>your approach sounds good, but at least it failed practically in Germany.
>Surely the early Green party in Germany could be called
>'marxist-influenced'. Today all left-wingers have left the party, only the
>careerist around Trittin remained.
>
>Whreas in France the LCR-LO alliance scored some success in at the polls. As
>I understand it from the distance the LCR-LO success forced the SWP into
>acceptance of the LSA.
>
>But at the end of the day success at the polls is not an end in itself, but
>more or less a measure for the maturity of the working class. So I think the
>3 percent or so are just the optimal result a left-wing alternative could
>have got in Britain today. Whereas the success of the LCR-LO alliance is
>rooted in the French general strike.
>
>Johannes
Interesting comparisons of England, France and Germany. I think the left, such as it is, needs to get more sophisticated at making these assessments. I am sceptical however of Trotskyist centres making what come over to me as rather mechanical calculations about leading the vanguard towards the revolutionary path.
Yes success at the polls is absolutely not an end in itself. I think the test will be whether a space can be opened up for radical questioning of the status quo with a little opportunist lubrication by Livingstone.
The votes for the Greens and the anti-capitalist protests in London do this. The urgency of policy about transport, parking and employment also place social foresight versus capitalist ownership of land on the agenda.
A marxist influence needs to be profound and theoretical rather than manipulative. It needs to inform a united front that is already emerging, and transcends the mechanical structures of popular fronts and alliances between self-regarding organisations.
IMHO
Chris Burford
London