ANSWER: Name this socialist

[elena]

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 epinet.org>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
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
>imagination.
>
>mbs