[lbo-talk] March 4

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

Awkward phrasing (typo) on my part: the point is the the British LP isn't a
social liberal party... not yet at least.  Also, there hasn't been a single
"workers' state" since at least 1923, much less 'states'.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com>wrote:


>
> Bhaskar: Have parties like British Labour have become indistinguishable
> from social
> liberal parties?  I'm with Macnair's analysis here:
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/780/making.php
>
> Somebody: The problem here is that the reforms initiated by social
> democratic parties have been proven to be more durable than the
> revolutionary changes initiated by worker's states. Not only that, but the
> neo-liberal rollback of of reformism has been very much a partial reversal,
> whereas the changes in the socialist countries have been more thorough. So,
> why shouldn't workers support the traditional social democratic (now social
> liberal, if you like) parties and institutions?
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>