ANSWER: Name this socialist

elena spectra at
Thu Aug 12 12:42:05 PDT 1999

Something similar to Solidarity developmnts happened over here; I'd venture to say that the key drive behind newly (well, "newly" relatively) tradeunions is not FOR, it's AGAINST; and, naturally, in our situation, AGAINST means to the right: necessarily, temporarily-turned-chronically. You can't move "lefter" than BgSocParty (except to the fraction-of-a-percent Communist-proper party in Bg, for example); the logical direction is right. It turned out far right for "Podkrepa" ("Support"), a bit less right, more centre for a bunch of others. For example, Podkrepa supported and propagated during election campaigns for the UDF - which, being a coalition of a wide spectrum, can go as far right as you can imagine. Think back to how Solidarity started... The back lash was/is inevitable; maybe it's necessary, like retarded teething. It can't have been avoided; and, anyway, what's the point speculating/thrashing post-factum? It's not unlike a natural selection - and it might be a good sign than there's a tendency of leakage out of trade unions. Probably we are overcoming out conditional reflexes of having to "belong" somewhere to a party/ trade union/whatever and in time rational choices will supplant hysterical/desperate flings either way. Have YOU got any recipes, Big Brother? ;-) Re: privatisation: if there EVER was a bigger show :-))))))) -----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at> To: lbo-talk at <lbo-talk at> Date: 12 Àâãóñò 1999 ã. 21:17 Subject: RE: ANSWER: Name this socialist

>In support of Rakesh's point, we need only look at
>what happened with Poland's Solidarity. What was
>once a left socialist labor movement that was almost
>anarcho-syndicalist became within a few short years
>a reactionary movement that once into power was
>quite willing to betray working class interests in
>a variety of ways including the privatization of enterprises.
> Jim F.
>In support of my point, the fact that it happened
>does not explain why it happened, nor how it might
>have been avoided.
>"Sticking to principle" is an admirable moral
>precept, but it leaves a lot of politics to the

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list