Jim replying to Hugh..
>
>Hugh's revolutionary zeal is such that he thinks that it is a betrayal
>of principle to address an audience of 500 000, as opposed to one of 5.
No Jim. This is not the case at all. Communists including Hugh do not oppose using the
bourgeois press. The point is what you say and do in the bourgeois press. And Hugh's
point that the bougeois press was using you is correct because your article is a
"Repunzel" sleeping pill to the poeble..Actually the middle class which your tendency
these days adapts too..
>Like Bob, Hugh just keeps waiting for history to repeat itself. It
>doesn't.
Looks like Jim has a new analisis of fascism. Let's hear it Jim. Don't be shy..
>Hugh contradicts himself. As he explained earlier, armed suppression of
>the working class is not necessary, when the Labour party has succeeded
>in dismantling the labour movement from within. It is not because the
>working class is well-organised that the fascists have no support. On
>the contrary, it is because the working class is largely unorganised
>that the fascist parties are of no use to the ruling classes.
I tend to agree with this. The bourgeoisie does not feel theatened at this time. But
it will take a fascist movement to smash the workers because they are and extremely
powerful social force despite its leaderrship.
So this is contradictory..However this was not Jim's arguements in the article. Jim
tries to cover his ass by saying that the article was directed at the Blairites taking
over the conservative program on immigration policies however to mislead people by
connecting this stuff to fascism not being a threat is to disarm the poor and working
class who are the TARGETS of the Nazis.
At best you admit that the status quo is fine and the Nazis attacks of late are no
danger. Tell that to the victims in the communities where these attrocious attacks are
taking place.
In fact and article linking labor and the unions to fight both the Nazi provacations
and the reactionary anti-immigrant laws uniting all of the oppressed would be and
appropriate communist response in any newspaper and I doubt if the Times would print
it.
>
>I know Hugh does not believe me about this, but he should visit. His
>view of what happens in England seems to be drawn from the seventies.
Perehaps! However Jim's views are a denial of the ABC's of Trotskyism. And some very
hard learned lessons from our own history in the workers movement. The point being
that articles like yours will lead to a repeat in history. If we do not want to see a
repeat than we will have to sought out the question of leadership in the workers
movement which can give a successful programmatic and organizational answer to fascism
which is the final instrument the bourgeoisie needs to stop a pre-revolutionary
situation in society. The other instrument which goes hand in hand is the big
/imperialist democratic bourgeoisie which leads to imperialist wars over this stuff.
The "human rights" propaganda in Yugoslavia being and extremely good example of how
the masses can be fooled into supporting and imperialist solution to the crisis in
another bloodbath..
Warm regards
Bob Malecki
>
>
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
