Chris Burford wrote:
>
> Remember in evaluating the Socialist Alliance as a tactic and a strategy
in
> Britain in this election, that part of the momentum for Socialist Alliance
> comes from smaller marxist organisations that really put energy into it,
> not because it is the best way of building a progressive united front
> against capitalism now, but because it may help them recruit to their
> vanguard organisations.
>
> Is that unfair? Comments from that standpoint welcomed.
>
Though I cannot speak for the Socialist Alliance I would like to give them the benefit of doubt. First of all it is positive to see 'smaller marxist organisations' organisations cooperating. The LO-LCR cooperation in the European elections seems to have been an inspiring example.
Given my own eperiences with the German section of the SWP, I think I share a lot of Chris' reservations about the sincerity of the SWP in a 'united front'. But judging from recent statements of leading SWP members, there seems to have been a real turn in the IS strategy: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/386/ghost_of_cliff.html
Basically I think there is nothing wrong in 'recruiting for a vanguard organisation'. Afterall all those strategies of 'critically supporting' Clinton, the Italian PDS, Old and New Labour have brought us Bush, Berlusconi and a so-called Labour Party that is to the right of the LibDems.
I would rather raise the opposite suspicion against the fragments of the the SA: Aren't they abandoning their 'vanguard organistaions' for a pure electoralist strategy and nourishing illusion change can come within the framework of parliament?
But since the moderator of this list seems to be a bit closer to this political tendency ( http://www.socialistsummerschool.org/events.html ) he would like to comment as well.
Johannes