I would appreciate a clarification of the stance expressed by Jonathan Silberman in the November 30 Militant on the character of the British Labour Party.

He writes that the “Communist League in the UK won’t be calling for a Labour vote at the next general election” because it would not signify a class vote.

I would like to know what changes have occurred in the Labour Party since 1997 when the CL in the UK urged workers to cast a class vote on Labour in areas where the CL ran no candidates. Silberman explained this stance in the May 12 and June 23 issues of the Militant that year.

What qualitative change has Labour gone through? Are other social democratic parties in Europe going through similar changes? What is the difference between Labour and the social democratic parties in Germany, Denmark, or Sweden—parties also based on the unions?

Kristoffer Schultz
Stockholm, Sweden  
 
On electrification
I can’t agree with an aspect of the campaign wrap-up editorial in the November 16 Militant. In explaining the SWP candidates’ support for the right of semicolonial countries to acquire the sources of energy they need, including nuclear energy (which I wholeheartedly support), the editorial says that energy is “a prerequisite for political and economic advances for working people in the colonial world.” Webster’s dictionary defines prerequisite as “required beforehand, especially as a necessary condition for something following.” In other words, without electrification there can be no political or economic advances for working people in the colonial world. While this might apply in the economic sphere, my reading of the Militant, New International, and Pathfinder books over the years argues that significant political advances for our class can be won in “backward” countries with very limited electrification.

Leaving aside the three greatest political advances for our class over the 20th century (the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions), significant political advances for working people have been won in more recent decades prior to widespread electrification. The defeat of U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, the triumph of workers and farmers governments in Nicaragua and Grenada, the overthrow of the butcher of Tehran and his monarchy, the defeat of apartheid, and the triumph of the Burkinabe revolution all seem to contradict the cited phrase in the editorial. Perhaps there have been political and economic changes in the past 15 years which suggest that future political victories in the colonial world are unlikely or even impossible prior to widespread electrification. I don’t see them.

Maybe “prerequisite” isn’t the right term to use in this context. I don’t think that “without electrification, no political victories are possible” is the message the Militant wants to give to the Polisario Front and the people of Western Sahara, for example.

Gary Boyers,
Hamtramck, Michigan

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home