Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

42632Re: Bastard Boys and dialectics

Expand Messages
  • rogerraven
    May 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dialectically speaking, Norm was asked the wrong question.

      There is a more subtle and perhaps a more dialectically correct
      argument. Socialists are here to advance socialism. Defeating the
      Howard Government is one part of that. Thus if the aim is simply to
      get rid of the Howard government then voting Labor is clearly the
      most obvious way of doing it, but if the aim is to advance socialism
      then there is little benefit in replacing the Howard government with
      a Labor clone. That would seem to suggest that socialists should do
      more to support a genuinely socialist Labor party than they would to
      support a reformist Labor government; less still to support a
      reactionary Labor party.



      --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Rohan Pearce"
      <rohanp@...> wrote:
      >
      > On 5/18/07, rolandsrudebox <rolandsrudebox@...> wrote:
      > > A simple question Norm. Are you for the defeat of the Howard
      > > government or not? Do you think workers would be better off
      > > under "Workchoices Lite" (as the new DSP slander goes) or
      > > the "Workchoices Plus" (or Gold) as the Howard government will
      > > introduce in his next term?
      > > Judging by the responses, you and your Strasserite organisation
      > > certainly do not.
      > > Roland
      >
      > I think it's abundantly clear that we're for the defeat of Howard.
      And
      > surely the fact that we've described it as ``Work Choices Lite''
      would
      > indicate that we think it's better than Work Choices. But the real
      > question is, do you think that Labor's IR policy is a good one?
      Isn't
      > it true that it retains aspects of the Howard government's IR
      > legislation? If you were writing Labor's policy, is it what you
      would
      > have come up with? Or do you think there are some serious problems
      > with it? And in that case do you think it's better to explain what
      the
      > problems are with Rudd's policy or should we just hush them up and
      > pretend they don't exist? You don't make it clear whether you think
      > that there is a problem with our analysis of Rudd's IR policy or
      with
      > our criticism of it.
      >
      > cheers,
      > Rohan
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic