>
>^^^^^
>CB: Greg, In the sense you and Justin are discussing, there are "no" more
>"workers" movements either. Opportunistic trade unionism is not a workers'
>movement.
The trade union movement is all the workers' movement that there is any more. Now, I don't think that the opportunistic, accommodationist leadership of much of the union movement is very impressive even on its own terms. But there is a rank and file union militants movement--here in this country represented, e.g., by Teamsters for a Democratic Union, which was successful enough that its reform leader had to be smashed by the feds, New Directions in Auto, Hell on Wheels in transpprt, Justice for Janitors, the reform movement in the United Mine Workers. etc. In Chicago a reform caucus has taken over the Chicago Teachers Union. This rank and file movement is not socialsit, but it's radical, grassroots, and the real thing.
>A "workers' movement" has to have some type of Marxist consciousness.
Marx didn't think so. The workers make no theories, he said.
>
>So, you two just dismiss the Cuban and Viet Namese Communist Parties as
>non-existent, or what ?
>
Might as well be. Forty years ago a third of earth proclaimed allegience to Marxism. Now there are a handful of holdover states, and of those, it's only in Cuba where self-identified Marxism has any popular grip, not in Vietnam or China.
>What exactly is your reasoning that " formal" Marxist parties will have a
>flow after this ebb ?
>
I don't think they will.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.