i think we have to be aware of the difference between advocates of revolution and those of radical changes and also those who advocate a flexible open approach and those who think it is not kosher unless it passes a strict test to determine whether the fits the narrow criteria of class struggle politics as practised in the past by minority sects. THe history of this country would suggest that revolution as a primary goal is not popular in this country e.g. public ownership is still popular but the red clydesiders an infrequent event during times of national emergency. i would class the miners strike as not one generated by a cadre of activists but provoked by the actions of the government and with better management by the mine workers leaders could have been won. in my lifetime the most active period of trade unions was during times of rapid inflation and strict prices and incomes policies that squeezed workers incomes. THe general strike of 1926 also falls into category of a defensive action to protect the jobs and incomes of working people rather than the precursor to revolutionary activity led by a cadre of leftists. A good case for radical reform including liberal changes to the constitution and referendums on keeping the monarchy and disestablishing the church for instance have not been made. i want to make the case for a party that wins popular support but goes further than the Labour Party did in the past but encouraging greater national unity though not nationalism.some ideas of mine will follow in separate posts. the idea of a new party on the left is not new i know for a fact that the independent labour party existed i think george orwell was a member. it may have been trotskyist in character i am not sure. i feel i have to make my case because its difficult otherwise to make my case because i dont have the same background as most posters on this forum.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:54:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015