge anti-Blairite
gut-feeling being demonstrated among working people in London (as recently
in Wales and Scotland):
>In fact the entire left went out of its way to support Blair in the last
>elections >and now are taking up the cross for Livingstone who basis his
>campaign on two >fundamental things.
>
>The single issue of the London Underground and completely disassociating
>>himself from his would be supporters on the "left".
>
>Here I would suggest the banner. "Yes to collective traffic,No vote to the
>anti >communist Livingstone!"
>
>While at the same time arguing for massive strike action against
>privatization >plans.
>
>Meanwhile fighting for a full program of transitional demands not only
>against >the third way of Blair but the traditionalists wannabes who at
>best want to go >back to the good old days. Well the good old days are
>dead forever because of the >fundamental historic fact in regards to the
>destruction of the former Soviet >Union.
I think this is very clear. And we'll be able to see just which approach
reaps most profit from the coming mobilizations, that is, which approaches
(as there will be many) organize more people into building a revolutionary
Marxist party and organizations and networks supporting the demands of such
a party.
"No vote to the anti-communist Livingstone" is a complete loser. It'll take
the bullets out of the electoral gun being held to Blair's head in London,
which is at the moment one of the very best chances we've had of alienating
the mass of the workers from the political fraud of the present party
set-up and the betrayal of socialism represented by New Labour. This must
be the main focus -- the concessions to parliamentarism, reformism etc that
are constituent parts of Livingstone's politics are a secondary focus that
will come up in the discussions among the more politically advanced workers
and activists as these aspects of Livingstone's campaign become clearer,
with Livingstone doing a Lula and hobnobbing with the capitalists to show
he's a "serious" politician able to do right by "business". But the main
focus must be massive electoral rejection of Blairism and New Labour on
principles of basic democratic rights and good services for the people.
This will show people in a very concrete way that they can say no to
reactionary forces and hurt them electorally, maybe even clip their wings a
bit in refusing them certain arenas for profit-gouging. Only then will it
be possible to take up the questions of the inadequacy of Livingstone's (ie
left reformism, lip-service radicalism) policies for solving the problems
facing the mass of working and poor people.
Massive strike action against privatization can be argued for even during
and as part of a campaign supporting a vote for Livingstone. This is the
case even if the figure-head himself tries to oppose it, which would be
dangerous for him however as the people striking will be the ones voting
for him, because the rank-and-file union support for a Livingstone
candidacy has been enormous.
Bob had better keep us posted on the "full programme of transitional
demands" that he would support -- at the moment from the sound of his
arguments I'm willing to bet it will look just like a sectarian maximalist
programme, with nothing transitional about it that has any contact with the
living movement of the class.
As for fighting for good demands during the campaign, it should be obvious
that that's what everybody will be doing -- from their own point of view.
So there'll be an awful lot of discussion between various groups putting
forward their own sets of demands -- and a good chance for the masses
around them to choose the ones that best match their needs and wants for
the present and the immediate future.
>Hugh playing the little drummer boy for Livinstone from the "left"
>certainly >must be a new chapter in the book of both entrism and critical
>support. >Basically the latter linked to the former.
We've got a new definition of entrism here. Maybe it's the Spart definition
of entrism -- "taking part in a mass popular and working-class
mobilization".
As for critical support, Bob doesn't want to think about it, because the
concrete conditions for Lenin's "rope supporting a hanged man" have been so
unhelpful for so long. With luck, we might see a real example of the idea
at work in this coming campaign, in which case a lot of abstract argument
and poring over the historical background to Lenin's line and its relevance
for us today will become less important than just pointing to the spectacle
of Livingstone flapping about being forced one day to make more radical
promises than he would like because that's what his mass voting base wants
him to do, only to take them back the next when he goes to dine with his
business friends. We've seen this happen in the career of Lula in Brazil.
Livingstone's own personal careerist and opportunist ambitions will push
him towards this radicalism in words and he'll be caught between having to
be seen to capitulate left or right on the issues themselves.
>In other words if it moves support it.
In other words, if it moves, it's alive and can think for itself, so it
must be bad -- let's kill it.
Except that Bob's actions at home speak louder than his words on the Net. I
think if he was in London he could actually be a valuable part of this
mobilization, despite the sectarian distortions his Spart loyalties and his
individualism constantly lead him into. People who speak their mind and
have something important to say (even if a lot of it's wrong) are the
lifeblood of real politics, and Bob has a political will that's up there
with the best of 'em.
Witness the immediate life breathed back into Thaxis as soon as he puts
finger to keyboard.
Cheers,
Hugh
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---