Socialism

Archived Messages

Author

Message

Matthelme

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 03:17 am Post subject: Socialism. Just a few thoughts

I was just wondering why some people here keep on misrepresenting the thoughts of V.I. Lenin.I keep hearing that " The workers can only achieve Trade union conciusness" as if Lenin thought working people are stupid. He (Lenin) Recognized that Trade unions were not socialist organizations and it would take a political organization to turn the working people to socialism. Some people may want to reed "What is to be Done" By V.I. Lenin.

Also why are people here against Nationalization? Socialism means if anything Social i.e. National control of production and exchange by a Democratic Working Peoples Government. Very Happy

Social Greenman

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 09:43 am Post subject:

The concept here is Socialist Industrial Unionism(SIU). Workers are organized along political and industrial lines. Political as to vote the capitalist government out of existance and industrial as to take over the means of production and distribution. Since I am fairly new to this I hope I answered correctly. The others here can go into better detail. I do have Lenin's "What is to be Done" on PDF file. I have not gotten around to reading it yet.

Workers already do administer, produce, distribute products and services since the capitalist class is pretty much absent from these processes. The SIU will set up a new economic system based on labor power which would have deductions for health care, education, etc. The working class through the process of voting can direct the SIU on what is produced and distributed and what services are needed. Therefore there would be no need for a government to exist or a need for a vanguard party to guide the working class to socialism.

Social

Matthelme

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 07:31 am Post subject:

If the SIU is not a Government than what is it? Most people outside the De Leonoist movement see it as a Government I.E. a State. All this talk that Socialism is against " Nationalization" and "State control" is just a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Soviet sentiment in the Socialist Movement. If De Lenist are to be honest they would admit the SIU represents " Stae Control" and " Nationalization".

davesearles

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 10:59 am Post subject:

Matt wrote:

I was just wondering why some people here keep on misrepresenting the thoughts of V.I. Lenin.I keep hearing that " The workers can only achieve Trade union consciousness" as if Lenin thought working people are stupid. He (Lenin) Recognized that Trade unions were not socialist organizations and it would take a political organization to turn the working people to socialism.

Dave asks:

Matt, can you quote who said 'workers can only achieve Trade union consciousness' with the date?

Thanks.

Dave

davesearles

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 11:08 am Post subject:

Matt wrote:

All this talk that Socialism is against " Nationalization" and "State control" is just a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Soviet sentiment in the Socialist Movement. If De Lenist are to be honest they would admit the SIU represents " Stae Control" and " Nationalization".

Dave comments:

It all depends on the definitions - it could be thought of as nationaliization of the means of production, if the workers are thought of as the nation.

But state control - we mighthave differing views about what a state is. Are you willing to concede that you may think of the state as one thing and Deleonists may think of the state as something else? That would pretty deal with your suggestion of "dishonesty". I really don't have much motive to be dishonest.

Dave

davesearles

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 01:08 pm Post subject:

Matt wrote:

(Lenin) Recognized that Trade unions were not socialist organizations and it would take a political organization to turn the working people to socialism.

Dave responds:

What Lenin wrote under the circumstances should be of interest as background to making decisions today as to what needs to be done.

My point is -I don't care if its the local chapter of the Elks club that helps to convince workers of the need for socialism - because that's really the only way that working people are going to turn toward it (that they are convinced). Also, while the "turn" is important, it's the workers who are going to establish socialism - not any party - no matter how well intentioned. But if a party can do the turning, God bless it. Personally I have an aversion, any more, to parties - I think that for the most part the members of such organizations get stuck developmentally in trying to advocate and protect the organization rather that simply advocating to the workers that they need to establish socialism - with or without the presence of a or the party.. But that's my personal prejudice.

Dave

davesearles

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 09:02 pm Post subject:

Matt wrote:

All this talk that Socialism is against " Nationalization" and "State control" is just a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Soviet sentiment in the Socialist Movement.

Dave replies:

Matt- the logic is a little weak here. Over generalization is great in a heated argument when the object is to scream the other person down (and I would be a liar if I were to say that I don't enjoy those opportunities) but you'd have a hard time coming up with a logical argument as to (#1) how you could possibly know the motive for everyone who may say that socialism is against nationalization and state control and (#2) how the DeLeonist concept of the SIU could have been to capitalize (good pun) on anti-Soviet sentiment - when the SIU concept has been the goal of DeLeonists since 1905, a full 12 years before the Russian Revolution:

"The central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic - exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be exclusively industrial." (Daniel DeLeon - July 10, 1905)

A problem that I think that you are having - again - stems from definition-

DeLeonists propose that there in fact be a government, but instead of the government being based upon political constituencies it will be based upon industrial constituencies. The best analogy that I can give is that prior to the state, government was based upon the family and tribes - although political government may sometimes look like families and tribes it is not actually based upon family and tribal constituencies but upon political constituencies.

You might see one or two contributors to this forum accuse those who advocate SIU to be "anarchists" because Marx may have said somewhere that it would be anarchy to dismantle the state prior to the elimination of class distinctions. But on the otherhand Engles essentially implied that the state should be gotten rid of as soon as possible after the revolution. (Civil War in France) DeLeon proposed the elimination right off, the government now being an adminstartion of things through a cooperative of labor.

I hope that you hang around and check it out.

Dave

PowerKord

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 02:30 am Post subject: Aversion to Parties

Hi,

Dave wrote:

>>>...I have an aversion, any more, to parties - I think that for the most part the members of such organizations get stuck developmentally in trying to advocate and protect the organization rather that simply advocating to the workers that they need to establish socialism - with or without the presence of a or the party..<<<

Amen!

In fact, this is one of the reasons I thought a federation might be more useful for the DeLeonist movement, at this time, rather than starting another party.

(By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, since he did not reveal his organizational affiliation: Matt Helme, whom I have met, is a member of the Communist Party, USA.)

Regards,

vince

Cool

davesearles

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 04:19 am Post subject:

Vince - If Mr. Helm thought it important for us to have known that, he would have told us. I don't think that this should be a place for us outing one another. I was very happy to see Matt's posts and I hope that he posts more and that members of any and all organizations and affilliations feel free to express thier views here as well.

Signed
Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 05:08 am Post subject:

I am a member of the CPUSA and make no bones about it, howevr i consider Vinces "Outing" of me to be very rude and inapropriot. I think the moderator of this forum should so something about it!

Matthelme

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 05:15 am Post subject: To Dave

My understanding of the State is Marxist. My understanding of the SIU program is based on the Socialist Labor Party interpretation.Is there an interpratation of the SIU program different from the SLP?

Matthelme

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 05:34 am Post subject: To Dave

My statement that most De leonists as being anti-stateist is not weak, it is right on point. Further my statement that De leonism uses Anti-stateism as a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Sovietism is right on point.All the De leonist I have met are against State ownership and Nationalization. If you know a group that is not please point it out to me. Realistically no De leonist is against "Stateism" or "Nationalization" becouse the Collective ownership of production and exchange by society would mean "Nationalization" and "Stateism". Some people seem to think you can cut the tail off of a cat and call it a pig but it is still a cat.

mikelepore

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 07:04 am Post subject:

How can a viewpoint that has been expressed since about 1905 be an "attempt to capitalize on Anti-Sovietism"?

mikelepore

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 07:27 am Post subject: Re: To Dave

Matthelme wrote:

Some people seem to think you can cut the tail off of a cat and call it a pig but it is still a cat.

I have sometimes considered the same thing, but regarding the fact that a socialist society will require laws and law enforcement, and yet our movement doesn't call the system a "state." Are we merely playing with words? Instead of having "police" put "handcuffs" on an assailant and take him to "jail", will we have "behavioral corformance specialists" put "movement delimiting apparatus" on an assailant and take him to the "reeducation facility"? I think that, to some extent, we have been playing word games. This - regarding the inescapability of some coercive aspects to any social system.

However, Matt, you should look deeper into the industrial management question. At the present time, , the department of motor vehicles is run by the government. At least in New York, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, the governor of the state appoints the state commissioner of motor vehicles, and the state commissioner appoints the county commissioners of motor vehicles, or some process like that. In the De Leonist model, we want bottom-up intra-industry representation, so if we have a local commissioner of motor vehicles, perhaps this commissioner would be elected by the local transportation workers. It might not be exactly that, but this is a conceptual illustration. Can you see from this example how we make the distinction between the political form of government and the industrial form of government? We want the workplace itself to become a republic.

davesearles

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:07 am Post subject:

Matt wrote:

"I am a member of the CPUSA and make no bones about it, howevr i consider Vinces "Outing" of me to be very rude and inapropriot. I think the moderator of this forum should so something about it!"

Matt, I agree with you that it was very rude. You will note that the offensive act came from someone who professes to convey "a message of hope." Unfortunately too often this is what we get from people who imply that their own motivations are of a higher plane. (But I shouldn't go further on that.)

I am happy to have someone representing the views of CPUSA (offically or unofficially) in the forum. You were very direct in your opening posts as to where you were coming from and only a fool would have thought that you were trying to hide something - to the extent that they felt compelled to disclose to the group what political party you were from. I am embarrassed to post to the same forum that he does, and I am sorry that it happened.

There is no moderator to the forum so perhaps if we were all to print out that offending post and tape it to a little doll and put a nail through its head that might bring us some relief.

Again I am sorry that it happened.

Dave

davesearles

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 05:22 pm Post subject:

Matt wrote:

If the SIU is not a Government than what is it? Most people outside the De Leonist movement see it as a Government I.E. a State. All this talk that Socialism is against " Nationalization" and "State control" is just a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Soviet sentiment in the Socialist Movement. If De Lenist are to be honest they would admit the SIU represents " Stae Control" and " Nationalization".

Dave responded:

Matt- the logic is a little weak here. Over generalization is great in a heated argument when the object is to scream the other person down (and I would be a liar if I were to say that I don't enjoy those opportunities) but you'd have a hard time coming up with a logical argument as to (#1) how you could possibly know the motive for everyone who may say that socialism is against nationalization and state control and (#2) how the DeLeonist concept of the SIU could have been to capitalize (good pun) on anti-Soviet sentiment - when the SIU concept has been the goal of DeLeonists since 1905, a full 12 years before the Russian Revolution...

And Dave continued:

"A problem that I think that you are having - again - stems from definition-

"DeLeonists propose that there in fact be a government, but instead of the government being based upon political constituencies it will be based upon industrial constituencies. The best analogy that I can give is that prior to the state, government was based upon the family and tribes - although political government may sometimes look like families and tribes it is not actually based upon family and tribal constituencies but upon political constituencies. "

Matt responded:

"My statement that most De leonists as being anti-stateist is not weak, it is right on point. Further my statement that De leonism uses Anti-stateism as a poor attempt to capitalize on Anti-Sovietism is right on point.All the De leonist I have met are against State ownership and Nationalization. If you know a group that is not please point it out to me. Realistically no De leonist is against "Stateism" or "Nationalization" because the Collective ownership of production and exchange by society would mean "Nationalization" and "Stateism". Some people seem to think you can cut the tail off of a cat and call it a pig but it is still a cat."

Dave responds:

Matt, the two of your conclusions that I stated that your logic was weak on was:

#1 your conclusion as to the motive of ALL people who say that socialism is against " 'nationalization' and 'state control'" (You wrote that the motive of all such people was to "attempt to capitalize on Anti-Soviet sentiment in the Socialist Movement.") and;

#2 your conclusion as to any DeLeonist's motive for being against nationalization or state control was to capitalize on anti Soviet sentiments when DeLeonists have been against nationalization (in its usual meaning) and against "state control" since 1905.

That's where I said that your logic was weak, simply denying that is not going to change anything.

But you are correct, DeLeonists are "anti-statist" in the same vein that Engels was anti-statist:

"People think they are taking an extraordinary bold step forward when the rid themselves of faith in a hereditary monarchy and becomes partisans of a democratic republic. In reality however, the state is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class over another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletarirt after its victorious struggle for class supremacy whose worst sides the proletariet, just like the Commune, will have at the earliest possible moment to lop off, until such time as a new generation, reared under new and free socal conditions, will be able to throw on the scap heap all the useless lumber of the State. "
(Engels, 1891 Civil War in France)

But there is a further probing by DeLeonists in this forum as to the nature of what we refer to the SIU. Just the other day I suggested thatthe SIU would have "soveriegnty". Usually that is a term that is reserved to states. I don't know. It seems right. But I am certainly not certain. We are not dishonest (for the most part). If you'll take the time you might find that to be true. But as I said, I don't mind the supercharged emotional (nonlogical) stuff either. It gets me up in the morning and keeps me going.

Keep asking questions. It's good for everyone.

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: To Dave

I just wanna say thanks. I am hoping this kind of rude behavior will stop and we can all act in a civilized mannor. I think Vince is just angry becouse he came to my group ( The Democratic Labor Forum) with an idea to host an event on De leonism and he could not get his way.We are non-secterian and our events are open to the public and Vince realized he could not hi-jack our vehicle and drive it his way.

Matthelme

Posted: 08 Apr 2005 11:55 pm Post subject: To Dave

My understanding of De Leonism stems from the SLP,and they are defintely against Stateism. a far as other groups in the De Leonist movement, i don't know what there take is. As far as De Leonism always being against the State i beg to differ. De Leon thought the working people would take the State and shape it in thier own image. So did Marx, so did Lenin and so does Fidel Castro.

Matthelme

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 12:18 am Post subject: To Dave

On the issue of Industrial management. I think each factory should not be it's own Republic. Should each factory have it's own foreign policy? What about eliminating that nasty little thing called capitalism? If a factory decided it wanted to produce for a profit and lay off 90% of it's work force
to achieve that goal should the state allow that to happen? And why should a board of commissioners not be appointed by the State, after all it is public property and the state has an interest. I was reading a story about the State take over of a paper plant in Venezuala and in their
system the workers on the shop floor have a 47% stake in the plant and
state has a 51% stake. It is joint management by the workers on the shop floor and the state, if we believe in social ownership and going beyond capitalism why should it be any other way?

davesearles

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 02:34 am Post subject:

Thanks for bringing up these points Matt. I tend to over generalize just as I accuse others of doing it. I've got to go back and read up on my Deleon - you are right he wasn't consistently anti-state but I THINK that the consensus is that he over time came to the conclusion as to abolishing the state. I also think that as he developed that view - so went the party. The party didn'tbecome more anti-state in response to the Soviets - I don't believe - but if you can show me something I'd be willing to take a look.

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 03:30 am Post subject: To Dave

You can read any issue of "The People"SLP paper and you will see an arrogant little blurb " What is Socialism". They attck China the USSR for not being Socialist becouse of theire " Stateism". They don't recognize that the kind of State that guys like Mao and Lenin talked about as being Socialist conformed to the Marxist View. Most people ( even the CPUSA) admit that adopting a one party state was a great blunder and caused harm to Socialist Democracy, but that is another topic.

mikelepore

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 10:05 am Post subject: Re: To Dave

Matthelme wrote:

The analogy goes like this: In a political confederation of provinces, each province can govern itself as long as its actions do not contradict the federal government. In industry, a factory should govern itself to the extent that its policies do not contradict the policies of its branch of industry, and the industry should govern itself to the extent that it doesn't conflict with the goals of the all-industry congress.

mikelepore

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 10:21 am Post subject: Re: To Dave

Matthelme wrote:

And why should a board of commissioners not be appointed by the State, after all it is public property and the state has an interest. I was reading a story about the State take over of a paper plant in Venezuala and in their system the workers on the shop floor have a 47% stake in the plant and state has a 51% stake. It is joint management by the workers on the shop floor and the state, if we believe in social ownership and going beyond capitalism why should it be any other way?

The state is set up to govern the behavior of individuals. Industrial management is a collective administration of inanimate objects, the production process.

The state passes a law against murder. Industrial management coordinates the assembly of widgets.

Passing laws governming behavior doesn't have to be a day-to-day activity for every individual. Workplace self-management should be everyone's day-to-day participation.

The two tasks are unlike. We need some government over the behavior of individuals. We need some coordination of production. I believe the two modes of representation should be separate. The committee of representatives that passes a law against murder shouldn't have a voice in the production of widgets.

What is called "nationalization" or "state ownership of industry" improperly mixes the two separate functions.

davesearles

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 12:36 pm Post subject:

I am just throwing out thoughts here.

This came up under a different topic but I'll throw it out here for a mutual mulling over.

The concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty I believe describes where the ultimate authority in a nation lies. (Now don't go crazy on me - I am using the word nation very loosely such as: The nation is the moral body, independent of political revolutions, because it is constituted by inborn qualities which render it indissoluble - as opposed to the state, which is the people organized into a political body.

More and more we are looking at a world nation. When it's a 5 cents a minute phone call to India and we can travel there in a shorter time and relatively more cheaply than most people could travel to their state capital 200 years ago - India and every other country combined is starting to take on the characteristics of one whole a nation (often at war within itself, but still one whole nation)

But no matter - there can be several sovereign states within a nation - such as until recent times - Italy was a nation but it was comprised of several independent states.

Now- lets say that the SIU is not a state - that through revolution the state government is supplanted by the SIU government with industrial constituencies as opposed to political constituencies, and that within the whole world or within a nation that is not the whole world, the workers industrial collective congress or whatever you want to call it, has ultimate authority over everything, subject to the rights of individuals, and subject to the workers. Despite being called an "administration of things" (and that would be its prime purpose) even under the most benign circumstances the behavior of people does come into play.

In downtown Rutland we have a problem with people walking on the train tracks because the tracks run all through town for the most part it is simply not feasible to fence them in because of all of the openings there would be for the street crossings. So at some point you've got to have somebody with some recognized authority to do something more than hurl invectives at the jerks who will walk on the tracks - one drunk guy got both of his legs cut off last year.

Some places have railroad police. Is this a "state" authority or is it an industrial authority. We reflexively associate police with the state - and Are conditioned to think that every officer that is giving someone a ticket for driving 85 miles an hour is there to protect class rule.

What I am getting at is that it seems reasonable that "police" in the industrial democracy will be a service provider and a legitimate part of the industrial as a whole. How police are regulated is very important. But just like every industrial function needs regulation. Just as people with bulldozers need to be regulated as to where, and what and how much needs to be bulldozed, as well as every other industrial function will be regulated.

Sovereign authority rests with the workers - we propose that they express that authority through the SIU.

Enough rambling for the day.

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 01:02 pm Post subject: Industrial Management

I see no reason to seperate Industrial Management from State Management.It would be like sperating your left hand from your body. We should look at this a one big whole.

davesearles

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 01:11 pm Post subject:

Matt:

Honestly, you are going to have to do better than that. How convincing of anargument is it to simply say "I see no reason" and then give an analogy as an argument - "It would be like seperating your left hand from your body". Why not say, "it would be like having your tonsils out?" Neither advances knowledge one wit.

Please do better. You have demonstrated that you can.

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 02:50 pm Post subject: Industrial Management

Marx/Engels did not like Parlimentarianism partly becouse the seperation of powers made for inefficient government, so why have a seperation between Civil and Industrial administration? Sorry i did not make a better point in my early post, it was early in the morning and i was groggy.

davesearles

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 07:11 pm Post subject:

Marx/Engels did not like Parlimentarianism partly because the seperation of powers made for inefficient government, so why have a seperation between Civil and Industrial administration.

There are two models here:

#1 the industrial government might have some authorities that are typically thought of as civil that are currently handeled by the state.

#2 the State will continue to have (al least some some) civil authorty that it currently has and will in addition, oversee industry.

let me know if you have an alternate description for either the first or the second and/or what you think about them.

I'm sure that you've had on your mind how you can see the state model working and of course we have had on our minds how we can see the industrial model working. I think probably if we had to work the whole thing out without words or symbols that our models wouldn't be that far apart. But that is heresy.

I'll give you my take on things that Marx Engels Lenin or DeLeon wrote.

They are useful references as background. When we think we've got any or all of the boys in our corner we feel a little more confident in what we propose - however what we propose in the final analysis if it is ever to be implemented is going to stand or fall on its own. The boys surely won't be there.

What they said or wrote is helpful to get us started in what we think is the direction that they would follow - but I seldom if ever reference them unless it's to answer someone who has cited one of them in a presentation of what they believe. But that's me.

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 05:48 am Post subject: To Dave

We clearly disagree on the issue. You see a division between Civil and Industrial Management I don't. I see no need to elaborate any further.

davesearles

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 02:22 pm Post subject:

Matt wrote:

You see a division between Civil and Industrial Management I don't. -

Dave writes:

No Matt, I think that you are wrong. I do not see a division. What I see is all or practically all of the needs of society being addressed through a democratic industrial governement essentially deciding what workers and what tools to utilize to address each problem.

Then, if I don't see a division, we must be in agreement.

(I don't actually believe that, but I can pretend.)

Dave

Matthelme

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 04:08 pm Post subject: Dave

Why say the State will have this power and the SIU will have that power? Is that not a seperation of powers? Sorry if i misinterperate what you say, please clarify.

mikelepore

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 04:31 am Post subject:

People should also note that De Leonism traditionally considers the "state" to be that which uses a nesting of geographical constituencies (city, town, county, province, country). De Leonism views discontinutation of the use of geographical constituencies to be a part of, perhaps even the major factor in, the introduction of a "stateless" society. This interpretation was developed mainly through the influence of Ancient Society by Lewis Henry Morgan, which Engels used as his major source in writing The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. To the typical De Leonist, a socialist reconstruction taking place in the United States must be accompanied immediately by abolition of the fifty states themselves, or else it's not socialism at all. Keep this in mind when reading De Leon's remarks that the mission of a socialist political party is to capture control of the state for the sole purpose of immediately dismantling it.

Matthelme

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 07:02 am Post subject: On the State

First of all we should gard against the idea that it will be one party taking power and doing this or that, that idea has ruined socialism around the world.Secondly we can't assume a Socialist government will take power today and abolish the state tommorow, only the nature of the state will change.

mikelepore

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 05:53 pm Post subject:

Matt, can you clarify your definition of "state" by describing some of its characteristics? Like this: water is a colorless, tasteless liquid. A state is ... ?

davesearles

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 10:08 pm Post subject:

Matt said:

the nature of the state will change

Dave replies -

Closer to agreement all of the time. How about saying instead that the nature of government will change.

It might be helpful to consider:

political boundaries divide the workers. The capitalist have shown themselves adpt at almost not seing borders at all. I just hear on NPR thatis guy in (I coundn't even recognize thecountry) who is the third richest person in thewold behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffet- jus tboughtup practically all of the remaining steel mills in the US - But we workers especially when most of us cannot afford to travle extensively, almost exclusively see the world as it affects our political subdivision.

The capitalists are strong because they own the means of production (but their "ownership' is tenuous.) They don't see political divisions, they see industriies and world markets. WorkERs governemt has to be where the source of our power resides - in the fact that we run the industries from top to bottom - that is the ultimate source of power. We need to organize a government along those lines - just as the Capitalists essentailly have.

Dave