Socialist Worker (ISO, US) reprint Duncan Hallas work on Impossibilism
- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://socialistworker.org/2013/11/08/do-we-support-reformist-demands
Check it out, it references the SPGB
A follow up letter was sent by Adam Buick that was later printed: Duncan Hallas, in his article Do we support reformist demands? (IS54), has got his history wrong. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has never opposed trade-union action as ‘reformist’. Far from it; right from the start in its original manifesto the SPGB declared that it was in agreement with “working-class action on the industrial field when based on a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism and the class struggle necessarily resulting therefrom”, but that it was opposed to “all activities of unions in support of capitalism or tending to sidetrack workers from the only path that can lead to their emancipation”. In our view trade-union action is necessary under capitalism, but is limited by being of an essentially defensive nature. To overcome this limitation the workers need to organise themselves into a socialist political party aiming solely at the capture of political power to establish socialism (i.e. the so-called maximum programme). I hope you will have the decency to publish this letter as an apology to the hundreds of SPGB members, past and present, who have been, and are, active trade unionists, shop stewards, staff representatives, etc. Yours for World Socialism,Adam Buick [Reply] Comrade Buick is correct. In compressing the argument I see that I may have given the impression that the SPGB was opposed to participation in trade-union activity. This is not true. The point I was making was that the SPGB rejected the SLP strategy of ‘socialist industrial unionism’ as not essentially different from political reformism.Duncan Hallas
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.