Comrades,
Jim wrote.
> In Britain and Germany, there are emerging left-social
> democratic formations - SLP and PDS. Under what
> conditions is it correct for communists to work there.
> I personally am a member of the SLP, but it is not a
> Marxist-Leninist party, even though the article by
> comrade Harpal Brar on the PTB's site seems to imply
> it is. Also, the SLP is very small, and has far less
> implantation in the working class than comrades abroad
> might think. Our party leader is a great working class
> militant, but the part has not yet built the kind of
> roots that comrades will agree that a working class
> party needs. In some areas, we have even moved
> backwards - for example, the leader of the Liverpool
> dockers, Jimmy Nolan, has I think left the party.
Thanks for pointing our certain misconceptions I've had about the SLP, based
upon its web page and that of the IWA.
Unfortunately on most Internet and printed publications by various groups,
the situation looks on the brink of a socialist revolution which is far from
the truth, though that does not neccessarily apply to the SLP online.
However, the SLP has the right legacy in Arthur Scargill and I feel that
while it's not Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, it could serve as a starting
point to restore a working class consciousness which waned following the
defeat of the unions under Thatcher and the yuppie-isation of the "Labour"
Party, especially under Blair.
I'd like to extend what I said to studying how why Marxist-Leninist in
Scandinavia and Belgium have succeeded in making inroads into the working
class and Per Rasmussen has contributed some useful though brief points on
this matter.
One point though. We never finished the discussion begun in your place in
March 1999 about the revolutionary potential of the blue-collar versus the
white-collar working class.
With the destruction of manufacturing in countries like Britain and a shift
to services and information-based industries, this certainly has altered and
will further alter the composition of the working class and it's something
which Marxist-Leninists -- especially in the imperialist and advanced
capitalist countries have to take into account and formulate appropriate
policies towards.
Based upon my own experiences of journalists in Malaysia, I find that while
we all have common concerns about pay, conditions, press freedom and such
matters, due to the individualist nature of our work, we fall into the trap
of egotism and individualism which results in less cohesion among union
members than among our clerical and blue-collar colleagues in their union.
I also find that people like graphic artists, animators, artists,
muscicians, computer programmers, webpage designers, photographers and so on
are prone to a petty-bourgeois mentality and aspirations -- given the
individual and skilled nature of their work If they don't like the employer,
they can still go it alone and freelance, which is something a steelworker,
coal miner or printing press worker can't do.
I don't know whether this is true elsewhere. Perhaps comrades could share
their experiences and perceptions.
Jim continues:-
>
> What do other comrades think is the reason why the
> Trotskyists are so strong here relative to the MLs?
I don't have the answer too but just a few thoughts on the matter:-
Perhaps it could be due to a strong social-democratic tradition in most of
Western Europe and many Trots -- such as Britain's Militant Tendency entered
into the Labour Party until they were expelled. Also at the end of the day,
all Trot groups eventually dovetail into calling for a vote for social
democratic parties.
As for the Trots' strength in Britain in particular, as well as in other
English speaking former British colonies such as Australia, Canada, New
Zealand and the United States; perhaps it could be due to the fact that
Britain had such a large number of colonies worldwide compared to the
Scandinavian countries or the souther-European countries like Spain,
Portugal and Greece.
Rather interestingly, the Scandinavian countries have had a relatively few
colonies worldwide or probably no colonies, though Sweden and Finland in
partcular have a commercial presence around the world in the form of
Ericsson and Nokia phones and telecommunications, Volvo cars, Wartsila
diesel engines, NSK bearings, machine tools, Ikea and so on.
On the other hand, Denmark and Norway have less of a presence apart from
foodstuffs and Carlsberg beer in the case of Denmark and salmon, paper and
newsprint in the case Norway.
In short, Scandinavian countries probably too the neo-colonial approach with
their multinational corporations penetrating the markets in various
countries both first and thrid world.
However, I can only guess what bearing the above have on the greater
acceptance of Marxist-Leninist parties among the working class in
Scandinavia and Belgium.
However, among third-world Asian countries, Sri Lanka is about the only one
with a strong Trotskite presence. Once again I can only guess that it's
related to that country's strong Buddhist orientation and perhaps to the
antipathy between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils.
> I am looking forward to a good, constructive debate on
> these issues.
Me too.
Fraternally
Charles
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
