====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:59:38 -0400 "S. Artesian" <[email protected]> writes: > ====================================================================== > > So first Richard tells us that not only is the Labor party not part > of the > ruling class, but neither is the Liberal Party. And I'm sure if I > was > talking about personal pedigrees or electoral support, that would be > a > meaningful distinction. But I'm not. And I'm also not talking > about > historical origins, and links. Origins and links and pedigrees and > > electoral support have little to do with the function [wish we could > > italicize here] of the organization or party. The social function > is all > that matters in materialist analysis. And what has that function > been > during Labors period in power-- not just the period of "New Labor," > but the > period of Callaghan and Healey? That function was to curb, control, > > restrain the class struggle. And the result of Callaghan's service > to the > queen? -- the election of Thatcher, which would have been impossible > without > Callaghan labor stewardship of the ship of state. Callaghan did > become > Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, so it wasn't a total loss for Baron Jim > and the > Labor Party, I guess. > > The myth that RS would like us to believe is that once the ties are > formed > between party and union, then those ties become a mechanism, a > viable method > for organizing class struggle, for opposing the ruling class, and > for moving > all, class, party, and union to the left. History has proven that > to be > precisely not the case. Doesn't happen that way. Didn't happen > that way. > Will not happen that way. I have said here several times that I see little difference between the British Labour Party as it currently exists and the Democratic Party in the US. Despite the gret differences in the histories of the two parties, they have pretty much ended up in the same place politically and they perform similar functions in the British and American political systems, respectively. Just as much of the American readical left still retains illusions in the Democrats, most of the British radical left retains illusions in the Labout Party, except that British leftists seem to be much stubbornly committed to their illusions than their American counterparts, who at least realize that the Democrats are a capitalist party. Neverthless, I do tend to favor a Labour/LibDemocrat coalition, if only because such a government is likely to eviscerate the Labour Party as we know it today. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant ____________________________________________________________ Penny Stock Soaring 3000% Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner Is! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4be8ae42639e7c93cm03vuc ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
