====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I'd like to hear Brad's (and I guess, Milliband and Panitch's) version of reality... despite New Labour's best efforts Labour remains a party of the working class and not a social liberal party like the Democratic Party in the US. The core voting base of the party remains the urban working class (and their activists are rooted in the working class). The same for their finances: though after 1997 they had the financial backing of some segments of capital-- particularly finance capital--- Labour is still dependent on trade unions to stay afloat. The "bourgeois workers party" is riddled with contradictions and I suppose its easier to just dismiss all of them with sweeping statements and proclamations of revolutionary purity: "all parties that seek to manage the capitalist state are parties of capital." On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM, brad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard wrote: >>in the *last analysis* the relationship > between the Labour Party constitutes an organic connection between party > and class. That this is subject to secular deterioration and may > finally result in a complete severance doesn't alter the fact that in > the present Labour is a party /of /the working class, based /in/ the > working class. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I thought this sort of fantasy was displaced long ago by Milliband and > Panitch. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
