| Author |
Message |
|
| mikelepore |
 Posted:
12 Oct 2004 06:42 am Post subject: The Class Struggle |
This post will be edited later to make a list of links.
This is a discussion forum. Comments are welcome.
LINKS
See the Class Struggle chapters in the NUP study course
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/chlist.htm |
|
|
 |
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
14 Apr 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
Even though I printed out the entire study course I am still not understanding how and why workers would rather compete with each other rather than realise that the system needs to be smashed and replaced. Workers seem to believe that working for capitalist is just normal and will step on and over others just to get more pay.
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
15 Apr 2005 12:25 am Post subject: |
The propaganda that saturates the media and the educational system.
"The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the
ruling ideas; i.e., the class which is the ruling
material force of society is, at the same time, its
ruling intellectual force. The class which has the
means of material production at its disposal, has
control, at the same time, over the means of mental
production, so that, thereby, generally speaking, the
ideas of those who lack the means of mental production
are subject to it."
from "The German Ideology", co-authored by Marx and
Engels, 1846
We are constantly told throughout our lives that the wealthy are
wealthy as their reward for being ambitious nad for being geniuses,
and the poor are poor because they are lazy ... that the capitalist
system is inherently and automatically fair ... Tell each person something
several thousand times, and most people will believe it. That tends to
be sufficient to persuade oppressed people from wanting their
own emancipation, and to defend the chains that they wear.
In ancient times, the propaganda that ruling classes used was such claims as "the emperor is a god." Today different ideologies are used, but for the same effect. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
15 Apr 2005 11:26 am Post subject: |
Yes, I am aware of that ancient concept. The Celtics believed that the King was married to the Earth Goddess and his rule ensured the fertility of the land. For a number of years I believed conservatism would turn out to be a fad that would soon fade. I was wrong to assume that since propaganda has been increasing over the years and social programs are being cut or underfunded. You explaination along with Marx just reinforces what I already knew deep inside.
As to class struggle, all the workers I knew, through out the years, had only concerned themselves with increased wages and better benefits but would quickly make concessions when the owners complained of loss profits and/or closing the building. I have to ask, what is true class struggle in a capitalist society? I know the capitalist says it does not exist and perhaps in a sense they are correct. But the only fights I see with capitalists are for reforms whether it be socialists, communists or Liberals themselves and they call it class struggle.
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
15 Apr 2005 10:31 pm Post subject: |
| Social Greenman wrote: | | what is true class struggle in a capitalist society? |
There is one thing that it states with, but from there it has many branches. It all starts from the division of labor's product into the paid portion (wages) and the unpaid portion (profits and other surplus value). If workers want higher wages, capitalists instinctively resist that change, because it would mean lower profits.
In 'What Means This Strike', De Leon said, "You have seen that the wages you live on, and the profits the capitalist riots in, are the two parts into which is divided the wealth that you produce. The workingman wants a larger and larger share, and so does the capitalist. A thing cannot be divided into two shares so as to increase the share of each."
From this basic foundation for the two classes having opposite interests, it grows outward into many forms, which can affect politics, religion, philosophy, education, the arts, popular culture, and everything else. But the economic basis of it all should be recognized. The radicals of the 1960s who denounced of 'The Establishment', but didn't recognize the interaction between the working class and the capitalist class, are an example of an angry group who failed to recognize the economic basis of all the political and cultural manifestations of the class struggle. |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
15 Apr 2005 10:38 pm Post subject: |
excerpt from the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, 1848:
The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history
of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf,
guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an
uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at
large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a
complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a
manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have
patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages,
feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices,
serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate
gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins
of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It
has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression,
new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the
epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive
feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a
whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps,
into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie
and Proletariat. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
17 Apr 2005 12:08 pm Post subject: |
Mike wrote citing Marx:
| Quote: | "The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the
ruling ideas; i.e., the class which is the ruling
material force of society is, at the same time, its
ruling intellectual force. The class which has the
means of material production at its disposal, has
control, at the same time, over the means of mental
production, so that, thereby, generally speaking, the
ideas of those who lack the means of mental production
are subject to it."
from "The German Ideology", co-authored by Marx and
Engels, 1846 |
This is so true since I have met so many people who believe everything the neocon radio talk shows spews forth, the news papers, business reports, and whatever is on the news. Artificial wants created by advertisement which of course we all hear that "free markets create free minds" which it is more like manipulation. Since I have kids (now grown) who have bugged the hell out of me for toys and games they have seen on TV or from what a kid brought to school. We all been manipulated from capitalists in various forms. Most Americans and the Western world are so accostumed to capitalist thought and ways that even so-called socialists cannot not think outside the capitalistic box.
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
17 Apr 2005 07:05 pm Post subject: |
This notion about how the media are used is Noam Chomksy's thesis for his book Manufacturing Consent. As that passage from The German Ideology shows, Marx and Engels said the same thing 150 years earlier. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
17 Apr 2005 10:24 pm Post subject: |
I do have Noam Chomsky's Propaganda and the Public Mind which goes through the manipulation of the media and often what is not told to the American public.
Social |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
18 Apr 2005 10:37 am Post subject: |
I have been reading the SLP's "Union Handbook" and I find it a bit confusing. Don't fight for reform but it's okay to fight the roll backs in reform. You can be a trade union member but all of your activity has to be approved by the NEC. One cannot accept appointments in a trade union. If elected an officer one has to make known that they are SLP and state the party's agenda. I would have cut and pasted but it is on a PDF format.
I was just wondering what class struggle would be when a person is restricted to a set of rules and regulations? As one fellow posted in another forum:
| Quote: | The SLP is a funny group. They believe in electoral activity, and they believe in workers organizing in Industrial Unions, but they do neither  |
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
18 Apr 2005 02:49 pm Post subject: |
We're going to have to start bugging all the local SLP sections which have email addresses. They should have someone here to answer for themselves.
The idea behind socilaists not accepting appointed positions, in either government or unions, and also disclosing their agenda, is that the degree of socialist success in moving into these positions is supposted to be an accurate thermometer to indicate how may people really understand and want socialism, so these positions have to be elected.
We may need a longer discussson of the reform issue. The SLP doesn't consider the ifght for better wages, hours or working conditions to be a reform at all, when it's fought directly between workers and employers. They call it a reform when it goes to changing laws. It has to do with efforts to change the law having an indirect effect on the way people later think, causing people to think that capitalism itself is okay and can be made fair, if only we could pass hundreds of badly-needed laws. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
19 Apr 2005 01:46 am Post subject: |
That would be good if a few from the SLP would present their views.
| Quote: | | The SLP doesn't consider the fight for better wages, hours or working conditions to be a reform at all, when it's fought directly between workers and employers. They call it a reform when it goes to changing laws. It has to do with efforts to change the law having an indirect effect on the way people later think, causing people to think that capitalism itself is okay and can be made fair, if only we could pass hundreds of badly-needed laws. |
OKay, this is what gets me. It's okay to secure better wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits and then they end up in a better position than the non union working class who are struggling from day to day. The SLP says it is not a reform when it comes to a union contract. But it is a reform when changes in laws gives some relief to those who are in need of housing, health care, etc. Progressives, Liberals, socialists, and communists do fight for those who have no voice under capitalism to bring changes in laws to relieve the poor, disabled, working poor, etc. I have to say they are doing the right thing just as it is the right thing to secure a union contract. As things stand there is no SIU in existance since the only thing the SLP in intersted is building their party. The IWW won't accept anyone who is not a wage earner in the U.S. which leaves out a large number of people. There are way too many people that need help since capitalism in the U.S. has gotten more vicious. My wife will have cuts in Medicaid in July and everyone else in the State of Pennsylvania who need this health care program. Since we are not SLP and are not bound to their platform; we have to be MORE than advocates of the SIU program. I don't know about the rest of you but I have to fight along with the others. And to convince people not to vote for the duopoly and open the way to third party elections and representation.
Also, the possibility of SIU not coming into existance must be kept in mind. However, advocating for a new economic program just might be the key that would add to the class struggle against capitalism. Mike, you need to put your program in book form. Explain every possible use of TLV and break down the alogrithms so that a child can understand it. Can your program be created in software which can be utilized in work shops, stores, hospitals, schools, etc.? Can SIU program be more modified considering the anti union sediments that the working class has now?
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
19 Apr 2005 01:08 pm Post subject: |
As we get to the more thought-provoking questions, one person's thoughts are is as good as anyone else's. All we know for certain is that whatever has been tried for the past 150 years didn't work well enough; in fact, the working class is more ignorant now than around 1910. On some of the points you raise, my own opinions are still evolving. For example, I no longer criticize reformism in the same terms that I once did. What I criticize mainly is when reforms are misrepresented as stepping-stones toward socialism. Reforms may be good ideas in themselves, better guaranteeing the survival and comfort of many people, but should probably be supported by socialists with the caveat clearly expressed that they they are not part of socialism. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
19 Apr 2005 03:20 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: | | Reforms may be good ideas in themselves, better guaranteeing the survival and comfort of many people, but should probably be supported by socialists with the caveat clearly expressed that they they are not part of socialism. |
Agreed. The basic function of the struggle for reforms is that it's a direct, immediate fight that the working class engages in; they build and radicalize class consciousness as people realize both the power that they could have and wield from below, and the utter corruption and contempt for them had by those above. Also, other workers need to know that the socialist movement is on their side and really the true representative of their interests, which is shown by working for reforms. It's not socialism, but it's essential work for socialist groups trying to build a mass movement toward socialism.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
19 Apr 2005 07:15 pm Post subject: |
Wayne, although you said "agreed", my own view is quite different than what you said.
> The basic function of the struggle for reforms is that it's a direct,
I think reforms are indirect. They require working class people to beg politicians to do things for them, which tends to promotes a Moses exodus follow-the-leader-to-freedom concept of revolution.
> immediate fight that the working class engages in
I think it's a weakness when people think about what seems to be immediate, instead of thinking about the abrupt and total termination of all capitalist social forms and relationships.
> ; they build and radicalize class consciousness as people realize both the power that they could have and wield from below,
I believe that reforms rarely radicalize people, and generally promote conservativism. It becomes a matter of being less willing to scrap the institutions that we have expended so much effort to reform. It's as if a person just got finished putting a couple thousand dollars into fixing a junky old car, and therefore becomes less willing to consider the option of dumping it on the junkyard.
> and the utter corruption and contempt for them had by those above.
Every time a reform is achieved, it feeds the illusion that those above are heroes. Consider the conservative era that followed Roosevelt's New Deal reforms.
> Also, other workers need to know that the socialist movement is
> on their side and really the true representative of their interests,
> which is shown by working for reforms.
I believe that, if socialists work for reforms, they should do it only as individuals, with no recogniiton of that activity by the socialist movement, neither support nor opposition. Reformed capitalism is a kind of capitalism, and the socialist movement needs to call for nothing but the abrupt and complete end of capitalism.
> It's not socialism, but it's essential work for socialist groups trying to
> build a mass movement toward socialism.
I feel that reform has a place in the life of working class people, as individuals, as families, but should have no place at all in a socialist organization. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
19 Apr 2005 09:25 pm Post subject: |
Mike, I understand everything you wrote and I agree that socialist seeking reforms from the capitalist class will bloister their image as fair and just thus preserving capitalism. Also, I understand why socialist seek reform to alieviate the sufferings of people. It's a catch 22. Perhaps it was designed that way. I believe you wrote that people can fight for reforms so long as they don't attach their socialist organization to it. I can see the logic in what you wrote. Yes, socialist should always strive for the day when capitalism and it's institutions come to an abrupt and complete end. That is why I see a need for a completely new economic system. Aside from that, it is a good idea to tell the working class that even though there are fights for reforms in laws, that these reforms are not socialist in nature. I can live with that. I need to think more and we need to discuss more about this issue and what to do next.
Social |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 01:17 am Post subject: |
Mike -
I'm not a reformist by any stretch of the imagination, but that's not a very realistic strategy. What I'm talking about with "reform" is not benevolent movements from above, but rather the demands for change from below being recognized, like the civil rights movement (where Dr. King, not the bourgeois government, was rightly celebrated). Classically, Socialists have always celebrated and protected such reforms.
Reform demands will always be part of the movement for Socialism From Below; it's impossible to build one without them. Fundamentally, they happen as part of the movement (almost a side effect) and not the core of it - but I think to cut off from transitional demands is a mistake within Socialist organization.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 01:39 pm Post subject: |
| Social Greenman wrote: | | Aside from that, it is a good idea to tell the working class that even though there are fights for reforms in laws, that these reforms are not socialist in nature. |
Right. Let me retract a few of the words I used yesterday. I shouldn't have claimed that a socialist organization shouldn't recognize or support certain reforms. What I meant to say is: a soc org should render supportive statements in this form ...
"Here are some of the non-revolutionary objectives that we working class people are seeking, because they would make life easier, and in some cases they are matters of survival...... However, let's continuously remind themselves that these less-than-revolutionary objectives can't lead to socialism. The socialist transformation has to consist of different actions...... "
I'm not seeing this from group that are usually called the U.S. left - Communist Party - Workers World Party - Socialist Workers Party - Socialist Party. These groups have the tradition of presenting documents such as "top ten demands", very frequently modifed, and composed in such a way that the reader gets the impression that socialism can be adopted piecemeal by patching capitalism with numerous modifications. |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 01:56 pm Post subject: |
Wayne - What I'm about to say may be a bit complicated, as I try to find the right words ....
The SLP supported the the black civil rights movement because it wasn't a reform-of-capitalism movement. It didn't try to change the way basic capitalist relationships work. To take a position on whether or not a demographic group has the right to jobs, housing, education, doesn't even try to change the underlying nature of the system of wages, prices and profits. Therefore the fight for civil liberties deserves our full support, without the dangers that accompany reformism, the popular illusion that capitalism "really works."
The kinds of changes that we call "reforms" are such laws as the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, Medicare and Medicaid -- the changes in the latter category, once achieved, make life a lot easier, and that alone makes them good ideas, but they also carry the side effect that more people will then say, "See? We've seen that capitalism really works! Capitalism is the best system, and getting better all the time." |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 02:13 pm Post subject: |
Then there's the matter of balance. Read a leftist newspaper from cover to cover, and note that it consists entirely of discussion of reforms, or else there might be a sentence somewhere on page sixteen that says something like, "Another one of our goals is socialism." It's as thought they felt obliged to slip an occasional mention of socialism in there somewhere, although it takes some space away from the basic fight for a higher minimum wage and college tuition freezes and more daycare centers. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 02:43 pm Post subject: |
Mike -
I knew, once the different wording was removed, there was agreement there.  I actually am a staunch opponent of Social Democracy (in the sense of the modern reformist "socialist" movement) within the Socialist Party, and I wrote up a rather long analysis just last week of why such movements always fail - the presence of such in capitalism is itself a contradiction, and is inevitably worked out and destroyed.
However - there is a real necessity for transitional demands. Socialist campaigns, by their nature, are educational; the reality of an educational campaign in the current situation, given the bourgeois government, is that without some immediate demands - which I agree must be emphasized as not constituting socialism - it's very hard to be taken seriously to any degree. You could have a one-point platform, "End Capitalism," but that doesn't get you very far as getting the attention, respect, and support of the working class. Transitional demands are there because a socialist party must represent the real interests of the working class - which incorporates both demands for revolutionary change, and bringing attention to the plight of that class through their platforms.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 03:42 pm Post subject: |
Wayne wrote:
there is a real necessity for transitional demands. Socialist campaigns, by their nature, are educational; the reality of an educational campaign in the current situation, given the bourgeois government, is that without some immediate demands - which I agree must be emphasized as not constituting socialism - it's very hard to be taken seriously to any degree.
Dave writes:
I cannot agree with you more - HOWEVER - in practice things fall apart.
Years ago I co-authored a campaign flyer in a socialist campaign. I think I did a decent job of doing just what you said. I hate for that flyer to be used as a benchmark but I would like to see other literatue for open public distribution that just as openly explains the socialist objective. Here is the text of the flyer:
(thanks for Mike for mainitaining probaly the last existing copy of the leaflet and making the text available to me.)
FOR THE MAJORITY:
THE PLATFORM OF A SOCIALIST IN ELLENVILLE
by Nathan Pressman
Local politics is dominated by a minority. It dominates in
this community and dominates in all communities. Every political body
and institution in this country from the national to the local level
is under its control. While it cannot be identified in the usual
terms, as a racial or ethnic minority, it is a minority nonetheless.
It is, in fact, the capitalist class minority, The people I am
referring to are the representatives of this class in the bourgeois
political state.
What lies in this political control is economic exploitation.
By this I mean that the means of production, and therefore the
livelihood of the vast majority of the population, is owned and
controlled by this capitalist minority. "He who owns the means
whereby I live owns me." The present boom on Wall Street, contrasted
with the 15 million and more workers who are without jobs, is but one
example of the different interests between this capitalist minority
and the vast working class majority.
At the local level there exists a group of small capitalists
that virtually dominate the politics of this area. As an example,
when Mayor Krieger announced his appointments to the local utility
board, among those names were the president of the Bio-Energy
Corporation, the vice-president of Marvin Millworks, Incorporated, the
vice-president of General Sportswear, Incorporated, and a certified
public accountant. Not a single member of the working class. Not a
single Black, Latin, or woman. All either members of, or beholden to,
this group of small capitalists.
At the same time largest capitalists seek to control local
politics in their own interests. The municipal power fight provides a
case in point. Here we had village officials in league with many
local petty bourgeois attempting to escape the tyranny of a monopoly
capitalist utility company. This proposal probably would have
resulted in savings to the business community, the municipal
government, as well as the local residents. But Central Hudson barred
no expense, spending somewhere near $100,000 to defeat the issue.
While capitalists, large and small, from time to time may have
their differences, in the main their objectives are identical, to
secure and maintain the system of exploitation that is capitalism.
As a socialist, I advocate the elimination of capitalism. I
advocate a cooperative, industrial society where the democratic
councils of organized workers will become the basis of a planned,
rational economy and society. It would be a society where human
beings could coexist without the mad need for war, imperialism, or
economic rivalry. The industries would produce for human need instead
of for capitalist greed.
The society that I envision will not be brought about simply by
electing me mayor. It cannot exist as long as we are within the
confines of bourgeois society. Ellenville is part of the capitalist
world. It is a branch of the political state. As such, workers
cannot expect that it can be transformed from an instrument of class
rule into the workers' councils that they must form. These councils
must spring from unions of workers. Our power as workers lies in the
industries, all industries. We have power because we produce the
wealth of this society, and it is as producers that we must organize.
The purpose of my campaign is to use the political process to
agitate for socialism and to help advance the overall struggle of
working people. This campaign is an opportunity for the workers of
Ellenville to broadcast to all workers their desire to end class
oppression, and their determination to build a new social order. If
the workers decide to do this, and elect me, there are several things
that I would try to do with Ellenville to give people an idea of how
socialist society would be organized and how it could improve the
quality of their lives.
1) I will call for an organization of all the workers of
Ellenville -- employed, unemployed, disabled, and retired -- to
discuss their common grievances, to serve as a conduit of information
among the workers of the various shops, and to plan strategies for
unionization and control of the industries and government by the
workers themselves.
2) In an industrial society, the only real democracy is
workers' democracy. To illustrate this idea, the village manager
shall be elected by the village employees and serve at their pleasure.
The village manager is in effect the supervisor of the village's
employees. It stands to reason then that the workers are the most
qualified to judge who their manager should be.
3) The municipal power question should be submitted to the
people for a vote. I feel that the issue was defeated because the
working class majority of Ellenville was not made to feel that they
should have any stake in the operation of the utility once it was an
established fact. I therefore propose that any future utility board
that I appoint would include a majority a working people and minority
representatives.
This proposed municipal takeover of the electric business here
is in apparent contradiction with the village board's "give-away" of
our wind power on the ridge. While hydropower, if it had been made
available, could have cut our electric rates in half, wind power
developed by a municipal authority would entirely eliminate our
dependence on outside agencies for electric power. I therefore
propose to do what I can to void the fifty year lease given to Genro,
and investigate alternatives to the development of our wind power by
outside interests.
Finally on this topic, I would ask the village board to enact
an ordinance requiring full financial disclosure by corporations
trying to influence a municipal vote.
4) I intend to raise for discussion another energy related
idea, a municipal heating system. Such a system could produce heat at
a central location in the village and pipe it to the residences and
businesses at less cost than they now spend. The advantages of this
include the possibility that from one central location heat could be
produced cleanly and more efficiently than individuals presently can,
and a single fuel in large quantities can be purchased more
inexpensively.
5) I will propose that a people's commission be formed to save
the Minnewaska property from the Marriott Corporation. This
commission should include representatives of labor, environmental,
business, local government, and all other interested groups and
individuals. Among the alternatives I would propose for the site are
its possible use as a union/environmental conference and seminar
center and/or a public recreational area.
My most important job as mayor will be the promotion of the
ideas of socialists and socialism. In this world today it is a
question of survival. Capitalism has shown that even the probability
of the extinction of the human race will not sway it from its course.
A new social order is required now! It is up to you. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
20 Apr 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
Here is what somenes wrote:
| Quote: | | As a criticism though, the world has changed a lot since De Leon's time. Considering the changes (in particular the rise of part time and non-unionised working) why do you still consider the workplace to be the central point of the class struggle as opposed to the community? |
Social |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 12:39 am Post subject: |
Did part time work or non union work abolish the class struggle or explaitaion at the point of production? Did it alter the fact that all wealth is a product of human labor and that by far wealth is produced in the industries by the working class? Community is the workers in the industries united. I.M.H.O. |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 01:11 am Post subject: |
Thanks Dave for you reply. In time I will develope the ability to answer any questions anyone may have but the need to read and practice writing will eventually hone the skill.
Social |
|
|
|
| Social Greenman |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 09:44 am Post subject: |
Mike and Dave, I do believe there is hope for SIU with the Debs Tendency within the SP-USA. I have been reading the points of unity and what my friend has been writing me. I have been looking at what Debs wrote:
| Quote: | The opposition to the Industrial Workers inspired by personal hatred for Daniel De Leon and the Socialist Trade & Labor Alliance is puerile, to say the least. With all that has been said about the latter it has never been charged with being a capitalist annex and as for De Leon personally he is not an issue to be considered when choosing between a bona-fide labor union organization for the benefit of the working class and a bogus labor organization defended by every capitalist paper and supported by every capitalist politician in the land.
De Leon is sound on the question of trade unionism and to that extent, whether I like him or not personally, I am with him.
My personal likes and dislikes are secondary to my allegiance to the working class. |
Social |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: |
| graymouser wrote: | | However - there is a real necessity for transitional demands. Socialist campaigns, by their nature, are educational; the reality of an educational campaign in the current situation, given the bourgeois government, is that without some immediate demands - which I agree must be emphasized as not constituting socialism - it's very hard to be taken seriously to any degree. You could have a one-point platform, "End Capitalism," but that doesn't get you very far as getting the attention, respect, and support of the working class. Transitional demands are there because a socialist party must represent the real interests of the working class - which incorporates both demands for revolutionary change, and bringing attention to the plight of that class through their platforms. |
If we wanna be honest with ourselves, I think all of us are quite like the rationalist school of philosophy (Plato, Leibniz, Descartes), trying to use "pure reason" to figure out the answer to this. That's because there is a lack of empirical data, if we use the 20th century as our laboratory. The working class didn't organize around "my kind" of principles and have a revolution, and the working class didn't organize around "your kind" of principles and have a revolution. I would have hoped that one of us would have been empirically shown to be right by now, by the working class moivng substantially in the direciton of classconscious organization, one way or another. So here we are, trying rationalistically, rather than empirically, to figure out what went wrong. We might even be able to cite an equal number of cases in which oppressed people sought transitional demands and then became more revolutionary, and cases in which oppressed people sought transitional demands and then became more complacent. It's likely that both you and I are looking at the world through our own colored filters. |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 12:16 pm Post subject: |
| davesearles wrote: |
FOR THE MAJORITY:
THE PLATFORM OF A SOCIALIST IN ELLENVILLE
by Nathan Pressman |
Might as well let everyone know the background .... It's the leaflet the wording of which made the SLP so angry that they expelled the guy who had been the party's most hard-working member for about forty years. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 04:09 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: | | If we wanna be honest with ourselves, I think all of us are quite like the rationalist school of philosophy (Plato, Leibniz, Descartes), trying to use "pure reason" to figure out the answer to this. That's because there is a lack of empirical data, if we use the 20th century as our laboratory. The working class didn't organize around "my kind" of principles and have a revolution, and the working class didn't organize around "your kind" of principles and have a revolution. I would have hoped that one of us would have been empirically shown to be right by now, by the working class moivng substantially in the direciton of classconscious organization, one way or another. So here we are, trying rationalistically, rather than empirically, to figure out what went wrong. We might even be able to cite an equal number of cases in which oppressed people sought transitional demands and then became more revolutionary, and cases in which oppressed people sought transitional demands and then became more complacent. It's likely that both you and I are looking at the world through our own colored iflters. |
Mike,
Agreed, for the most part. But I think we can agree that Socialism From Above, whether Social Democratic or Leninist, is generally disastrous. The reason I can support the SP USA's transitional demands is because they are part of a program of Socialism From Below, which is more fundamental to the SP than the demands themselves. In evaluating Socialist movements, taking care to avoid Socialism From Above is more important than many of the specifics.
This is also the reason I'm for a labor orientation to the SP - I think we need to change its basic heading from a party that could too easily become reformist (though it isn't), into one that is dedicated to socialist revolution brought about by action from united workers.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 07:12 pm Post subject: |
Please elaborate on your meanings for "from above" and "from below." It would be interesting to see where each person draws that line.
Let's consider several examples and discuss some of them. For starters -- holding a demo outside the Capitol building and telling the TV cameras that we demand better laws regulating wages and working conditions. Would this goal, if achieved, be a "reform" - yes or no? Is this action "reformism" - yes or no? Is this organization "from above" or "from below"? Would this action have some known pros and cons? I would like to see the opinions of as many people as possible. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
21 Apr 2005 08:32 pm Post subject: |
Mike -
Socialism From Above can be defined as a movement of an elite - whether this is the Social Democratic policy of reforms to produce "capitalism with a smiley face" as in later 20th century Europe, or the militant intellectual "vanguard" of Leninist revolutions that leads inevitably to dictatorships. Socialism must come about due to the efforts and organization of the masses, and power must be seized from below - this meaning the ultimate organization into workers' councils which will expropriate all productive capital, dissolve the bourgeois government, and found a workers' republic.
As to regulation of better wages and working conditions, that would be a reform; but working for it would only be reformism if the demands stopped at better wages and working conditions, and went no further. A Socialist group participating in it should not stop at "better wages and working conditions," but rather "the end of the wage system and the foundation of a workers' republic with collective ownership of productive property." In any such action, it's counterproductive for a Socialist group to not take the most radical position and make it clear that this is its goal.
For a good example of this, look at this PDF of the flier the SP handed out at the anti-IMF/World Bank protests this past Saturday:
http://sp-usa.org/april16/globalmarket.pdf
The rally itself was to "dump the debt," but we went a far sight further; we call for the end of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, and in the final paragraph for the creation of a democratic socialist society. By making this our clear position, we went to the march and kept our objective straightforward: not a few reforms, but a revolutionary change.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
22 Apr 2005 07:10 pm Post subject: |
| graymouser wrote: | | the end of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, and in the final paragraph for the creation of a democratic socialist society |
The phrase 'socialist society' necessarily includes the end of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, so what is the purpose of naming them separately? That's like saying 'the extinction of the triceratops and the dimetrodon, and also the exitnction of the dinosaurs." Since the triceratops and dimetrodon were dinosaurs, the end of them was already included by simply saying 'the extinction of the dinosaurs'.
The reader already knows this logic, and must make an inference as to why these things were named separately. The reader is forced to conlcude that the writer of the leaflet proposes "the end of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO" as part of the gradual process of establishing a socialist society. Therefore, the demands as given have strengthened the average reader's belief that socialism is being put forth as something that is adopted incrementally.
So, you see, to you to understand why I'm so skeptic of of such demands, I must also clarify that I believe that socialism can only be established abruptly. It may take centuries for the working class to be properly educated and organized to do it, but then the actual implementation of socialism must occur by means of an instantaneous switchover -- with a new economic and management system which has been completely constructed offline suddenly being switched online.
Given that such demands as "the end of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO" are nothing like steppingstones on the path to socialism, what is their function?
And what reason is there to believe that they effectively perform that function? |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
22 Apr 2005 07:49 pm Post subject: |
Here's the text, for those who hate PDF files:
Abolish the World Bank,
End the IMF, and Dissolve the WTO!
The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are part of a system designed to uphold
the power of transnational corporations and their avaricious pursuit of profits through a
globally integrated production process.
The IMF by demanding draconian austerity programs has driven developing world countries
further into poverty and despair. The World Bank, by providing long-term loans geared
exclusively to large-scale projects, has caused massive environmental destruction.
Profit motivated global trade pits working people against each other, by regions and within
nations, women against men, Black against white, student against student, the “West” vs.
the developing world. We are forced to fight over the scraps left by a global system that
continues to enrich the already rich, while making working women and men underbid each
other in terms of wages and working conditions.
Democratic socialists need to work with other radicals to build coalitions that can organize
a series of protests against corporate domination of global trade. We have no illusions that
the World Bank, the IMF, or the World Trade Organization can be reformed. These
intrinsically secretive and undemocratic organizations are dominated by transnational
corporations. We organize around slogans such as Abolish the World Bank, End the IMF, and
Dissolve the WTO!
We support the working people of the world in their struggle for a better life. Thus, we reject
the slogan of “Fair Trade Not Free Trade”. Global trade based on profit-orientated markets,
controlled by a few gigantic transnational corporations, is inherently unfair. The paramount
goal of global trade in these circumstances is to break down the wages and working
conditions of organized labor, and to undercut any and all environmental protections. We
have a very different vision of global trade based on working people controlling and
benefiting from the profits of their work.
Because the Democratic and Republican parties are tied to the current system of global
trade, we need to continue building a democratic socialist party that will confront the
corporations, rather than taking handouts from them.
Although we will join with others in a movement to abolish the institutions of corporate
dominated global trade, we will continue to point out that only the creation of a
democratic socialist society can bring an end to the underlying problems created by a
globally integrated capitalist economy.
The Socialist Party USA is a democratic socialist political party committed to bringing about, by democratic means, a new
society based on democratic socialism. The Socialist Party was founded in 1901 by Eugene V. Debs and others, and
reconstituted in 1972.
Socialist Party USA 339 Lafayette St. # 303 NY, NY 10012 * www.sp-usa.org * 212-982-4586
For local contacts see back of flier
--printed by Socialist Party USA National Office staff |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
22 Apr 2005 08:59 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: | | The phrase 'socialist society' necessarily includes the end of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, so what is the purpose of naming them separately? |
The flyer, as you posted, is basically arguing that all these neoliberal organizations need to go - but that the only way these aims can be accomplished is the creation of a Socialist society. It's actually a really good way to tackle the positions: we're fighting in every battle that involves the working class, not to reform the system, but to call for a change in society. I don't see another way to really be out there, winning people over to Socialism.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
23 Apr 2005 08:10 am Post subject: |
Okay, so in a debate like this, I think the best thing to do is identify the main difference of opinion, because clarification itself is a good.
The main difference of opinion is around where you feel the activity has to do with "winning people over to Socialism."
I can see that activity can get people out of their soft living room chairs and do something related to changing the world, and that's a good thing, but I don't conclude that it has to do with "winning people over to Socialism". Getting people to protest against the WTO has directly to do with the goal explicitly stated there -- getting rid of the WTO. How to make the connection to "winning people over to Socialism", that remains to be explained to me.
You mean --- because the goal of socialism is mentioned in another paragraph in the leaflet? But I thought we were talking about the popular protest itself, rather than merely the leaflet advertising the protest. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
23 Apr 2005 10:51 am Post subject: |
Mike -
Well, the way I see it is - by participating in such a protest, but participating as a critical and radical voice, the Socialist Party has an opportunity to win people over to Socialism by saying, "Yes, you're right - the IMF, World Bank, and WTO need to go - but that's just the tip of the iceberg." In essence, I think that Socialist organizations in protest action can be a radicalizing voice for the Left: we stand with the Left in its efforts to curb the wrongs of capitalism, but with the realization that only a Socialist society will fully do so.
It's a tactical difference that has a major impact on the fortunes of the party. The strictly DeLeonist parties, I fear, have consistently alienated themselves from the broader Left - and lost many chances to get already active minds to realize that only Socialism will change the fundamental problems of capitalism.
In any case, the question is almost strictly moot at this point; economic globalization has ensured that reforms are now all but impossible to implement. By this change, capitalism has already made the crucial distinction for us; now struggle will lead inevitably toward class consciousness and the realization that reformism will not work.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
24 Apr 2005 02:47 am Post subject: |
| graymouser wrote: | | DeLeonist parties, I fear, have consistently alienated themselves from the broader Left - and lost many chances to get already active minds to realize that |
Yes, but there are more variables at work, which messes up any assessment of cause and effect. It was only in 1977 that the SLP began for the first time to "intervene in issue-oriented movements" -- as their newer policy phrased it. Until then, the SLP wouldn't appear in any form in the location of, for example, a street protest. Now, since 1977, they do participate. They phrase goals to point at capitalism itself, e.g., at an an antiwar march, their signs and banners don't say, 'end the war,' but they say 'end capitalism, the cause of war.' My point is, yes, the SLP became very isolated from the progressive segment of the working class, but we can't detect empirically that this isolation is due to the exclusion of reform demands. We have the additional variable that for so many decades the SLP kept itself away - period.
Now that SLP members intervene in popular struggle, volunteer for some of the grunt work (say, cranking out handbills to advertise a demo, etc.), and in the end they phrase their banners differently than most other participants, how does this affect how you look at this conversation? |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
24 Apr 2005 03:35 am Post subject: |
| graymouser wrote: | | stand with the Left in its efforts to curb the wrongs of capitalism, but with the realization that only a Socialist society will fully do so |
Also, what happens when it's not entirely clear what the more humanitarian form of capitalism would be, due to the fact that the nature of capitalism is such that trying to mend one problem can cause another problem to pop up, or make another problem more severe? As you know, this happens all the time ... choose between saving the environment or keeping workers' jobs ... choose between an energy shortage or a radioactive waste dump ... Therefore, it's frequently ambiguious just how progressive a reform actually is in the first place.
This inability to identify, if we were to go with some reform demands, which one they should be, in which direction, divides workers among themselves. This is just what all shoulting is about over such issues as nuclear power, law enforcement, educational methods, private school vouchers, affirmative action programs, etc. These are not matters of pro-capitalist versus pro-liberation. More often, they are matters of "X" viewpoint of what's most progressive versus "Y" opinion of what's most progressive.
Myself as an example, I'm opposed to affirmative action as a solution to racial discrimination, since I don't believe that still more discrimination is a conceivable way to correct for past discrimination. The *best* one might say about having affirmative action programs would be that it's one of capitalism's no-win choices, just like "save the forest and eliminate the jobs." However, on this issue, I happen to believe that the customary Leftist viewpoint _is_ the more racist one.
Of course, on the Left, there is a tradition of peer pressure which dictates to the individual which position is the more progressive one, and this becomes a stronger effect than actually weighing by some analytical means which posiiton is the more progressive. On the Left people "have to" say that they support affitmative action, to "prove" how "radical" they are. Who gets to decide which position, which direction, is the leftward and progressive one? And, since someone had to decide that, and then inform everyone else, why isn't this precisely the vanguardism and top-down style of unification that we warn against?
Therefore, it seems to me that including a reform demand is often a greater factor in culturally alienating revolutionaries from the working class as a whole than refraining to including that reform demand would be.
Therefore, ironically, it may be the Leftist demands that actuallly chase some number of working class people into becoming conservatives.
In conclusion:
If you're right that it's desirable to adopt reform goals for their value in radicalizing working class people, it's still very unclear which particular reform goals to adopt; no way to know which ones will backfire. I also feel that some reform positions assumed by Left organizations are actually the more regressive and reactionary positions. |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
25 Apr 2005 03:13 pm Post subject: |
Mike -
The thing is, any movement that isn't activist is bound to be moribund. The SLP is seen mostly as a publishing house these days, their participation in a few events notwithstanding; the SP is growing precisely because it is active and engaged on the Left. Many Leftist movements, with the best of intent, have paralyzed themselves by overanalysis and fallen into obscurity.
I'm not for joining every Left movement that comes along; I'm really only interested in those with working-class (in the Marxist, not bourgeois, sense) content. The labor movement and the anti-globalization movement are primary among these; others, I'm willing to participate in mostly inasmuch as they contain direct class issues.
Your view about affirmative action, I think, is informed primarily by conservative propaganda; the fact is that, in America and elsewhere, minorities are among the worst-oppressed of people in the working class. Affirmative action is supportable inasmuch as it allows one to point out that racial inequalities are an inherent part of capitalism, and wiping them out is impossible outside a Socialist society.
Which brings me to an important point: embracing the "progressive" viewpoint as a knee-jerk reaction is not desirable, but neither is a knee-jerk rejection of the same. The basic problem is always the same: the Socialist movement must be seen as fighting in the struggles for the interest of the working class. Affirmative action, which you see (and many others see) as "racism" is, in its origins, a struggle for more equality within the working class. It's overwhelmingly part of the sanitized "progressive" movement, though, which is why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - who is responsible for much of the ideas of affirmative action - came to the realization that equality would only be possible through democratic socialism. Condemning affirmative action as "racist" is a tactical blunder, in that it alienates its supporters and beneficiaries; it's wholly the wrong solution to the problem.
A better solution is to critically support the affirmative action movement: being for the aim of equality, but pointing out that affirmative action alone has not brought it about, and probably will not do so in the future. Should a Socialist group support an affirmative action rally, say, the message should be along these lines:
"Capitalism has created a reality where most women and people of color are oppressed and exploited at a far greater rate than white men. We support the working class in its struggle for greater equality. Affirmative action is a solution in the short term, but inequality will remain; only the creation of a democratic socialist society can eliminate the inequalities inherent in the system."
It can then act as a radicalizing influence on that movement, just as those around King helped convince him that even his own Christian beliefs led to a form of socialism. A more "purist" standpoint forces one to disengage from many of the struggles of the working class, which is contradictory to Marxism.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
25 Apr 2005 08:18 pm Post subject: |
Present-day racism is not the primary reason why minorities are more intensely exploited. The reason is the one determined by Prof. McWhorter at Berkeley -- that, due to past racism, the tendency found among all adolescents to feel that education is uncool occurs somewhat more severely among adolescents within minority groups. The necessary solution is for parents to force their kids to spend their evenings and weekends sitting at the table with their school books open, and to use their library cards. Affirmative action is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem. |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
25 Apr 2005 08:29 pm Post subject: |
| graymouser wrote: | | the Socialist movement must be seen as fighting in the struggles for the interest of the working class. |
Who picks the causes? And by what method?
The U.S. has about 400,000 people in prison for smoking marijuana. I would support the need to legalize drugs a lot sooner than I would support abolition of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Who picks 'em? |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
25 Apr 2005 08:56 pm Post subject: |
Mike -
Who makes the choices? Well, a platform gets drawn up (hopefully democratically), and the causes listed therein are those supported by the party. That's why the SP has a platform with all of its calls: it's the guide for the party's leadership as to where the members want the party to be active. Individual members may do what they like, but the platform lists the issues and approaches which the party will approve of.
For the record: as a person who is entirely pro-legalization, I have no qualms about having protested the IMF and World Bank; those organizations, as tools of global capitalism, have done enormous wrongs to economies and entire populations. I think there's room for both.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
26 Apr 2005 07:09 pm Post subject: |
Affirmative action is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
Social Security is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
Medicaid is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
The minimum wage law is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
OSHA is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
The ADA is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
EPA is sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
The Civil Rights Acts are sugar-coating to conceal an underlying problem.
When it takes sugar for your group to get an even chance at being able to succede where your group historically has been woefully under represented then it's sugar that you will take.
Eliminate everyone else's sugar and we'll talk about why there should be no affirmative action.
Dave |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
26 Apr 2005 07:22 pm Post subject: |
"Who makes the choices? Well, a platform gets drawn up (hopefully democratically), and the causes listed therein are those supported by the party."
That's fine except the revolution always seems to get left out. To me that's the biggest problem with asking for these items - it seems like trying to win people over but without the main message going to the workers that no one can do it for them - that the workers have to start thinking about the day that they go in and say that's it - we work for the workers no one else. I just never see it. I never see anything even close to that. I never see any faith that the workers should do that or can do that.
If the democratic process leaves this out then _ _ _ _ the democratic process.
The revolution will not be televised.
Turn up the music
dave |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
26 Apr 2005 07:48 pm Post subject: |
Dave -
Here's the SP USA's introduction to its statement of principles:
| Quote: | Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.
Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.
People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people. |
I would not say that this is a forgetting of the revolution at all. And the final point of our strategy:
| Quote: | Democratic Revolution From Below
No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its oppressors. A society based on radical democracy, with power exercised through people's organizations, requires a socialist transformation from below. People's organizations cannot be created by legislation, nor can they spring into being only on the eve of a revolution.
They can grow only in the course of popular struggles, especially those of women, labor, and minority groups. The Socialist Party works to build these organizations democratically.
The process of struggle profoundly shapes the ends achieved. Our tactics in the struggle for radical democratic change reflect our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, non-exploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples.
To be free we must create new patterns for our lives and live in new ways in the midst of a society that does not understand and is often hostile to new, better modes of life. Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child. |
Most of our members are quite in agreement with the principles; indeed, the Social Democrats tend to be the renegades.
If you aren't working in the here and now, in the struggles of the working class, to build organizations and a movement that will forward this revolution, then you've said "f--- the revolution" without necessarily realizing that you have. De Leon knew this - look at the STLA and his work with the IWW. But in his later years, and especially with his successors, sectarianism dominated this and DeLeonism became marginal instead of advancing the revolution. The SIU program will remain just a program unless De Leonists get engaged.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 12:17 am Post subject: |
Wayne wrote:
If you aren't working in the here and now, in the struggles of the working class, to build organizations and a movement that will forward this revolution, then you've said "f--- the revolution" without necessarily realizing that you have.
dave writes:
Thanks for the psychology lesson. But I don't know maybe I need to talk to my analysist about this becuase I thought I said what I thought. Not saying what I thought all of the time has been a skill that I sometimes need work on. Or so I had thought.
Wayne wrote:
"To be free we must create new patterns for our lives and live in new ways in the midst of a society that does not understand and is often hostile to new, better modes of life. Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child."
Dave writes:
Oh now I see waht you mean. We want the workers to really concentrate and they'll pick up your meaning, that they should take over the industris and run them for themselves. Now you couldn't come right out and say that because what, that wouldn't be working in the "here and now"?
Totally Radical.
signed dave |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 02:55 am Post subject: |
| Quote: | | Thanks for the psychology lesson. But I don't know maybe I need to talk to my analysist about this becuase I thought I said what I thought. Not saying what I thought all of the time has been a skill that I sometimes need work on. Or so I had thought. |
A lot of would-be revolutionaries are so isolated and ideologically pure that they accomplish nothing at all. That's what I'm arguing against.
| Quote: | | Oh now I see waht you mean. We want the workers to really concentrate and they'll pick up your meaning, that they should take over the industris and run them for themselves. Now you couldn't come right out and say that because what, that wouldn't be working in the "here and now"? |
Popular consciousness, manipulated by misinformation and propaganda, is by and large against socialism. But failure to work in workers' struggles, a satisfaction with isolated purity, is not going to win over those minds that are currently opposite their own class interests.
If you say, "I have a solution to your problems," you'll be told - "You and the next guy." If you stand in the struggles of the proletariat, and work to raise them to class consciousness of the grave wrongs of their situation (and to raise your own awareness of their reality and yours), maybe your revolution has a chance. This is what I'm trying to say: criticizing engagement is fine if you want to talk theory. When you want to change the world, engagement is necessary, and it may not always be theoretically sound, but it's better than doing nothing and waiting for the Revolution to come.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 07:53 am Post subject: |
Wayne ::: "but it's better than doing nothing and waiting for the Revolution to come"
You're right about doing something being better than doing nothing.
But my own idea of the most productive thing for socialists to do at this time would be to collaborate on a multimedia "capitalism is the cause" project -- books, documentary videos, software, anything we can think of, all exposing capitalism as the culprit. Zoom in -- exactly how does capitalism cause this social problem, and that one, and this one ? What are the mechanisms here? Polluting because of the profit motive. Economic recessions because the economy is inherently unstable. War to conquer markets. Domestic violence as a result of poverty.
I think that would be the most fruitful use of our resources.
And it would be a project where we would probably agree with one another on most things, God forbid  ) |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 02:19 pm Post subject: |
Wayne wrote:
But failure to work in workers' struggles, a satisfaction with isolated purity, is not going to win over those minds that are currently opposite their own class interests.
Dave writes:
Wayne - I think that logic is off a little. Personally I have not failed "to work in workers struggles" but from your statement I take it that you believe coming right out and saying on a consistent basis that the workers should take over the means of production constitutes a failure to work in workers struggles.
Dave asks:
Wayne, do you agree that the workers should take over the means of production?
signed Dave |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 03:10 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: | | Wayne, do you agree that the workers should take over the means of production? |
Yes. I have no problem articulating that. My objection is to a tendency to stay ideologically pure and refrain from participating in workers' struggles, not to having an ideology and bearing it proudly. If the SP ever stopped calling for worker control of industry, I'd have to leave it.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 05:20 pm Post subject: |
worker control of industry
Does the SP have a pamphlet dealing with worker control of industry, and even further, that the workers should take control of the industries?
But you have no objection with me for I do particiape in workers struggles from me participating in workers struggles - if by purity you mean making the message that the workers take over the industries and run them for themselves - I am as pure as the BVM.
Dave |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 06:08 pm Post subject: |
Dave -
We do; it's called "Socialism as Radical Democracy: Statement of Principles of the Socialist Party USA" (it is available as a pamphlet as well). The text:
http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html
Read the full statement of principles - it's compromise language since there are non-Marxists in the party, but in "Production for Use, Not for Profit" there is a call for public ownership, and in "Worker & Community Control" there is a call for worker control of industry. A more Marxist statement by the Debs Tendency - which I'm part of - is here:
http://debstendency.org/pointsofunity.html
This latter is a rather lengthy, but overall good, summation of what we are trying to make the Socialist Party into.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 07:53 pm Post subject: |
Wayne _ I know that I can be awfully stupid at times - but I read the Debsian Tendency points of union paper.
Since you are a member, is there anyway of getting that paper to come right out and say that the workers must 1. take over the means of production and 2. operate it for themselves.
It seems that if that is what you want that it wouldn't be too much to come out and say it in the paper without beating around the bush. That's not asking for too much purity is it?
signed Dave |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 08:05 pm Post subject: |
I was looking on the net to see if I could find some Debs writing or quotation on the workers taking over the means of production and running it for themselves. Are you aware of any?
Now I found some - quoted below. You name your tendency after Debs but why can't you use his direct language instead of beating around the bush?
Dave
From: Outlook for Socialism in the United States 1900 by EVD
"The working class must get rid of the whole brood of masters and exploiters, and put themselves in possession and control of the means of production, that they may have steady employment without consulting a capitalist employer, large or small, and that they may get the wealth their labor produces, all of it, and enjoy with their families the fruits of their industry in comfortable and happy homes, abundant and wholesome food, proper clothing and all other things necessary to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ It is therefore a question not of “reform,’ the mask of fraud, but of revolution. The capitalist system must be overthrown, class-rule abolished and wage-slavery supplanted by the coöperative industry." |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 08:13 pm Post subject: |
Dave -
Well, the rewriting of the Points of Unity in the Debs Tendency (which are remarkably not to the point about the abolition of private property and the worker control of means of production, though we are committed to that task) is a task I want to move toward, but it's been sidelined until after the SP's national convention later this year so the tendency can prepare, basically, for a confrontation with the party's small but loud and autocratic right wing.
I do think there's value to being up front with your principles as you work with others; what I feel is problematic is letting principles get in the way of working with others to the point where you're strangled by them.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
27 Apr 2005 09:51 pm Post subject: |
Wayne wrote:
I do think there's value to being up front with your principles as you work with others; what I feel is problematic is letting principles get in the way of working with others to the point where you're strangled by them.
Dave states:
It can happen that principles can get in the way of working with others - there was one group that I was going to start working with that wanted to increase the wages of lower income families in Vermont. Their main course of action was to seek higher minimum wages in the state legislature - so they had to do a lot of lobbying of our legislators. While I favor raising the minimum wages laws and have benefited from such raises myself I did not think that this would have been a good fit for me or them, so I decided to part company friends. I did not want my principles to get in the way of what they needed to do. These are the complicated realities of life. On the other hand I have felt no such constraints doing the advocacy work that I have done over the last couple of decades in advocating for people with disabilities or in getting myself arrested a couple of times in protesting IBM's involvement in providing computers that propped up the South African police system, getting arrested in Union picket lines and draft resistance and free speech agitation before that.
I hope that you can convince the tendency to adopt more forthright language befitting a a group that has taken on the name of Debs. May I suggest that it would help to do it before rather than after the big showdown with the right, but those are your internal affairs.
signed Dave |
|
|
|
| mikelepore |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
28 Apr 2005 07:09 pm Post subject: |
Pathfinder Press (the organ of the Socialist Workers Party) put out a good volume of Debs, including key works that aren't on the Marxists archive. Debs basically had to admit he agreed with De Leon on issues of substance in theory, but from what I know of De Leon's SLP I understand they were quite different in terms of party leadership (Debs was very paranoid about becoming autocratic; he took no official post within the party, and sadly those were filled by opportunists who took it in a reformist direction).
Clear language is valuable; I actually agree, Dave, that the DT Points of Unity ought to be rewritten sooner rather than later, but other DT comrades don't think so. So, it'll have to wait.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
29 Apr 2005 01:26 am Post subject: |
Thank you. I didn't know that any aspect of the SWP was still in existence. Is pathfinder on the web?
Dave |
|
|
|
| graymouser |
| Posted:
29 Apr 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
Dave -
It's pathfinderpress.com - though, not supporting the SWP personally, I actually prefer to buy their books through resellers. Eugene V. Debs Speaks and Rosa Luxemburg Speaks are excellent volumes, though one must read the introductions with a grain of salt (though James Cannon's introduction to the Debs volume actually has a pretty good analysis of how Debs' above-party-politics stance allowed opportunists to wreck his life's work).
I think some of my words here have been a little hard - I just want to push to the people here, who have good ideas and dedication to Marxism, that it'd be a massive mistake to become sectarian and distant from real labor as the organized De Leonist parties have found themselves.
-Wayne |
|
|
|
| davesearles |
| Posted:
29 Apr 2005 09:52 pm Post subject: |
Wayne wrote:
I think some of my words here have been a little hard - I just want to push to the people here, who have good ideas and dedication to Marxism, that it'd be a massive mistake to become sectarian and distant from real labor as the organized De Leonist parties have found themselves.
Dave writes:
It's a perfectly valid observation.
This is just me - I just can't do parties anymore. It is far better for me to be a free radical . To me - and this is just me again - I am in the medium that best suits me now. I do not foresee a change but you never know. If there are only 10 or 20 people who regularly read these posts that's fine by me. I wish there were more, but I wish for a lot of things. This process clears my mind. Hopefully I can set fire to one person in a decade. If it takes twenty years I will do it.
Dave |
|
|