See all archived forum posts

Author	Message
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Sep 2004 04:33 pm    Post subject: Reform versus Revolution "We socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society, let the form take care of itself." -- De Leon, in "Reform or Revolution" "The economic movement may take a little at a time. It may do so because its function is ultimately to take and hold the full plants of production and save them for the human race. The political movement, on the contrary, has an entirely different function: its function is wholly to tear down the political burg of capitalst tyranny. It follows herefrom that the political movement of labor may not even remotely partake even of the appearance of compromise. It exemplifies the revolutionary aim of the labor movement; it must be uncompromisingly revolutionary." -- De Leon, in "Socialist Reconstruction of Society"
Anonymous	Posted: 18 Sep 2004 01:11 pm    Post subject: Clear Cut Not Sure we want to concentrate our efforts so as not to sell out to politicans. I don't think it can always be clear cut, however. It's pretty much axiomatic that a demand for higher wages is a revolutionary demand - but how about a demand for a rise in the minimum wage? How about here in Vermont where we have one of the candidates for governor (as I understand it) calling for mandatory health care coverage for employees? If that were in the form of wages it would worth thousands a year in benefits to workers - is this to be thought of as only a reform of capitalism? We need to have some kind of reform/revolution dichotomy to keep ourselves on track but how that plays out is not always so easy. RutlandDave
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2004 01:46 am    Post subject: Re: Clear Cut Not RutlandDave wrote: is this to be thought of as only a reform of capitalism? In my humble (as always :-) opinion, yes, an increase in the min wage is only a reform of capitalism -- but that doesn't make it bad. The specific thing I'm against is allegedly-socialist platforms misrepresenting reforms as incremental steps along the path to building socialism, as the CP and all vanguardists do, in their "top ten demands" list-of-the-month. Is there a way for a socialist speaker to say something like, "This increased minimum wage proposal has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, and it's most definitely not a steppingstone on the path to socialism. If passed, it will make life under capitalism less miserable. Let's write to our representatives and tell them to pass it. Now, let's move on: the main topic I wish to speak about today is abolition of the wage system. " If a socialist speaker can do that, I think support for the reform would be okay. But if the communication is either/or -- say, you're going to write a short leaflet or letter-to-the-editor, and you're going to choose between making the topic either abolition for the wage system, or increase in the minimum wage, I personally feel that the time and expense is better spent on the first option. Seems to me that's how De Leon felt too, based on his critique of the behavior of Victor Berger of the SP in the House of Rep. (1911?).
davesearles	Posted: 30 May 2005 04:49 pm    Post subject: The Nate Karp speech decrying abstentionism by the SLP previously posted by Magoo at: http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21&start=0 10/18/04 16:21:57 goes all of the way back to DeLeon in its application. The DeLeon editorial at http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1913/1913--November%2008.pdf recognized the importance of Woman’s' Suffrage but not so important that the SLP should actually come out and endorse it. "Why, then, does not the SLP insert the recall in its platform? For the same reason that it does not insert woman suffrage—that is, for the reason that, in advocating either, the SLP appreciates the need of warning against false expectations concerning them. "The platform of socialism in America, where socialism and capitalism stand face to face, must begin and end with that demand the realization of which is exposed to no false expectations." end of quote. The anti abstention element at the National Office in (as I recall) the late 1970s led the People to decry the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in several state initiatives - but the New York SLP refusing to endorse the ERA constitutional amendment proposed for the New York State Constitution as reformist. For 60 years the SLP simply ceded any and all human rights civil rights issues to the SP and CP and later the SWP. Sadly for too long I was taken in by and I supported the abstentionism as much as anyone for far too long.. It is curious however that had anyone other than Karp made this speech, that person would have been summarily drawn and quartered by the NEC. (Magoo was incorrect in his preface to the Karp speech – AP was no longer national secretary of the SLP when the speech was given, and perhaps had even died by that time.) Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 02:49 am    Post subject: Should the platform include any demand that is a good idea, or should it include only demands that are good ideas and also meet some other criteria?
davesearles	Posted: 31 May 2005 11:26 am    Post subject: Was woman's suffrage merely a good idea? Like recycling aluminum cans? Note in the DeLeon quote that he not only thought that woman's suffrage should not be a part of the SLP platform, but also that the SLP should not advocate for woman's sufferage or the recall becuase "the SLP appreciates the need of warning against false expectations concerning them." So for the next 75 years the SLP did one heck of a job protecting the working class from false expectations. Sorry brother and sister black workers - I would advocate for your equal treatment in the workplace but I wouldn't want your expectations to be falsely raised that treatment without regard to color will be socialism or as good as socialism. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 04:20 pm    Post subject: First we have to ask outselves what it means for a socialist party to "advocate" an idea. Does it mean (1) or (2) ? (1) We give publicity to this idea, by mentioning it frequently in our speeches, writing it on our picket signs, and printing it on our posters. (2) This is a bill which we intend to sign, in the event that our candidate were to get elected. I concede this much: De Leon should have explicitly said, "If a socialist has been elected to the Senate or the House of Representatives, and a bill advancing civil liberties is being circulated, such as a bill to advance racial and sex equality, the socialist will certainly vote 'yes' for the bill." Beyond that, what does "advocacy" of a social advancement mean, precisely? Maybe socialists should donate advertising space in the speeches and pamphlets for social improvements, besides the definition of and case for socialism itself, but then they should be fully conscious that this is what they're doing. Would the additional increment of publicity for the suffrage and civil rights movements, which could have been added by a socialist newspaper conttibuting more coverage of them, have speeded up the victory of these movements? What is the actual purpose of a socialist announcing support for something? To add volume to the number of voices which say that particular thing? Or, to explain a point which was not previously understood, the way an algebra teacher explains the distributive property?
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 05:09 pm    Post subject: Let's try this idea. Suppose the socialist party issues a monthly document which lists: Our candidates, if and when elected to a legislature, will adhere to the following voting record: Yes votes for: House Bill 2031 - penalties for discrimination Senate Bill 540 - Promote privacy and other civil liberties Senate Bill 755 - increase minimum wage No votes for: House Bill 365 - Curtail civil liberties Senate Bill 975 - Take from the poor and give to the rich Senate BIll 1077 - Teach religion in public school Abstain on: House Bill 94 - Settle the matter of two corporations which want the same trademark logo Given that, the socialist editor or speaker indicates everywhere that the stand on each currently disputed issue is on file, and copies are made available. The socialist immediately adds: "But this isn't the main thing people need to know. The greater issue we wish to focus on is ...." -- and then proceed to allocate the remainder of the time and space to the matter of capitalism versus socialism, and the revolutionary program. How's that? "Immediate demands" have not been deleted, but neither have they constituted the whole message, or even the principal message. This is the SP/SWP/CP mistake -- to make the "Top Ten Demands of the Month" the entire message, and there is no other message, except for that quick mention of socialism on the bottom of page 26.
davesearles	Posted: 31 May 2005 06:41 pm    Post subject: The old saw, an injury to one is a danger to all never was truly absorbed by the SLP and its members, myself included. Aren't there things that you or I should speak out against even if fulfilling the "demand" is not socialism? Or that we are not running for office? Human rights violations ought to be in that category. If Bush and company starts rounding up the Jews will we simply advocate SIU as the answer to the problem? Also some things are not necessarily tied to the revolution. If we had the revolution in 1950 there still would have been discrimination against gays after the revolution. True – we need to be very clear as to the our main motivation very clear. But as was too often the case – not speaking out against human rights violations, war(s), etc gives people the impression ( ourselves included ) that we would or could tolerate the wrong – essentially as long as it was not happening to us - and by not speaking out we become or at least appear to be a part of the problem. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 07:44 pm    Post subject: >> Aren't there things that you or I should speak out against even if >> fulfilling the "demand" is not socialism? Sure there are, and we can do that by having multiple memberships in the socialist party as well as the ACLU, Amnesty, et. al. I wanted to probe why you felt that the socialist literature has to do it. What I was wondering, you answered me well enough in your next paragraph: >> not speaking out against human rights violations, war(s), etc >> gives people the impression ( ourselves included ) that we >> would or could tolerate the wrong – essentially as long as it >> was not happening to us - and by not speaking out we >> become or at least appear to be a part of the problem We discussed on an earlier occasion how the SLP apparently failed to condemn the Supreme Court's Plessy vs. Ferguson, black schools and white schools "separate but equal", 1896, and not reversed by the court until Brown vs. Board of Education, "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal", 1954. Does the SLP's silence on current events appear to be all fixed now, since the new interventionism policy was adopted by the national convention of 1977? The SLP also has a way of speaking out against setbacks, without speaking in favor of set-forwards. If a make-life-less-miserable reform is repealed, the party will complain about the setback, but if the reform didn't exist the party wouldn't have spoken in favor of it. Why do you suppose this is, and is it a good or bad practice?
davesearles	Posted: 01 Jun 2005 02:32 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: The SLP also has a way of speaking out against setbacks, without speaking in favor of set-forwards. If a make-life-less-miserable reform is repealed, the party will complain about the setback, but if the reform didn't exist the party wouldn't have spoken in favor of it. Why do you suppose this is, and is it a good or bad practice? Dave writes: On one aspect it doesn't make sense and on another it does. Will write more about it tomorrow. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 01 Jun 2005 12:18 pm    Post subject: Sometimes when I sleep on something in the morning my ability to explain something becomes far better than the night before. Sometimes. The 16th amendment was passed with great fan fare to authorize the federal government to collect an income tax - which had previously been declared by the Supreme Court to be beyond the limts of the authirity of the federal government. The federal governement's previous main revenue by far came from inport tarrifs. These tarriffs were viewed as more of a burden on the worker and the little guy in general than on the rich. The key to the income tax was that it was to be a progressie tax. The higher your income, the higher the rate at which you were to be taxed. It was looked upon, even to some small degree as a social leveler. The tax cuts under George Bush II wnt a long way toward eliminating the progrssivity of the income tax. Practically all of the cuts benefitted the rich by lowering the increased rates at which they were previously taxed. The people essentially ratified the tax decease by relecting Bush and even increasing his margins in the Congress. This is one example where a set back really didn't cause that much of a political stir. More later. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 01 Jun 2005 12:22 pm    Post subject: Mike - you recently did a search of the People about the unemployed - how did you do that? I wanted to see what the SLP said about the above. Thanks, Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Jun 2005 01:40 am    Post subject: I have been receiving "The People" by email since they first started offering subs by email around 1995. I have most of the issues, and lost just a few issues due to corrupted inbox files. So I searched my own subdirectory. In order to search I need to guess an exact string to match.
davesearles	Posted: 17 Jun 2005 05:19 pm    Post subject: In the Deleon article: http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1913/1913-November2008.pdf DeLeon talks about economic reforms (which are generally to be eschewed). DeLeon also talks about other reforms such as womans sufferage and the "recall" (such as of Grey Davis) DeLeon says that while such would not or should not go into the SLP platform, he makes it clear ( to me anyway ) that this sort of reform is to be looked upon favorably (dare I say advocated) by the party. I would put "civil rights" in such a category. I would put opposition to war. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jun 2005 04:58 am    Post subject: I think De Leon's conclusion is right, but for the wrong reason. It's not that political reforms of the economic system are "narcotics" which "make capitalism bearable." It's that political reforms of the economic system imply the continued existence of capitalism. Suffrage, recall, and civil liberties are different because they are part of the human discovery of what democracy means, and they don't imply the continued existence of capitalism.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jun 2005 05:21 am    Post subject: Dave, "looked upon favorably (dare I say advocated) by the party" This is the confusing part to me. What does support for something by the party mean or consist of? Clearly it doesn't mean endorsing votes for Dem Party or Rep Party candidates who support the change in question. Does it mean petitioning Dem Party and Rep Party office-holders with letters or street demonstrations? Or does it mean that an SLP candidate would if elected work toward that change? "Work toward" how -- actively, by introducing the bill, or passively, by voting for an existing bill? Has support itself every been defined?
davesearles	Posted: 20 Jun 2005 12:10 pm    Post subject: A civil rights demand should be just that, a demand. The ban on economic reforms is a tough pill to swallow - i.e. minimum wage increases, universal health insurance coverage. It is very easy for me to stand on the hilltop and eshew these economic reforms when I make more than the minimum wage and I have health insurance coverage. But I don't see anyway around it. The DeLeon editorial talked about the Party literature speaking favorably of Women's sufferage but that the Party "platform" should not include a call for such. A distinction without a real difference, it would seem to me. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Jun 2005 06:45 am    Post subject: I just don't know what "demand" means for socialists. I know what it means for Democrats and Republicans, because their delegates go to meetings where the law makers are selected.
davesearles	Posted: 21 Jun 2005 02:00 pm    Post subject: It's not like they are going to loose sleep over the fact that the Socialists are not going to be content unless the state satifies the demand - we wouldn't be satisfied at all. A demand - End the war! In order to make that demand do we have to put ourselves out as candidates and say if you elect me I will cast whatever vote that I can make to end the war? Or is it a part of the informal democratic process whereby if enough people start demanding that th war be ended - that the politicians start to get the message that if they don't make it look like that they are with the throng on this point that possibly they will go out with the trash in the next election. I think "demands" are mostly of the second kind. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Jun 2005 05:52 am    Post subject: I don't think politicians care what people demand loudly except for the way it affects their chances to be reelected. If people demand "end the war" and, while doing so, they imply "I'll vote to reelect you if support an end for the war, but I'll vote for the another candidate if you support the war," and if a sufficient number of voters did that, then that might pressure the politician to support an end to end the war. However, if it's nown generally that socialists wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican regardless of their stand on the war, then the demand "end the war", when heard coming from socialists, can have no effect of politicians, regardless of how vocal it is. In contrast, the slogan "End capitalism, the cause of war" is useful, because it's directed toward the working class. Also useful would be a direct action tactic, such as encouraging a strike among employees of weapons companies, or a slow-down strike, or a work-to-rule strike, or encouraging them to sabotage the products or machines.
Social Greenman	Posted: 30 Jun 2005 09:55 am    Post subject: I wish it was that easy to get fellow employees to unionize. I don't know if it is just ignorance or being programed to accept the demands of capitalism. It just incredible that most feel that the "boss" would pick on them if they were to make economic demands and unionize. A few workers, the maintanence man for example, believe he is part of the "boss' family" because he has been there for many years. Not only does he take care of the machines at work but also the boss' family cars, SUV's and houses. Most of the machines in the shop are from the scrap yard which are held together with baling wire and duct tape. A family owns the factory I work at and their wealth is dependent on keeping wages and benefits at a near miminum. On the other hand, the family members are covered under the best quality Health, Accident and Life insurance via through the labor of the shop workers. Anyways, I will be making my exit in the near future.
davesearles	Posted: 01 Jul 2005 03:20 am    Post subject: s.g. You might be interested in the NYT op-ed piece today: A More Perfect Union By RUTH MILKMAN Labor needs more bodies, fewer unions and a new boss. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/opinion/30milkman.html?th&emc=th dave
davesearles	Posted: 12 Jul 2005 05:52 pm    Post subject: I'm continuing to read the book by Ira Kipness The American Socilialist Movement : 1897 - 1912 I wish I had read it years ago. It follows the downward spiral of the Socialist Party as it picks up more and more reform bagage until the point that absolutely every bit of Marxism is washed right out of it; to the point where the "Socialist" elected to congress Victor Beger and others in the SP are calling for the end to imigration of the "backward races" to protect the labor market for the white race. SP National Congress of 1910. Mike can you provide us with a link to the book? I never can find a damned thing in Amazon. I cannot find it on Goggle or Dogpile either. I'd be interested in what the People said about such development in the SP. Is there an archive of old Peoples that covers the era? Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Jul 2005 06:35 am    Post subject: Kipnis, not Kipness ... http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/0837101301/thecrimsonbirdbo
Social Greenman	Posted: 18 Jul 2005 10:14 am    Post subject: Oh yeah, $75.00 is a great price for a book. Let me know when the paper back edition comes out. Sorry for not writing much. Getting ready to move out of PA to NY.
davesearles	Posted: 18 Jul 2005 12:03 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Kipnes not Kipness Dave replies: I was lucky enough to spell the first name correctly: Ira S.G. wrote: $75 Dave replies: Look down at the bottom a little bit where it says other editions. They have a used paperback edition for under $14. The SBN # for the paperback is 85345-192-3 There was a new edition put out by Haymarket Books in 2004 for $20 http://www.haymarketbooks.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Haymarket&Product_Code=UHPASM Have fun on the move. dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 19 Jul 2005 09:31 pm    Post subject: Thanks for the link for a cheaper edition of the book. Yep, we will have fun moving to New York. I hope this link in in the right place here... http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html You know, the more I look at various communist and socialist literature the more I can see, or anyone for that matter, that all want to work within the capitalist framework through progressive taxation, free education and health care. Even to reform government into a social democracy. Then I got thinking that perhaps capitalislism is something that the majority of people know about and that is why communist and socialist base their platforms on reforms in capitalism rather than actual economic change to socialist ones. Now the above link deals historically with how the USSR went into capitalism. However, I believe the entire economic frame work was capitalistic long before the CPCU dismissed themselves. Perhaps from the start since Russia was a outhouse nation. http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
davesearles	Posted: 20 Jul 2005 12:18 am    Post subject: SG I took a look at the second link that you provided. One of the main purposes of the book appears to be a rehabilitation of Stalin without not much really to go on. If there was a purpose to go into the question I would attempt to try to understand it more thoroughly. You made a good point about the fact that by far most of thse who wear the label of socialist are nothing but reformers through and through. Take a look at my congressman, soon to be senator, Bernard Sanders. Can you believe that he has a poster of Debs hanging in his office? dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 20 Jul 2005 10:20 am    Post subject: Dave, even Lenin used capitalism in his NEP program so that industries can turn a profit for the state while smaller operations would turn a profit for the owners. Aside from communist literature painting Stalin as a good communist, the entire Soviet Union economic frame work was capitalistic being under state control and the bank and monies played a big role. After the industrialization of the USSR the upper officials of the CPSU dismissed the government and became the market stockholders of capitalist Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has now a lot of gangsters. As to socialist and communist literature goes, all of them are just reforms of capitalism. They just can't see outside the capitalist box for some reason. Anarchist want to take over the means of production without any state. However, I see no indication of what form of economic plan would be used. I keep pointing to SIU but the afore mentioned are hostile to De Leonist concepts. Are there any links to Rosa Luxemburg concepts that are simular to De Leon's since you and Wayne wrote about it?
davesearles	Posted: 20 Jul 2005 01:38 pm    Post subject: They reject the SIU concept because DeLeon is perceived to be a nasty crank who couldn't get along with anyone. (after he's been dead for almost 100 years.) Couching the SIU in other terms by other authors is not going to help them to come along, I don't think. DeLeon laid out the framework for industrial democracy in 1905 (nasty crank or not) - if I can understand it - I'd be willing to bet that anyone else is capable of seeing it as well. My suggestion, and only a suggestion - is to not spend a whole lot of time trying to convince people. Present them with the information and move on. Leave it up to them to see it or not see it. dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 21 Jul 2005 10:01 am    Post subject: Thanks for the reply Dave. I really am not trying to convince people of SIU but what I ask them is why the reformed frame work of capitalism?
davesearles	Posted: 21 Jul 2005 04:53 pm    Post subject: Thanks for that. Dave
graymouser	Posted: 21 Jul 2005 06:05 pm    Post subject: Social - Here's the thing: the position that socialist groups should make only revolutionary demands is known as "ultraleftism." It is based in a lack of understanding where we stand in terms of building a socialist movement. The American proletariat today does not have the organization in any terms whatsoever to begin demanding a socialist revolution. For this reason, we need to come up with what we call transitional demands - things that are not socialism in and of themselves, but which would represent progress if enacted - and fight for them. Through this, we do not at all submerge our identities as socialists, but continue to organize. Less than 13% of the workers in the US are organized, and almost all of them are in trade unions which are far less than revolutionary. The socialist movement as a whole is smaller than a million, probably under 100,000, people. Most socialist groups aren't proposing their transitional programs as the entirety of socialism; but taking an ultraleft position and proposing only revolution tends to lead to sectarianism and disconnection from the very working class you claim to represent. I refer you to Marx and the Manifesto, where he points out that Communists (Socialists) participate in the struggles of the proletarians. You cannot stand apart and say "Come to us" - you must stand shoulder-to-shoulder and say "We are with you." Now, there are things a Marxist should and shouldn't do; for instance, working with bourgeois parties is a massive mistake. But working with trade unions, at certain times, is effective; not because you'll convert them to socialism, which you won't, but because often they're the only organization of the working class. Nowadays, it's hardly worth doing - since they're small, and I think they're only shrinking - but that doesn't mean participation in progressive and especially proletarian causes is contradictory to socialism. In fact, it's necessary. -Wayne
davesearles	Posted: 22 Jul 2005 01:31 am    Post subject: Wayne says: "proposing only revolution tends to lead to sectarianism" Dave says: I propose revolution. I propose that peoelpe do what they need to do in order to survive - one of those things is revolution. I do see an historical problem with groups supposedly in favor of revolution (or who start out that way) who very quickly loose their way once they start thinking that working for reforms is going to make for more revolutionists. The SLP of years gone by admittedly was too anal regarding "reforms" (And I admit I was right there in with them) - DeLeon could draw a line for the party to speak favorably of women obtaining the right to vote - but god forbid that it should have stooped so low as to include woman's sufferage as a "plank" in the party "platform". Civil rights - human rights, that don't have as their goal that capitalism could or should run better, are matters that should be fought for, even if on their own merrits. I don't know what the SLP's current position is, but that is and always has been my position. But if you have found a better way - or think you have - the way to convince us is to show not tell - these arguments that you are giving us are not new but go back well over 100 years. A look at the what happened very quickly to the SP shows what can happen to an organization that doesn't very carefully and constantly being 100% upfront and transparent in espousing the revolution - and accepting only members that agree to the same (and kicking out those who don't). dave
davesearles	Posted: 22 Jul 2005 11:39 am    Post subject: continuation from above. Wayne says, "You can't stand apart and say (to the workers) 'come to us.' I have given my c.v. elsewhere. I would compare it with Wayne's any day of the week - I doubt that anyone could fairly conclude that I have ever "stood apart" from the working class, let alone said "come to me." If you want to discuss, let us discuss actual facts. -------------------------------------------- Wayne refers to the Communist Manifesto stating: I refer you to Marx and the Manifesto, where he points out that Communists (Socialists) participate in the struggles of the proletarians. The Manifesto stated: The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented or discovered by this or that universal reformer. Also: The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. ...they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat... ...the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time... ... The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. dave states: I dare to say that very few organizations claiming to be "for the workers" can meet the criteria set out (above) in the Manifesto. Since you bring it up Wayne about what others might be doing wrong or insufficiently - tell us about the organization that you belong to - what is it doing that I or we should be doing - how does it walk the line without getting lost in reformism or in actually hiding its "revolutionary" principles under a basket of reforms. I have seen more than organization who were supposedly revolutionary but DID NOT keep revolution in the fore but "rather they disdain(ed) to conceal their views and aims." How does the organization that you belong to stack up in this regard? dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 22 Jul 2005 10:17 pm    Post subject: Wayne, I cannot add to what Dave wrote since he been a Socialist for many years compared to my few short years. On the other hand, whenever a plan of purpose is proposed the word "sectarian" is always brought up. Another thing that is weird is that De Leon is considered sectarian and cranky while Lenin is considered revolutionary. I really don't understand this. But then I wonder if personality worship is the core of those on the Left in which partys and groups follow...Syndicalists, Anarchists, various Socialist groups/parties, and various Communists. Perhaps a personality may unite all of them. Since I do have the Communist Manifesto, I do see how the capitalist class can awe the working class into submission through workplace/social and political means. As far as I have read we are to instill into the working class a class conscious since our interest are at odds with the capitalist class. Perhaps working with trade unions is okay if there were any in my area that needed my help but they don't. The years I have spent in my area I have see many union shops closed and moved to Third World countries to extract profits from cheap labor. The American worker just takes what he/she gets, goes to a technical school and makes far less than what he/she was making when their plant was open. Reforms in Capitalism is more like concession from the working class these days. Another problem with the working class is that far too many feel that the capitalist class has the right to own and to exploit and they should be grateful to the mighty desert god for what they do have. Well, I guess we have to start in our own front and back yard to get the word out. Talking to your fellow workers is a good place to start. Fuck Danny and his exploitive family. If it gets me fired so what. I can get another job.
davesearles	Posted: 23 Jul 2005 12:52 am    Post subject: S.G. wrote: Syndicalists, Anarchists, various Socialist groups/parties, and various Communists. Perhaps a personality may unite all of them. Dave writes: You know I was going to nominate myself - but I am far far too humble to ever accept a position like that. S.G. writes: Wayne, I cannot add to what Dave wrote since he been a Socialist for many years compared to my few short years. Dave writes: I have been a socialist for so long that when I joined the party "Ancient Society" was a text in current events. Don't ever defer to my longevity, if you do I'll run you over with my wheel chair. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 23 Jul 2005 01:32 am    Post subject: Wayne, Quote: the position that socialist groups should make only revolutionary demands is known as "ultraleftism." It is based in a lack of understanding where we stand in terms of building a socialist movement. The American proletariat today does not have the organization in any terms whatsoever to begin demanding a socialist revolution. For this reason, we need to come up with what we call transitional demands - things that are not socialism in and of themselves, but which would represent progress if enacted But how could you know this? Seems to me that answering this requires a more detailed theory of what makes history jump forward, what motivates exploited classes to awaken and act, etc. Are there any specific generalizations that we can express? De Leon expressed a generalization that's differs from your approach -- ""Revolutions triumphed, whenever they did triumph, by asserting themselves and marching straight upon their goal." How could we know which view is more correct? I don't know of a great deal of available data, do you?
davesearles	Posted: 23 Jul 2005 01:57 am    Post subject: Wayne wrote: The American proletariat today does not have the organization in any terms whatsoever to begin demanding a socialist revolution. For this reason, we need to come up with what we call transitional demands - things that are not socialism in and of themselves, but which would represent progress if enacted. Dave responds: "But they (Communists) never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat..." What Wayne seems to be espousing as the correct position for a party of labor seems to be in direct contradiction of the above quoted words of the Communist Manifesto.
Social Greenman	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 01:40 am    Post subject: I like your sense of humor Dave. Yes, the Communist are very clear on the antagonism. However, I do not like the concept of "democratic centralism." I know the original intent was sincere but the end result was that capitalism was reinstated. Rather than looking at the flaws of having an elite vanguard the Communist would rather point fingers at individuals rather than the system which made capitalist restoration possible. On the other hand, I do like the intelligence of Communist and their devotion. Perhaps one day they will become more fluid than rigid in ideology when they look beyond Lenin.,
davesearles	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 02:26 am    Post subject: s.g. wrote: Yes, the Communist are very clear on the antagonism. Dave writes: The wires got caught up here. Marx was saying that those who are true communists/socialists "never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat..." This was written in the Communist Manifesto in 1848 (even before I became a socialist). It has been my experence - that the Communist Party USA (formed in 1919 from the remains of the Socialist Party) has in fact not followed the Maifiesto's dictates to never cease for a single instant to instill in the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoise and proletariat. Read this from the CPUSA website: "The Communist Party USA is an organization of activists in labor and all the people's movements with three main political aims: "1. Defeating the right-wing agenda of the Bush Administration. "2. Winning a wide-ranging program of reforms that put the well being of the people before private profits. "3. Eventually replacing big business with labor and its allies as the dominant power so as to insure that the rights, economic security and expanding needs of the people become the overriding concern of society. What a crock. "Replacing big business with labor and its allies as the dominat power." And this tepid description is as close as they ever really get to instilling in the working class "the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoise and proletariat." This is the press release from the July 2005 convention of CPUSA: ------------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press Release July 5, 2005 Contact: Libero Della Piana, (office) 212-989-4994, (email) communications@cpusa.org Communist Party Convention Pledges to Defeat Bush Agenda Concludes by Reelecting Webb National Chairman (Chicago)— The 28th National Convention of the Communist Party, USA concluded here yesterday with the election of the organization’s new National Committee and the unanimous reelection of Sam Webb as National Chairman. Nearly 500 delegates, guests and dignitaries met here over Fourth of July weekend to share political experiences, discuss current events and deliberate on Communist Party policies for the next four years. Participants came from as far away as Hawaii and Maine, Alaska and Florida. Also attending were international guests from communist and workers parties in fifteen countries including representatives of the Communist Party of Vietnam, the Communist Party of the Sudan and the Iraqi Communist Party. Sunday, the Convention unanimously passed a resolution in support of the work of the Communist Party of Iraq, who “struggled heroically” for democratic and economic rights under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and now continue under the U.S. occupation. The need for a broad coalition effort to defeat the policies of President George W. Bush was the main theme of the Convention. In his closing remarks, Webb said the struggle over the next Supreme Court Nomination will be a “key struggle” for the Party and other democratically minded people. The extreme right wants to “lock in control of that court for the next 10-12 years,” Webb said. “Perhaps they will begin with [an attack] on reproductive rights, but they won’t stop there.” He then reminded delegates that the Communist Party along with the women’s, civil rights, and labor movements helped to defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987. “We can do it again,” he said. More information on the Communist Party, USA is available at www.cpusa.org. ---------------------------------------------- Not a peep about the class struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariet - the main theme - defeat of Bush policies - the second theme - the struggle over the next Supreme Court nomination. dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 03:12 am    Post subject: Sorry, I was wrong and thanks for pointing that out. The Manifesto does indeed state that true socialist and communist (Dave quote) "never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat..." However, in some ways the Communist do convey it but in a watered down way. They are very much into reformism of capitalism which I did point out in an earlier thread. Most people do look upon the Communist as the agressor against capitalism. Of course, they also think Communism as a failure. When I read the restoration of capitalism in the old USSR I have often wondered why the entire economy was based on capitalism. You know, profits generated that were invested into industry. Eventually, the elite vanguard became the stock holders. The workers still had to endure exploitation. Now, I am wondering if transitional socialism would have to use capitalism. You know, the same manner as the USSR but with democratic constructs with an SIU. It would make sense to use greenbacks until the until the union was strong enough to use the TLV's nationally. I gotta go for now.
davesearles	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 12:54 pm    Post subject: Good point - The USSR's "transition" into socialism just never happened - always a "crises" somewhere that needed to be attended to first. Khruchev's son (an actual rocket scientist) came out and said that the whole missile race between the US and USSR was a mutual farce that served both side's needs for a "crises". Capitalism has done it's job by having taken essentially all of the capitalists out of all phases of production planning and replacing them with workers. We do not need or want a market transition to socialism. We do not need or want a state transition to socialism. Everything needed for socialism is already in place. You see in the CP statement where it says: ... eventually replacing big business with labor and its allies You neatly demonstrated that in the USSR "eventually" just never came in even 7 decades of transition. Labor has no allies - needs no allies - wants no allies. Labor stands alone. imho dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 02:02 pm    Post subject: Dave Quote: Quote: We do not need or want a market transition to socialism. We do not need or want a state transition to socialism. Everything needed for socialism is already in place. Yes I know all of it is in place for socialism but has anyone else even noticed except for De Leonist? John
davesearles	Posted: 24 Jul 2005 11:33 pm    Post subject: You know it's a damned good question. I have nothing with which to explain why others don't see it. And anybody who thinks that have a theory in fact has an untestable theory. It will only be with 20/20 hisorical hindsight that anyone will ever have an inkling. But there are plenty of things in this category with me. I think PERHAPS that it has do do alot with what one wants to believe. Given a certain set of facts equally acertainable by two different persons - they will come to two different conclusions or beliefs about those facts based on what the person wants to believe . I think. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Jul 2005 01:20 am    Post subject: Social, Quote: Yes I know all of it is in place for socialism but has anyone else even noticed except for De Leonist? In all fairness, I think the world socialists are just as clear as DeLeonists on the the reform issue. I have disagreements with them on a couple other issues which I consider big issues ... By the way, what part of NY are you moving to? I live in Dutchess County, 100 miles north of NYC.
Social Greenman	Posted: 25 Jul 2005 02:16 pm    Post subject: Mike--Are the World Socialist the ones who want "free access" rather than a define plan of stradegy? We will be moving, hopefully to Chautauqua County. The loan officer is giving me a hard time over moving from one state to another. Like it's their buisiness.
davesearles	Posted: 25 Jul 2005 04:48 pm    Post subject: From the World Socialist website on reform v. revolution: "we see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as 'successful'. There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. However, in this regard we also recognize that such 'successes' have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge of the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be made palatable with the right reforms, By that, we mean that we oppose those organizations that promise to deliver a program of reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order that the organization dishing out the promises can gain a position of power." (spelling changes made, perhaps from English style to US style) Certainly nothing to argue about there. I would urge everyone to read their whole reform statement. Very well put. http://www.worldsocialism.org/introduction/revorref.html They go on to define what is socialism: "Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share - clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions." http://www.worldsocialism.org/introduction/socialism.html Nothing wrong with it per se - but this is my comment on it. We start with the premise that there is a class struggle that can only be resolved by labor eliminating class distinctions by dissolving the capitalist' ownership of the means of production. The workers have to dissolve that property relationship by taking and asserting complete possession of those means of production and operating them as the workers alone decide. At this point there is no room for fuzzy notions of common ownership by all humanity - those in opposition to labor's assertion to complete control over the means of production - are not going to have any part in making any decisions at all regarding the world's resources especially including the world's productive resources. After we get beyond resolving the class struggle - when the industries are humming along efficiently, that the non-productive workers are able to find work in the productive industries - that the last vestiges of production for profit instead of human need is gone - sure then we can kick back and sing blue skies, nothing but blue skies from now on. We can't forget about the history of conflict that was capitalism's and think about this beautiful concept of common ownership for all. Damned near heaven on earth. Why not, it's a great vision. But we ain't getting there without the resolution of the class struggle – that’s the part that I don't see at this web site. I see a revolution of effect - I don't see the part about how to get from here to there. Perhaps it's there and I haven't seen it in my quick look - perhaps they could add it to their program. There does seem to be room for optimism that industrial unionism would be an acceptable idea to them. Anyone had contact with them?
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 12:23 am    Post subject: Wayne wrote: "the position that socialist groups should make only revolutionary demands is known as 'ultraleftism.' It is based in a lack of understanding where we stand in terms of building a socialist movement. The American proletariat today does not have the organization in any terms whatsoever to begin demanding a socialist revolution. For this reason, we need to come up with what we call transitional demands - things that are not socialism in and of themselves, but which would represent progress if enacted - and fight for them. Through this, we do not at all submerge our identities as socialists, but continue to organize." dave responds: I had forgotten that Wayne was from the SP. For some reason I thought that he was one of the ones from another organization. As stated above Marx and Engles wrote in the Communist Manifesto that true communists/socialists: "never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat..." Take a look at the most recent edition of the SP magazine: http://sp-usa.org/socialist/NewJulyTS.pdf Was there anything in the whole magazine that anyone can see that instills into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat ? I don't see it, but I have bad eyes. Maybe someone else can spot it, perhaps with a microscope. And we get lectured that advocating for revolution too much is making us "sectarian" . I trust the working class to tell it about revolution and the need for it, "never ceasing for a single instant". (Well sometimes I get up from the computer and go to the bathroom.) I would like to see at least some of this trust from the party of Debs - that the working class can handle the concept of the need for revolution. Debs had that trust for the working class as well, from what I can tell. The above gentleman from the SP makes excuses based on: "where we stand in terms of building a socialist movement. (That) the American proletariat today does not have the organization in any terms whatsoever to begin demanding a socialist revolution." duh!! So we shouldn't talk about revolution too much?? We'll keep it to ourselves until the workers are ready to be able to hear it?? Now do you think elitism is the same as sectarianism? If anything, it's probably worse, wouldn’t you say? imho dave
graymouser	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 01:07 pm    Post subject: Dave - Advocating strictly for revolution is absolutely sectarian, and removes one from the very class struggle that Marx spoke of. The Marxist position is absolutely to be involved in reform struggles and work within them to build class consciousness. Magazines that go around saying "Let's have a revolution!" all sound very nice, but they provoke nothing but perplexity from the actual workers who occasionally read them (as in the rag of the Revolutionary Communist Party). The Socialist reflects the multi-tendency Socialist Party - some of the articles are good (the previous issue was better than the current), others are weak, just like the party's mix of revolutionary socialists, social democrats and libertarian socialists. That's how it'll be with a party that doesn't adhere strictly to one ideological line but unites people around a base of shared principles. I'm proposing in the Debs Tendency to recreate our (rather arrogantly named by the earlier DT folks) Appeal to Reason as a voice for revolutionary democratic socialism. That's a place where, I hope, there will be a revolutionary and class-based perspective on the modern situation. We have to work from reality here. Look at the last election - the more "progressive" voters went for a candidate who was promising to expand the war in Iraq, expand the "War on Terror" (which we agree is a massive horror), and expand the neoliberal assault on the working class. We've got a long way to go before any revolutionary socialist message is going to sink in - and just having the correct revolutionary slogans and promoting them long enough and hard enough has not worked in over a century of the failing American socialist movement. -Wayne
davesearles	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 05:40 pm    Post subject: Wayne writes addressed to dave: Advocating strictly for revolution is absolutely sectarian. dave responds: It is arguable whether Wayne's statement is true or not, but if there is a premise contained in the statement that I advocate strictly for revolution, it is without foundation. As I stated, I have previously given a brief description of my life's work as to working directly for human rights. As I have said I will match my c.v. to Wayne's any day of the week. I work for human rights regardless of whether doing so builds "class consciousness" within such "movements." I feel compelled to, so as not to remain silent in the face of abuse and thereby tacitly condone it or even seem to tacitly condone it.. My experience is that when I'm advocating for someone - my allegiance is totally to that person. I go into a hearing and argue that a child is being discriminated against or is being deprived of a free appropriate education (and essentially a life) due to violations of law by a school district or state education department. I advocate for investigations into patient deaths, prisoner and suspect deaths. I have advocated against racial, sexual, religous discrimination in local instances. I advocated during the 80s that IBM get the hell out of South Africa because of apartheid. (all of these at my own expense as to time, money and energy) During these activities, some of which doing, I've been arrested - I never injected the "class struggle" into those matters. I have seen others go into such matters trying to get their foot in the door for their political party. It always seemed to me that activities by such persons were always thought of to be suspect, and that they were never in it totally for the cause - that when the people actually affected by those issues essentially said we want your help but we really are not interested in your politics - the politics disappeared as well as the help. During the Vietnam war I did totally advocate against the war on the basis that revolution was really the only solution to war. Did I want US out of Vietnam, yes. Did I advocate for withdraw, yes. At the same time did I argue full time for revolution, yes. I can remember offering myself at the local FBI for arrest, not part of a public demonstration, but I went in by myself. Apparently in February 1970 the FBI wasn't really wanting to have to react to a landslide of people offering themselves up for arrest, and I was spared. But I would have gone to jail and I would have served the time. You are too young to remember this, probably, but back in 1969 or so, the military was called out to sort and process the mail. The US postal workers had gone out on strike. My religous objection to serving in the military was that it was a strike breaking organization to which I was religously opposed. I've been arrested many times for free speech issues - handing out leaflets and hanging banners over highways. Essentially Wayne, you have written about that which you know little or nothing. Pontification always sounds so good and always means so little. Wayne wrote: "The 'Socialist' reflects the multi-tendency Socialist Party - some of the articles are good (the previous issue was better than the current), others are weak, just like the party's mix of revolutionary socialists, social democrats and libertarian socialists." Dave states: You will recall that I asked: Was there anything in the whole last magazine issue that anyone can see that instills into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat ? I guess the answer is that the entire July/August edition of the "Socialist" was devoid of anything that instills in to the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between the bourgeois and proletariat. For the prior edition, which was the May Day issue and also covered the 100th anniversary of the IWW, Wayne says it was better than the previous edition - well I agree, it was slightly better than zero. Still it was pretty sad. Wayne says that the SP is an organization that doesn't adhere strictly to one ideological line . Dave says, you can sure say that again. During the 70s and 80s the SP was almost totally submerged into the Democratic Party. Wayne says the SP unites people around a base of shared principles. Dave responds: asserted but definitely not demonstrated by Wayne or the SP itself. When I hooked up with the SLP in the sixties, joined in the early 70s and resigned in the late 70s - during this whole time the entire SP was so far up the Demcratic Party's ass - that there was no SP. When I left, the SLP was emergeing, but too late, from an internal disruption of long time party memebers who had in fact contsituted themselves as a sect. No doubt. But there is noting about it to suggest that had thse members been spouting reforms that there would have been anything less of a sect. We will all form into sects - I don't care what we espouse. We will all do it unless every day the group and the people in it reinvent themselves. continually. Hence the need for this discussion group. Wayne writes: I'm proposing in the Debs Tendency to recreate our "Appeal to Reason" as a voice for revolutionary democratic socialism. That's a place where, I hope, there will be a revolutionary and class-based perspective on the modern situation. dave responds: "revolutionary democratic socialism" does that mean social democrats? By democratic do you mean that the workers themselves will have complete control over the industries? Or does it mean continuance of the state but under "democratic" control? When the SP Debbs “tendency” determines what it actually wants to tend to, please let us know. But in the mean time, stay away from that sectarian thinking -I can see its effects on you already. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 10:12 pm    Post subject: Social - Yes, the World Socialists don't want anything analogous in any way to money. All goods would be free -- take whatever you want. All work would be voluntary -- show up for work if you would enjoy it -- no one gets paid. I think such a kind of revolution would be a disaster. Production approaches zero, consumption approaches infinity, and these two directional trends contradict each other. I think such a system would last few hours at the most -- not even a full day -- since support would vanish as soon as everyone's electric light go out, tap water stops flowing, etc. But workers are smart enough to know this in advance -- that it would immediately fail -- so they would never try to implement it. In this way, whe group perpectuates the belief that socialism is unworkable, because they do in fact propose a goal which is obviously unworkable and they also refer to it as the only true meaning of ther term 'socialism'.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 10:30 pm    Post subject: Re the World Socialist Movement (WSM), davesearles wrote: But we ain't getting there without the resolution of the class struggle – that’s the part that I don't see at this web site. I see a revolution of effect - I don't see the part about how to get from here to there. Perhaps it's there and I haven't seen it in my quick look - perhaps they could add it to their program. There does seem to be room for optimism that industrial unionism would be an acceptable idea to them. Anyone had contact with them? I've been in contact with people in the WSM, and arguing with them, for about as long as I've been in contact with the SLP, which is since the 1960s. They consider unionism to be solely for collective bargaining under capitalism, and they believe unionism has nothing to do with adopting socialism. They don't want workers' control of production; they want population control. For example, the SLP would say that the aerospace workers should elect the management of aerospace, while the WSM would say that the general population should elect the managers of areospace. That leaves them with a very cloudy idea of how to get there. The "people" take control with no preliminary organization except for the political party. However they don't want state control -- they want a stateless system -- they say that the state is to be taken over to be dismantled without delay (which we say also). But the the WSM has the working class organizing "politically and consciously" instead of "politically and industrially." Organizing consciously where? Nowhere in particular. In their minds, or wherever human beings have conversations with each other. But not particularly in the industries. It is a recipe for chaos. I believe it could be a power vacuum that invites a takeover by fascists or warlords.
Social Greenman	Posted: 26 Jul 2005 10:31 pm    Post subject: Thanks Mike. I do recall this being said of the World Socialist and I do agree that people just don't work for the hell of it. If anything is offered for free you will see a very long line of people wanting food, clothes, etc. Perhaps after many generations people will work in a cooperative give and take society. As for the word "sectarian," why is this term always used here in the U.S.? What is wrong with a plan of purpose to actually create Socialism? The Conservatives are "gun Ho" and they don't bend that easily because they have a plan of purpose and they are now running the government. Libertarians are unshakeable in their ideology. I know it is hard to point out the exploitative nature of the capitalist because they offer so many different toys to the prolatariet mixed with propaganda that they too can be rich and on easy street with them. We have to start pushing.