[lbo-talk] "A Labor Party Based on the Trade Unions"

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

If it's dogmatic to think that the goal of the socialist movement should be
socialism, then I'm a dogmatist.  Even if it the welfare state was some type
of shining city on a hill, social democracy, like Chris wrote in his last
piece for *The Activist*, "cannot be an end in itself but a way station
toward a more fundamental transformation of society."  It wasn't sustainable
in the golden age of capitalism in the 20th century and it sure as hell
isn't any more sustainable now.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com>wrote:


> Bhaskar: Not to mention that at a time when even the "real" labor parties
> of the
> world---- Labour in the UK, the SPD in Germany--- are at best "bourgeois
> workers parties" (to use Lenin's parlance) with operative social liberal
> politics, one has to question what the point of building a party of this
> nature would be.
>
>
> Somebody: This is dogma talking, plain and simple. You don't need a
> socialist movement to achieve social democratic reforms. Look, for instance,
> at some of the more recent nations to achieve some type of universal health
> care, Taiwan in 1995 and Thailand in 2001. Neither of these countries had
> vibrant socialist parties when they instituted their reforms. You don't need
> Marx to achieve a welfare state.
>
>
> In fact Thailand's health care scheme was instituted by the neoliberal
> Thaksin Shinawatra. And surprise: the poor in Thailand support Thaksin and
> have died in the streets in recent days to have free elections, largely in
> order to bring him back to power. Of course, since their movement isn't even
> remotely socialist, it hasn't garnered much attention among what remains of
> the Western left.
>