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

4644Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Re: A Response to Peter Boyle, and the Editorial Board of Green Left Weekly

Expand Messages
  • Peter Boyle
    Feb 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      This is tedious. We've got to this point too many times on
      lists to waste energy in restating things. For those who can
      be bothered, see:


      Gould's muddled "ALP-trade union continuum" blurs the key
      political distinction that Lenin argued socialist should
      keep clear. See for instance, Lenin, Imperialism And The
      Split In Socialism (1916)

      Blurring the line between the capitalist ALP and the workers
      it systematically dupes through its hegemony of the trade
      union officialdom prevents socialists from responding
      vigorously to the political window opened after two and a
      half decades of bi-partisan neoliberal offensive. In which
      (from the above 25 Sep 2002 post to Marxmail):

      'The sustained exposure of the ALP as a capitalist party, a
      party of the corporate rich, at the end of two decade of
      bi-partisan neo-liberal reaction in Australia is a critical
      reality of politics today. A challenge for socialists is to
      take full advantage of that exposure and try and make some
      advance for our politics out of it. We cannot do this with
      Gould’s theory of the ALP as a “workers party”. Gould’s
      false “class line” denies socialists the right to tell the
      truth about the
      ALP, branding attempts to do this as “ultraleft”.'

      Gould's adaptionist line towards the Blairite Latham
      leadership is a total travesty of the political legacy of
      Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

      Anyone interested in that legacy should at least read:

      Lenin, Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)

      Leon Trotsky on Britain

      There is not one line in these writings that comes remotely
      near the crass adaptation that Gould promotes. Just the

      Gould has either never read what they've wrote about social
      democracy, forgotten what they wrote or is deliberately
      lying about this. On the other hand he could argue that they
      were wrong, times have changed and socialist today should be
      more adaptive to this conservative if still powerful
      political current in the labour movement. He'd still be

      Peter Boyle
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic