G'day Chas,

Sez you:

"It is not clear that this is factually true. Left social democrats don't
have too many successful organizings that I can see, except by becoming
right "social democrats".  Where there were successes, it is not clear that
communists didn't play as big or bigger role than the social democrats."

Which is a point all in itself.  The left made what ground it did when it
did when they were pushing for the same things.  That's not the only reason
we got anywhere when we did, but it was probably an important factor.

"In other words, where are the forces of the voices who criticize the
Trotskyists, et al. ?  More in your mind than in matter. LEFT social
democrats seem as sectarian as the Bolsheviks they criticize. There is
little evidence that they are less reality impaired."

Whilst I agree sectarianism is a bad thing, I don't think there is anything
necessarily sectarian about a left soc-dem position, though.  We've all
benefited from some insightful Trotskyist critiques and histories, and
their preparedness to put their ideas about transition on the table make
for useful democratic debate (remember Chas - to disagree is not to purge,
split or ostracise) within the left.  And the world's workers (well, the
ones I know about - the 'western' working class) do not, as a whole, aspire
to communist revolution just now, feel positively yoked to the system in
train, and are split every which way but loose.  Times can change quickly,
but they haven't, in this respect, for a very long time.

And at such a historical moment, there's nothing necessarily mutually
exclusive about the positions of (genuine) socdems and a plethora of other
leftish positions.  The tasks at hand are about the defence of workers,
finding the public ear, and constructing lines of alliance and cohesion
across borders and between tendencies.  And I reckon I'm not Robinson
Crusoe in thinking that.


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to