Compare this with the sad story of Britain, where, despite a much weaker pro-Moscow party, a proportionately much stronger "Trotskiyist" movement was never able to convert its vanguard militancy into a sustained, structured mass influence because 1) it either abstained from acquiring mass influence in the elections (SWP); or 2) dwelt within the Labour Party for too long without also publicly maintaining its own independent organization (Militant/CWI). This is also not accidentally connected to the historic defeat of the British working class under Thatcher which ushered in the wonderful era we live in today.
So, yes, these potentially revolutionary "little" mass fractions do make a big difference. Even here in the USA.
-Brad Mayer
At 02:03 PM 3/20/01 -0500, you wrote:
>jc helary wrote:
>
> >as a complement to Brad on 'non communist parties', FO (force ouvriere) and
> >LCR (ligue communiste revolutionnaire) are 4th international groups and they
> >have been more and more popular since winter 95, as well as a lot of LCR
> >related unions (SUD branch unions).
>
>Just a small correction:
>
>FO (force ouvri?e) is not a party but one of France's major trade union
>confederations. It began as a social-democratic split from the CP-controlled
> CGT, but is today at least as leftist as the CGT and is substantially
>influenced
>by one of the French Trotskyist groups (the so-called "Lambertistes"). The
>"4th internationalist" party referred to is Lutte Ouvri?e, headed by
>Arlette Laguiller. However, while LO is certainly "Trotskyist" it isn't quite
>correct to call it "4th internationalist," since it originated in a pre-WW2
>split over, among other things, the decision to establish the 4th
>International
>and, unlike the Krivine and Lambert groups, it has never been affiliated
>to any of the avatars of the "4th International."
>
>Shane Mage
>
>"Thunderbolt steers all things."
>
>
>Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64