6607Re: Brainless, shameless, moralising rubbish from GLW Paramatta
- May 29, 2004That wasn't the same glpara that was keen to debate with the fascist?
I'm with Bob Gould on this one. I was catching up on some of the digests
when I saw his and the other posts, read the minutes of the SA conference
and had moved on to the GLW page and read Sue B's article on Craig
Johnston. It was great to read about one of the best trade unionists
At the end of it there was a report on, the reports in The Age about the
court case. Mind you, no mention given to what the workers on the picket
line at The Age were saying about Craig, no just the managements approved
views, this in the GREEN Left weekly, "...The Age reported that the ALP,
the ACTU and the AMWU national leadership have attacked
Johnston...". There are then quotes from Cameron and from a class enemy,
the CEO of the Australian Industry Group no less.
So what's the point, guilt by association. This is extremely similar to
the point being made about the DSP's raising of issues with the ALP in
Sydney. It's a mantra instead of an analysis.
I have little doubt about the ALP and the hold of reformism on the class;
and yes I agree with Workers Power that the move to the Greens is not a
left ward trend, a minority view within the SA I understand. I will, as I
always have, be putting the ALP 2nd on my card after the SA and will be
recommending that ALP voters do likewise. Mind you the SA's policy of
preferencing the Greens ahead of the ALP doesn't make this an easy win. I
don't just think this is correct position for the SA, I actually think it
would see the primary vote for the SA increase.
I don't have these views because I have the slightest doubt that the ALP
will not, if elected, wage the war on the working class, in a different
manner to the Coalition but with no less ferocity. Rather because I will
welcome the contradictions the illusions of the "workers party" victory,
the ALP could achieve. It would see an increase in militancy where more
workers would feel more confident. Their just demands that "their" party,
"their" government treat them the same as the Coalition treated its class
The ALP would at best be forced to do nothing to stop workers clawing back
some of the losses, suffered under Howard, thus allowing a real defence
against the bosses attacks. At best they could be forced to remove some of
the most flagrant attacks on workers rights and civil liberties, allowing
the defensive struggles to move to the offensive for an advance of these
rights and liberties.
I disagree with the view on reformism put forward by the SA, exemplified by
a key SA, Nat Exec member Chris Cain, when he says: "We don't see ourselves
as any lunatic left-wing Trots or whatever they call them ... We're just a
little bit left of the so-called Labor Party at the moment because we
consider them to have moved right." That's an attitude to reformism which
calls for a preference to the Greens because it will tell the ALP off. Now
I think I understand where the subject line for this thread came from.
There would be victories, revolutionaries would have more opportunities to
be directly involved with militant workers whilst they were taking
action. There will also be losses but not, in the early days of an ALP
government, losses without a fight. If groups of workers take up the fight
back and there is no organisation capable of broadening those struggles, of
linking those struggles then the class will be in poor state to maintain
its momentum after the ALP has consolidated and implements its strategies
to weaken and fragment workers from each other.
I thought I understood Marxists and reformism, maybe I do or maybe many on
this list do and I'm just suckered by the reformists and their apologists
amongst us, I don't think so.
As I understand them I don't agree with Bob Gould and the other comrades
from ozleft but their arguments certainly have more grasp of the
real-politik and less of the moralising which seems to typify their opponents.
- << Previous post in topic