See all archived forum posts

Author	Message	Select
Social Greenman	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 09:28 am    Post subject: The Political Aspect I thought I start another thread. I have been reading and agree that reforms just keeps the present capitalist system secure. I understand that a SIU would unite workers of all occupations into an organized body. However, I am still fuzzy when it comes to the political aspect of socialism. I do know that the present government protects the interest of the capitalist class and would squash any sort of dissent. Electing socialist into office, as they have done in Europe, has produced cozy office holders. What a European poster wrote to me on another forum: Quote: The present 'socialism', at least in europe is not opposed to 'capitalism'. It is meant to work in a capitalist society. They are not diametrically opposite anymore, they intermingled with each other, mutually hardcore sex..that's how they are keen for each other. I am wondering if the political aspect of SIU would make a difference at all. Yes, they would go in as representatives of the SIU but can they really challenge the capitalist class in court? I know it is easy to say that amendments to throw off the present government if it becomes oppressive exist in the Constitution but the capitalist class could ammend those to suite themselves. The capitalist class can make sure, through passing new laws, to further protect themselves and the present form of government. What then? Social
graymouser	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 11:24 am    Post subject: Any Socialist party worth its salt would, when the real possibility of electing people to office came about, necessarily have a statement that would automatically remove its politicians from the party if they deviated from its platform. This sounds harsh, but it's absolutely necessary; a Socialist party must be a party of principle above all else, as we've seen when "Socialists" get elected in Europe. In reality, I think the labor organization is more important, but the electoral aim has a twofold rationale. One, it's a great educational method; two, it provides a way for those who already support Socialism to have their voices heard as a "protest vote." I don't think that the political wing of a unified Socialist movement would have much interest in pure office-seeking as a minority party of the bourgeois government. -Wayne
Social Greenman	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 02:00 pm    Post subject: I agree that pure office seeking to become a minority party would only lead to a European/Canadian, willing to cohabitate with the capitalist class, type of politics. I can understand the educational aspect but how would it as a protest voice? Unless, of course, it was a protest to end capitalism, capitalist financial institutions, capitalist wars, and capitalist government. I do agree that labor organization is highly important. However, what of the political aspects since it is pretty much not going to involve electing representatives into office. So, I am still a bit fuzzy on the political aspect of SIU. Social
graymouser	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 03:25 pm    Post subject: Social - I'm not an expert in the writings of Daniel De Leon; I'm in the process of reading them (and finding a lot that I agree with, though I wouldn't necessarily say I'm narrowly or in an orthodox way a De Leonist). I think As to Politics (available at deleonism.org) deals with the very subject you raise, though. -Wayne
PowerKord	Posted: 23 Apr 2005 10:39 pm    Post subject: <forum malfunction - delete button not appearing even though I'm logged in>
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:15 am    Post subject: I'll see if I can locate some references in the literature. ___________________ "Watch the capitalist closely, and see whether the social question is exclusively an economic one, or whether the political wing is not a very necessary one. The capitalist rules in the shop. Is he satisfied with that? Watch him at election time, it is then he works; he has also another workshop, not an economic one - the legislatures and capitols in the nation. He buzzes around them and accomplishes political results. He gets the laws passed that will protect his economic class interests, and he pulls the wires when these interests are in danger, bringing down the strong arm of political power over the heads of the striking workingmen, who have the notion that the wages or social question is only an economic question. Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both." Daniel De Leon, from _Reform or Revolution?_, 1896
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:18 am    Post subject: "Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its general interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself more independent in regard to society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." Engels, from "Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy", 1888
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:21 am    Post subject: Copied from "The People", SLP newspaper, Sept. 22, 1990 ... POLITICAL ACTION To establish socialism, political unity under the banner of a mass political party of labor is needed. The role of the party is to educate the workers to the need for the abolition of capitalism, to agitate for the formation of class-conscious industrial unions, to express the revolutionary mandate of the working class at the ballot box, to capture and dismantle the political state. ECONOMIC ACTION Economic unity in classwide socialist unions is needed to organize workers' real strength in the struggle for working-class emancipation, and to back up the decision made at the ballot box. It is needed to take, hold and operate the industries and services of the land in the interests of all - to establish the socialist society, the cooperative commonwealth.
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:24 am    Post subject: "Without political action, which places the Social Revolution in America upon the civilized plane of endeavoring to reach a peaceful trial of strength, the emancipation of the workers would be indefinitely postponed, and could then be reached only by wading through a massacre." De Leon, from "As To Politics", 1907
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:27 am    Post subject: The First International Working Men's Association RESOLUTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING-CLASS PARTIES Adopted by the Hague Congress of the International as Article 7 of the General Statutes September 1872 Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes.
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:29 am    Post subject: "As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand." Engels, from "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", chapter 9
Social Greenman	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 11:30 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: To establish socialism, political unity under the banner of a mass political party of labor is needed. The role of the party is to educate the workers to the need for the abolition of capitalism, to agitate for the formation of class-conscious industrial unions, to express the revolutionary mandate of the working class at the ballot box, to capture and dismantle the political state. Okay, the political labor party is to educate workers for the need to abolish capitalism and to form into a SIU. I have no problem understanding what that involves. Now, from what I am reading in this thread is that the people have to organize first into a SIU before mandates at the ballot box can begin. The political aspect in the SIU is for the future bollot box elections and has nothing to do with reforms. Then the government is then captured and dismantled by those SIU socialist who are elected through the ballot box. Is this what you are trying to get accross to me? As the way things work in congress the status of an elected socialist is not dependent on who you are in the House, but who you are in the Party which is to say Democrat or Republican. The elected socialist is now a party of one, he has precisely zero authority. While he will serve on a few comities, there is zero chance of him acquiring a chairmanship, no mater his qualifications. He has no chance of assuming any higher post in the house as well, as these are all reserved for the majority party. Even his ability to introduce legislation is restricted. In the end, all we have managed to do is send a body to fill a seat who gets to vote up or down on issues he has no control over. He can’t even get podium time to speak as this time is control by the majority whip, who “gives” some time to the minority party, the Democrats having the minority whip gives them some influence. But increasingly as the Republicans run a tighter ship, that power is culled to almost nothing. Since this is how the current government runs the need to organize workers under a SIU is needed with the political aim to elect, through the ballot box, many officials to capture and dismantle the government. Was this basically what De Leon intended? Social
davesearles	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 04:55 pm    Post subject: Mike apparently wrote: To establish socialism, political unity under the banner of a mass political party of labor is needed. The role of the party is to educate the workers to the need for the abolition of capitalism, to agitate for the formation of class-conscious industrial unions, to express the revolutionary mandate of the working class at the ballot box, to capture and dismantle the political state. Dave writes: If you write: Political unity under the banner of a mass political party of labor is needed to establish Socialism Are you saying that socialism CANNOT be established unless that first occurs? It seems to me that it could be interpreted that way and I don't think that you mean it. Dave
PowerKord	Posted: 24 Apr 2005 06:50 pm    Post subject: THE POLITICAL QUESTION Greetings, Of the two modes of organization which comprise the De Leonist program, I believe the political is the more important, and the industrial may be unnecessary. It should be reserved as an important option, however. I am no longer of the general opinion that the ruling class would thwart the will of the people if they voted for a cooperative system (aka democratic socialism). I simply think democracy, specifically American democracy, is too accepted and entrenched for such a coup to succeed ultimately, even if it were attempted. For Article V of the U.S. Constitution to be invoked to change our system of government, it would mean a sufficient majority of politicians had been elected to do it, which itself would mean a sufficient majority of Americans were now on the side of socialism. And this sufficient majority would certainly include some members of the ruling class, (or other elements of the ruling class, such as their family, friends, etc.). Stated at the WorldSocialism.org website is this observation: "When the vast majority of the working class is socialist, so will be the police and military whose members are working class. At that time, the socialist working class will use its political power to capture the state. When the state, in its last action as the state, transfers legal ownership of the means of production to the people of the world as a whole, the economic power of the capitalists will have been extinguished by the political power of the working class." The new United States (or world) constitution will specify the structure of the new industrial framework in its entirety. In other words, its sub-structures or mechanisms for allocation (polling or otherwise determining what citizens want), production (producing what they want), and distribution (transporting what they want to local distribution centers, and determining the specific mechanisms to implement the principle "...to each according to their need..." ). At the moment of adoption of the new document, or otherwise in accord with the timeframe specified therein, implementation of the new industrial framework would begin. In fact, if people attempt to construct the framework (for example, if they form SIUs) before its exact structure has been democratically ascertained, it could actually be counterproductive, in that it may constitute a misdirection of resources. Of course, if the ruling class does attempt to thwart the democratic will of the people, we may very well have civil war. And indeed, that is the strength of the De Leonist call for industrial organization before the revolution is consummated. Ultimately, however, as the national discussion proceeds prior to the revolution, we'll probably have a sense as to the intentions of the ruling class. If necessary, we can, indeed, still begin some form of industrial organization, as a safeguard. For one example of a detailed view of how, specifically, the new framework might operate, I highly recommend Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society, by Cornelius Castoriadis. I'm not recommending his general politics or political affiliation; I'm unacquainted with those, at present. . . . These remarks are culled from my initial posting to the new forum entitled People For A Cooperative Society. They treat the questions you have posed, from the standpoint of a new, revolutionary social paradigm called "Cooperation," or "The Cooperative Society." The new forum, like the one we're in now, resides in the parent "Socialism" forum. Sincerely, vince
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 05:38 am    Post subject: Social Greenman wrote: from what I am reading in this thread is that the people have to organize first into a SIU before mandates at the ballot box can begin The SLP believes that the campaign is useful at any time, because of the publicity it generates, producing a reason to get invited to debates, a reason to get interviewed, a reason to get invited to speak to groups. The SLP stopped doing that only due to the difficulties of getting on the ballot. But if the party support is much larger and a mandate for socialism is realistically possible, the SIU must be ready. Even if socialists took over all the legislatures, if the SIU were not ready, socialism would have to be postponed until the SIU did get ready.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 05:48 am    Post subject: [quote="Social Greenman"]In the end, all we have managed to do is send a body to fill a seat who gets to vote up or down on issues he has no control over. He can’t even get podium time to speak as this time is control by the majority whip, who “gives” some time to the minority party, the Democrats having the minority whip gives them some influence. /quote] I'm so uneducated about how this works. What you say does indicate less value in using political office as a rostrum, comparied ot what I would have thought before ...
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 06:04 am    Post subject: quote="Social Greenman"]Since this is how the current government runs the need to organize workers under a SIU is needed with the political aim to elect, through the ballot box, many officials to capture and dismantle the government. Was this basically what De Leon intended?[/quote] De Leon discussed different aspects on different occasions. In his editorials criticizing SP member Victor Berger, who was elected to the House, De Leon kept making the point that Berger should have voted a yes/no as useful to benefit the working class, and then always supplement that with a socialist speech. I think that newspapers at the time frequently quoted these speeches -- and today we have CSPAN instead -- but if you're right about the difficulty getting the "recognized" and granted the "floor", this could definitely spoil the plan ..... But, then i you're asking about when so many socialists get elected that the dismantling can begin ... What happens then? Well, clearly, socilaists are most detemrined to dissolve the most repressive functions of the state, for example, no longer permit cops and soldiers to club and teargas the workers. Then what? Then I think it gets murky. De Leon's remarks about socialists in Congress quickly voting to disband the Congress itself --- in recent years I've started to believe that De Loen didn't think this through carefully. I believe that some conservative bands will go berserk ... socialist control of the state is needed until any reactionary rioting or violence or looting has been defeated. After that it gets even more murky. Different people here will say different things. Many tasks now performed by government get transferred to industries, for example the responsibilities of the federal department of transportation get reallocated to the transportations workers' organizations, etc. Do we stop at some point? Is any part of the old state considered useful and preserved? I'd like to hear what more people think ...
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 06:06 am    Post subject: Dave: Not my words. I was quoting an old article in 'The People'. Scroll up to 24 Apr 2005 06:21 am Nevertheless, I assert that a large political victory must occur before socialism can be established -- if we want to avoid an immensely violent civil war.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 06:11 am    Post subject: Re: THE POLITICAL QUESTION PowerKord wrote: The new United States (or world) constitution will specify the structure of the new industrial framework in its entirety. I agree with that, but if one feels, as I do, that among these structures would have to be, for example, an iron workers' association, an agricultural workers' association, and so on through the other branches of industry, and if one feels, as I do, that these structures have to be in place before the transfer to social ownership, then I think I have just said the equivalent of "industrial union organization", regardless of what it's called.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 06:21 am    Post subject: Re: THE POLITICAL QUESTION PowerKord wrote: In fact, if people attempt to construct the framework (for example, if they form SIUs) before its exact structure has been democratically ascertained, it could actually be counterproductive, in that it may constitute a misdirection of resources. This is VERY interesting ... I have never considered that, or heard anyone say that before. I must let this sink in for a while ...
Social Greenman	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 09:48 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: The SLP believes that the campaign is useful at any time, because of the publicity it generates, producing a reason to get invited to debates, a reason to get interviewed, a reason to get invited to speak to groups. The SLP stopped doing that only due to the difficulties of getting on the ballot. But if the party support is much larger and a mandate for socialism is realistically possible, the SIU must be ready. Even if socialists took over all the legislatures, if the SIU were not ready, socialism would have to be postponed until the SIU did get ready. Getting on the ballot requires a lot of signatures from people on a petition that has to be submitted on or before a certain date and time. This is often difficult in a lot of States and requires a lot of volunteer work to do. There are efforts being made by groups to change the ballot laws but I have no clue if they are having any success. This is what I am not understanding is that everyone wants to build the party up first but no SIU exist nor has there been any efforts to create one. I am realizing that we have to have the SIU that is political but I am at a loss of words when it comes to that. I am thinking that the administration of the SIU has to be ready when transferance is made and that means it has to be national and international for a smooth transition. The SIU has to come into existance to organize workers and to hammer out it's political structure to run canidates as SIU representative. The SIU should be a union and Labor party but I am not sure if that is legal. If not legal then a party has to represent the SIU. This is hard trying to figure out what should be done but I am very sure that the SIU has to come into existance first rather than having a party endorse it's concept on paper. Quote: [quote="Social Greenman"]In the end, all we have managed to do is send a body to fill a seat who gets to vote up or down on issues he has no control over. He can’t even get podium time to speak as this time is control by the majority whip, who “gives” some time to the minority party, the Democrats having the minority whip gives them some influence. /quote] I'm so uneducated about how this works. What you say does indicate less value in using political office as a rostrum, comparied ot what I would have thought before ... I believe this is one of the reason educated people vote the way they do because they know that government is set up for just the two main parties. The reason why so many are apathetic to vote because they don't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats and they know that those who do vote vote for either of the two parties and to vote for a third party would just be a wasted effort. Things are much different than when De Leon was alive. This is also why I was confused about the political aspect. I assumed that you knew the difficulty of just placing one representative in office let alone on how they did not have much of a voice in office. Quote: De Leon's remarks about socialists in Congress quickly voting to disband the Congress itself --- in recent years I've started to believe that De Loen didn't think this through carefully. I believe that some conservative bands will go berserk ... socialist control of the state is needed until any reactionary rioting or violence or looting has been defeated. Perhaps things were politically different in his life time but I am not so sure since so few socialist were even elected. Conservative and Neocons would go berserk if a large body of socialist were elected to disband repressive parts of government. Not only those in office but those who are in our communities including the fanatical Right Wingers of facist and Hitlerites. I am not so sure that even socialist control of the state would quell reactionary rioting, violence, or lootings. However, since things are the way they are there will be no elections of many socialist into office. Build the SIU first and not later.
davesearles	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 10:10 am    Post subject: Me thinks there isa bit too much legalism here. Capture the state to transfer ownership? When the working class wants to run the industries for themselves they can do it without the necessity of amending the US constitution - the mandate for the current republic will simply cease to exist. In 1776 we did it with a mere declaration. Political parties are a nicety - for those who can stand them - for propaganda purposes - but individuals, especiallialy with the internet can do far more than political parties as far as agitation goes. We are talking about not just a political revolution, we are talking about a change in epochs - we can theorize all we want but the truth is ain't nobody knows how it's going to happen. The economic organization of labor - to me - already exists. The workers are in the industries - they already are the most potent force (potent - meaning potential) When the working class is ready to move it will move.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 09:03 pm    Post subject: I think the World Socialist parties (SP of Great Britain, SP of Canada, WSP - US, and about four or five others) are the main socialist faction which properly expresses the "legality of the revolution" issue. It's not because it's a holy law that we have to formally transfer ownership to the collective body. It's because whomever controls political office controls the military and the police. The other day someone posted an excerpt from an SPGB pamphlet, delaing with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/message/4907
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 09:28 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: In 1776 we did it with a mere declaration ... and a whole lot of people being killed at Lexington, Concord, Toconderoga, Bennington, Savannah, Germantown, Trenton, Yorktown, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, ....
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 09:37 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: we can theorize all we want but the truth is ain't nobody knows how it's going to happen We do know this much: It's less probable that the commander-in-chief will give an order to use violence to suppress socialist actions if the commander-in-chief is a socialist. And if we know that, do we need to know any more?
davesearles	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 09:51 pm    Post subject: The outgoing commander-in-chief would have 10 weeks between election day and inauguration day to attack and destroy us if desired.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 10:02 pm    Post subject: Social Greenman wrote: but I am very sure that the SIU has to come into existance first rather than having a party endorse it's concept on paper. De Leon did think about the option of the union projecting itself into political action, and the socialist party melting into that. He wrote in "As To Politics": As to the Socialist Labor Party, it never will need to be appealed to 'to break up camp' after the 'bucket' of the I.W.W., having gathered sufficient solidity, will itself have reflected its own political party. That day the S.L.P. will 'break up camp' with a shout of joy - if a body merging into its own ideal can be said to 'break up camp.'" However, De Leon continued to believe that the party was needed in early stages for pragmatic reasons. One of these is the apparent tendency of most workers to believe that it's more "civilized" to use the ballot to measure the will of the people. Another is the tendency of government to come up with conspiracy and sedition laws, and simplying adding the words "after the constitution is amended, blah-blah" (whether we sincerely mean it or not) is the only loophole we need to be immune from legal indictment (during the 1920 Palmer Raids and the McCarthyist 1950s, this was tested by the SLP and was found to be completely effective ... while CP and IWW members went to prison.)
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 10:11 pm    Post subject: Social Greenman wrote: I am not so sure that even socialist control of the state would quell reactionary rioting, violence, or lootings I would assume that the way social consciousness develops, if there were a lot more socialists, there would be a lot fewer neocons and fascists. I think the size of the problem would then be reduced to where it's managable with a policy of not even citing the motives behind the reactions, and just saying that those who commit assault will be charged with assault, those who commit arson will be charged with arson, etc. This would take some of the air out of them, by saying that individuals are being held responsible for their acts, rather than saying that counter-revolutionary insurrection is being suppressed.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 10:34 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: The outgoing commander-in-chief would have 10 weeks between election day and inauguration day to attack and destroy us if desired. That's no reason to put another anti-labor commander in power, right after the other one -- by default.
davesearles	Posted: 25 Apr 2005 10:43 pm    Post subject: Nor is it any reason to advocate that the revolution has to wait until a new government is sworn in or even until election day.
Social Greenman	Posted: 26 Apr 2005 10:42 am    Post subject: As far as labor goes they are organized to serve the interest of the capitalist class. Way too many believe and/or comfortable with profits being extracted from their labor and are not really aware that it is exploitation. Many believe that the ruling capitalist elite have the right to own the means of production and that making money for their employer would make their employer happy and then everyone can have a pizza party (that's what happens where I work at). Time and time again when factories close to relocate in other countries people in the U.S. tend to shrug their shoulders in fatalism. If we are serious about SIU then it has to start now rather than forming later. Social
davesearles	Posted: 26 Apr 2005 11:09 am    Post subject: Social wrote: If we are serious about SIU then it has to start now rather than forming later. Dave writes; I would not disuade you from any action that you wish to take along those lines. We all have to do what we think is the most effective and is the most efficient use of our resourses. Dave
PowerKord	Posted: 26 Apr 2005 06:43 pm    Post subject: NO SIU, NO POLITICAL, JUST EDUCATION... Hello, In a certain sense, both elements of the De Leonist program are presently irrelevant. The original IDF Charter states: "Given the ignorance of the great mass of people about democratic socialism, generally, and De Leonism, specifically, the only real task before De Leonist socialists at this historical moment is education, pure education: enlightened initiation and maintenance of a planned, thoroughgoing, respectful, and persistent conversation, both dialectical and pedagogical, with the great mass of human beings on this planet, about Socialism. This task does not require a political party, merely an educational organization (in fact, even the level of formal organization required can probably be debated)." And: "A chief rationale for the creation of a party is the seeking of political office. Arguably, however, such activity is irrelevant given the small size of this sector of the socialist movement." Accordingly: The SIU: You can forget about trying to form SIUs now. Without a raised political consciousness no one will join. The first task, then, is to raise that consciousness. This is done through a process of education. The Political: No one is even talking anymore about running candidates. The movement is too small. Arguably then, the organizational form of a political party is presently unnecessary. The most "progressive" approach to spreading the cooperative(/socialist) idea right now is simply through a singular project of education, as described above. Of course, it's true that part of the role of the political party is education. But in terms of how we conceptualize our mission, and the organizational framework most relevant to that mission, why bring on the extra baggage implied by a "party"? In fact, I would even encourage a healthy debate regarding the need for "members." Millions of people vote for Democrats, and Republicans, yet most of them are not formal members of either party. Their political beliefs, and hence their party affiliation, is in their heads, which is to say, they've been sufficiently persuaded of a certain political/social belief system. It's the persuasion that matters. The point is that ultimately, the only thing that really matters is persuading people of the idea. And that probably has a lot more to do than we presently recognize, with the twin areas of: 1.) Our knowledge of our subject matter, especially as presented to the public through our interpersonal facility, generally, and our personal skills of persuasion, specifically. 2.) How we generally market the idea (i.e. what terminology and conceptualizations we use to describe it). ...rather than with external forms like party, SIU, etc. Those things will come later, as needed. Devil's advocate might say a party structure is useful, in case we do decide to run a candidate, so that our idea might have a greater public platform, for this purpose of education. I guess there is truth to this, but to me the notion of a simple educational organization, based firmly on the more personal and interior elements just described, seems more pointed and relevant. Has a simple elegance to it, which I like. (This speaks directly to what I believe will prove to be one of the great strengths of the new People For A Cooperative Society (PCS)--no more jargon. The new paradigm removes both the ideological baggage of words people have been conditioned to dislike, and the abstruse character of many of these words and concepts, as well. Everything is simple, and straightforward, and emotionally comfortable for people. Point for us.) If these arguments have any resonance, step #1 might be for each of us to look inward, to see how we, individually, are stacking up according to the interior criteria of knowledge and persuasion listed above. Step #2 might be to stop spending so much time talking to each other on the Internet, and get out into the public arena, and start talking to RLP (real-live-people). This upcoming De Leonism conference, for example. As much as I've decried its organizational base, it would probably be a healthy step, in the context of my remarks in this post, for everyone who frequents this forum (and there are presently 19 registered members) to make a commitment to ATTEND this conference, by whatever means necessary. The event is in the Northeast U.S., and most of the people who frequent this forum live--guess where--in the Northeast U.S. Attending the event would get us talking cooperation/socialism in the real world, and give us a chance to hone our interpersonal skills (and it would put a bit of the "fear of God" into the CP elements, as well). As a matter of fact, here's my own hat in the ring: even though I, personally, am reluctant to attend, for several reasons I consider important, if at least two of three (Mike, Dave, Social) commit to attend, I will, as well. Yours, vince
davesearles	Posted: 26 Apr 2005 06:54 pm    Post subject: What I get out of Vince's post is thatbecuase the workers have not decided to form the SIU that instead of advocating it we should all join hands in a big circle and go ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Great idea Vince. You go outside and start without me. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 08:43 am    Post subject: Re: NO SIU, NO POLITICAL, JUST EDUCATION... PowerKord wrote: ...rather than with external forms like party, SIU, etc. Those things will come later, as needed. I think you'd be more correct if you said just education for now, but a principle that the union and the party are to be launched as soon as the membership reaches 2,500 or some other number. Otherwise the education gets dissipated into "Oh, well, nobody has any idea what we could really do about it."
Social Greenman	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 10:16 am    Post subject: Powerkord wrote: Quote: he SIU: You can forget about trying to form SIUs now. Without a raised political consciousness no one will join. The first task, then, is to raise that consciousness. This is done through a process of education. Yes, I will agree with that but I also agree with Mike that as soon as there is enough people then launch it. However, that launch has to occur somewhere. Trying to launch it now myself would not be such a good idea since I would be the only one. I been trying to teach SIU at work to a few people. Especially those who have union experience but their concept is that it is okay that the employer can make profits off of workers so long as there are increases in wages and benefits. I agree with Vince that people's conception is based on what they precieve through pursuasion that only two partys matter in thier heads with their votes. I also agree that our terminology has to be more modern. More later when I have the time. I would go to the conference but my wife just got released from the nursing home and I have a really old junker of a car that I drive. The problem is I would have to take her and that she is tied to a wound vac machine and only has so many hours of battery life. If my situation were different I would go. Social
davesearles	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 01:11 pm    Post subject: Social - of course there is no right way or wrong way - the relativistic bastards that we are- and I would encourage you to do and think as you think is best - have I prefaced this enough? Anyway, a goal to "pursuade" people is an onerous burden psychologically. My father put food on the table by selling things - insurance - water softeners - concrete blocks - hearing aids. From the little that I learned from him - he survived by having specific objectives of not how much he was going to sell - because he didn't totally control whether or not people would buy - His objectives were based soley on criteria that he could control - how many calls he would make - how many brochures he would mail out - things like this. Where I am going is to generalize from that experience. I cannot control whether anyone is ever convinced of SIU - I can only put the truth out there as I see it and explain why I think it is the truth. What people do with that is up to them. signed Dave MESSAGE OF AGITA
PowerKord	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 07:18 pm    Post subject: Social's Wife Social, My best to your wife. I hope she feels better. Sincerely, vince
PowerKord	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 07:29 pm    Post subject: PREACHING TO THE CHOIR Hi, I just realized something. This entire DeLeonism.org forum is veering dangerously close to being counter-revolutionary. It is accomplishing good work, to be sure, in several different respects. But if it's all we do, with no work in the "real world," as it were, then this forum is also serving the potentially counter-revolutionary function of a big, de facto, "preaching to the choir" convention. (For example, I talked about going to the conference; only one person even addressed the idea.) Sincerely, vince
davesearles	Posted: 27 Apr 2005 07:38 pm    Post subject: So the yellow light is off and the green light is on? Which way is the wind blowing today? But I canot attend, none the less - I've already written that. signed Dave Message of Agita
Social Greenman	Posted: 28 Apr 2005 10:27 pm    Post subject: I better seattle down. I do tend to get agitated when I see so many people just accept whatever is pushed on them or taken from them from the capitalist class. I will just learn to be a educator to raise the conscious of my fellow workers which is the most logical approach. Social
Social Greenman	Posted: 24 May 2005 09:10 am    Post subject: Is SIU both a political party and union?
davesearles	Posted: 24 May 2005 10:26 pm    Post subject: I don't think that I would see it as a political party Dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 25 May 2005 09:19 am    Post subject: Okay, it is definately a union but not a political party but political. More later as I try to sort this out.
davesearles	Posted: 25 May 2005 03:24 pm    Post subject: Why rack your brain over it? To me SIU is just the workers figuring out what work needs to be applied and how and where. At the point of the formation of the SIU I suppose there will be the wiff of politics in the air - but no more politics to me than when the sherriff comes and says that you have to get out of your apaprtment becuase the landlord got a writ for non-payment of rent. The SIU will just put the capitalists out of the system of wealth production becuase they don't belong there anymore. They haven't paid their rent in a long long time. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 25 May 2005 08:59 pm    Post subject: That's an area where we differ, Dave. I think the SIU's entry into politics has to be very explicit. I want organized labor to take control of the federal and state legislatures.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 May 2005 09:10 pm    Post subject: "If a man hits you with a stick, you can endure and suffer a beating; you can run away; you can fight back and injure him; you can take the stick away from him; or you can set such an example of kindness and compassion that he is powerless to attack you before he even thinks of it." -- Copied from http://www.ashidakim.com/Akonwar.html I believe that this is an old saying that's often quoted by martial arts teachers. I recall that Bruce Lee once said it in one of his movies, almost verbatim, but he only said the part that comes before the last semicolon, ending with "... you can take the stick away from him." The state is the ruling class's stick, and they intend to keep swinging it at the working class. This is how I visualize the socialist program: The industrial union takes the measures to remove the economic basis for a ruling class to exist in the first place, at the same time that the political movement of socialism is taking away the rulers' stick.
davesearles	Posted: 25 May 2005 10:40 pm    Post subject: Mike writes: I want organized labor to take control of the federal and state legislatures. Dave writes: I would suggest that labor withdraw recognition of the federal and state legislatures by simply establishing its own governing councils.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 May 2005 05:02 am    Post subject: But, Dave, let's do a risk assessment by comparing the relative costs for each of us in turn guessing wrong. If you're right and I'm wrong, and the actual takeover of political offfices by socialists isn't necessary, but is done anyway, then the working class will have wasted some time and money by bothering with the ballot. If I'm right and you're wrong, and the actual takeover of political offices is necessary, but isn't done, then, when the workers take possession of the industries, the state will respond by using widespread violence against the workers. Which of these is the more severe risk?
davesearles	Posted: 26 May 2005 10:51 am    Post subject: Anyone who wants to (has the resources) do the politics thing, they should do it. I do not and will not for the foreseeable future have those resourses. Was there ONE political campaign in the whole USA in the last year that we can proudly look back on? At some point we will no longer be governed by the past, ballot box or not - reaction or not. Will there be deaths in the final gasps of Capitalism? Maybe and maybe not. But human beings impatient for freedom no doubt shall cast off the political mandate of Capitalism before the revolution has sufficiently progressed to enforce a spontaneous withdrawal of consent by the governed. That is what is going to happen. (at least that is what I see with my admittedly dim powers of future vision) We have to have the flexibilty to admit that it damned well may happen that way - and if it does, we had better not be caught up spouting platitudes of the desirability of waiting until the whole thing can be ratified through the state's political ballot. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 27 May 2005 07:42 am    Post subject: Dave -- "Anyone who wants to (has the resources) do the politics thing" For what I'm talking about, the resources are no problem. I'm only insisting that the ballot is needed at some point before the workers can take hold of the industries, at some point in the future when there will be tens of millions of socialists.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 May 2005 07:54 am    Post subject: Dave -- "spouting platitudes of the desirability of waiting until the whole thing can be ratified through the state's political ballot" Look at what just happened with your choice of words. The various words (platitudes, desirability, ratified, the state) convey connotations which accumulate until the end of the sentence, when the readers is apparently required to conclude that this "waiting" isn't a rule for the socialist movement. However, suppose that it's phrased differently -- a socialist movement that has been a small minority for centuries, but eventually grows into a majority, can't, by its own will alone, impose its preference on the whole society, but has to submit itself to the majority of the people for their democratic approval.
Social Greenman	Posted: 27 May 2005 08:38 am    Post subject: Mike...Why can't the SIU be both a union and political party? I mean political/electorial policy is determined by one vote one person just like it takes one person one vote to determine what is produced and distributed.
davesearles	Posted: 27 May 2005 10:29 am    Post subject: Mike writes: For what I'm talking about, the resources are no problem. I'm only insisting that the ballot is needed at some point before the workers can take hold of the industries. Dave writes: Resources are a problem. That is why we don't run candidates now, isn't it? And you keep saying ballot. The Capitalist State will simply agree to put the issue of abolition of the state on the ballot? We don't have referenda in the US except for very very limited purposes - we instead have elections - a supposed republic. What would be the goal? Often I have heard the goal should be the election of a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives of socialist candidates who openly advocated the abolition of the state in favor of the SIU. Is that what you think should happen before the revolution can assert itself? I would agree with you that it would be nicer and neater if it hapened like that - but I will not go so far as to say that it has to happen like that. I think that at the first moment the workers feel strong enough to seize the industries - that is what the workers are going to do - ballot or no. It will not matter what either of us would advocate or what would be the less risky course. I did not mean to imply that you were spouting platitudes - but at the time of the revolution if it boils over before election day, suggestions that the workers not immediately establish the new government of the industries are going to appear to be mere platitudes at best and reactionary at worst. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 27 May 2005 10:36 am    Post subject: SG wrote: Why can't the SIU be both a union and political party? I mean political/electorial policy is determined by one vote one person just like it takes one person one vote to determine what is produced and distributed. Dave asks: What do you mean a political party? And are you asking about before or after the revolution? Will/can the SIU exist before the revolution? (I have never given this any thought before.) Dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 27 May 2005 11:57 am    Post subject: Before Dave. Instead of seeking endorsement for SIU from a political entity why not just combine the two and go from there. Workers are the union and the party. A two edge sword.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 May 2005 01:10 pm    Post subject: Social Greenman wrote: Mike...Why can't the SIU be both a union and political party? I mean political/electorial policy is determined by one vote one person just like it takes one person one vote to determine what is produced and distributed. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and I'm not necessarily consistent with myself either, from one day to the next, since I've only been thinking about this issue for forty years :-) I think the SIU can also operate as a political party, and by that I mean literally, Jane Doe is nominated as the union's candidate for sixth congressional district of South Dakota, etc.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 May 2005 01:28 pm    Post subject: Dave, the revolution may not really turn out this way, but I think the movement should proceed this way, as if it were actually going to happen this way. First, the SIU chooses a tentative structure of departments and their responsibilities as needed for administration of the whole economy, and it describes this is a written constitution. Then the socialist political movement proposes an amendment to the U.S. constitution which declares that the SIU constitution is to be adopted as an included part of the law of the land, and that any previous provisions of the U.S. constitution which contradict the SIU constitution are repealed. Of course, the revolution may not really happen that way. Still, a political movement has to be specific when announcing what bull's eye it's aiming at. This method most generally points things initially in a coherent direction. It's the safest starting point.
mikelepore	Posted: 27 May 2005 01:39 pm    Post subject: Dave -- "Capitalist State will simply agree to put the issue of abolition of the state on the ballot?" I'll create a new forum topic for talking about "the state 'dies out'".
davesearles	Posted: 28 May 2005 12:33 am    Post subject: Mike writes: Still, a political movement has to be specific when announcing what bull's eye it's aiming at. This method most generally points things initially in a coherent direction. It's the safest starting point. Dave writes: If that's what you see as an important thing to do, then paint those bulls' eyes. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 28 May 2005 11:18 am    Post subject: Mike writes: Then the socialist political movement proposes an amendment to the U.S. constitution which declares that the SIU constitution is to be adopted as an included part of the law of the land, and that any previous provisions of the U.S. constitution which contradict the SIU constitution are repealed. Dave writes: Q. What constitution was amended to put the current constitution in place? A. None. The current constitution provided within its own terms that when ratified by 9 states it became the law of the land. An interesting aspect of the revolution by amendment process is the amount oftime that it would take if only a few states dragged their feet. Had the south not seceeded in the early 1860s - the 13th amendment abolishing (there's that abolish word again) slavey could not have been ratified until well into the 20th century. I think you are putting the US Constitution in the place of holy writ. It was never meant to be that. The federal government which it almost solely controled was a miniscule operation. Even Lincoln as president had only two secretaries , John Hay and I think the other was named Kennedy to handle all of the official business of the president. I have heard it said too often that the the 5th amendment protects private property and that in order to have socialism we would have to amend the 5th amendment. "nor be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law". We grew up in an era of expanding interpretations by the Supreme Court of protections under the bill of rights, so we may be forgiven if we did not realize that the no Supreme Court applied any of the protections of the bil of rights to anything other than strictly the federal government until 1925 - ( freedom of speech ) - Gitlow v. New York. Let Bush get another Scalia on the court and we will soon see how little of the constitution is actually going to apply - how many of what we now consider Constitutional rights are going to be de-nationalized. e.g. Reagan's nominee Bork stated during the confirmation hearings that there is no constitutional protection of privacy. I do not think that it is politic to even suggest that the revolution be tied to the constituion - not even as a bull's eye goal - something to shoot for. The independence of the 13 colonies from the crown was effected by a simple resolution in the continental congress, July 2, 1776. By a body certainly without anything but revolutionary authority to do so. However the state was not created by any act of congress, the states or even by the constitution itself. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 28 May 2005 05:43 pm    Post subject: Dave asked: Will/can the SIU exist before the revolution? S.G. answered: Before Dave. Instead of seeking endorsement for SIU from a political entity why not just combine the two and go from there. Workers are the union and the party. A two edge sword. Dave responds: It just bugs me – suppose a union local of the IWW (do they have such things) endorsed the SIU. Does that make that local a part of the SIU at that point? If not at that point, then when? Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 29 May 2005 05:27 am    Post subject: If I meant "holy writ" then I would refer to this constitution uniquely. The point isn't this constitution. The point is to use any method that a society of human beings has fortunately begun to use to frame the will of the people by the civilized method of voting. If we look at history with attention to noticing this, we can see the past five thousand years as a long struggle of this intelligent species to find and win a method to resolve disputes and choose policies by debating and voting on them. Spartacus and Bruno and Gandhi and all the other people who suffered from oppression during five thousand years sacrificed to win this. Now we have acquired this relatively new instrument: To make any revolutionary change whatsoever, no matter how radical, all we have to do is persuade the majority of the people to want it, wait patiently until we have persuaded the majority of the people to want it, and, with that alone, the people will instantly have it. "The world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality." [1] It was like a problem that had to be solved, conceptually as well as in hot battle, with a lot of backsliding, but the answer finally turned out to be simple: "Democracy is the solved riddle of all constitutions." [2] For socialists not to use the constitutional method now would be to discard an achievement that it took five thousand years of struggle to win, which would be all right if solid reasons for doing so can be identified, but not merely because revolutionaries are too impatient to file the necessary paperwork or to wait until the November election day. * [1] Marx, Letter to A. Ruge, March 1843 [2] Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843
davesearles	Posted: 29 May 2005 12:03 pm    Post subject: We are using the constitutional method - we are using free speech to pursude a majority. But you haven't answered specifically what will constitute a victory over capitalism - Are you actually proposing that the nation wait until the amendment to the constitution process take place? Why? - that is the constitution of the capitalist state. It is a set of instructions and boundaries within which the capitalist state must operate. and more specifically, with very few exceptions, it applies only to the federal state. The SIU's revolutionary mandate over the means of production must be subject to and wait for amendments to the present federal constitution? Look at the 9th & 10th amendments: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The constitution does not prohibit the people from simply coming up with a new form of society which does not recognize the political state or its statutes or its constitution or the property system of the old society. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 30 May 2005 09:04 am    Post subject: It's not that I want to do it that way. It's that I am convinced that the working class majority will want to do it that way. If we don't propose doing it that way, then people are less likely to choose socialism in the first place. In asking people to choose socialism we are already asking them to reverse their firmly held beliefs about something. If socialist were to go that additional step ... "We need to adopt a new system of production for use instead of production for profit ... and we also need to adopt this new system by illegal means, and ignore the constitution" ..... What would be asking people to reverse themselves in the area of another of their cherished beliefs. But, while the first conceptual reversal, production for use, is necessary, the second one, ignore the constitution, is unnecessary. Do it your way, and we would be looking at our incredibly steep uphill climb and saying: This climb isn't steep enough; let's make it even more difficult.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 May 2005 09:40 am    Post subject: "Are you actually proposing that the nation wait until the amendment to the constitution process take place?" I don't think there will be any wait involved, because I don't believe in the common socialist expectation that some historical cataclysm will eventually take place which will cause the people abruptly to want socialism. Instead, I think the proportion of the people who want socialism will very slowly increase in percentage, over a period of about a hundred years, as it begins to dawn on more and more people, "Gee, here we are in the age of robots and space travel, and still we have to struggle all the time just to get a bare living wage. This is absurd. Maybe something really is wrong with the way we produce and distribute." As this cognitive dissonance makes more people think through initial skepticism and then socialism, voter patterns will change by themselves. The appearance of socialists in the legislatures will occur by itself because of who the voters will by then be. The two processes, how workers tend to reason, and the makeup of the legislature, can be expected to evolve simultaneously. It won't be because socialists "take over" the legislature, but because it will be a time when socialism will be increasingly considered an obvious practical idea.
davesearles	Posted: 30 May 2005 12:17 pm    Post subject: One thing is for sure - We have widely divergent even disparate views of capitalist "end time." As you realize after about 45 years of knowing me - I could never be accused of doing things or espousing views because that's what I thought people would accept. I pretty much have the idea that if I can see it and accept it that everyone else can see it and accept it. I think that the status quo is simply being posited as what people will accept. I do not accept it and I assume that my sensibilities while slightly off of the norm, are not that off that people will also reject it. e.g. It seems pretty well established that people do not want terrorism. I live in New England - home of copious and abundant waterways ONCE capable of producing untold tons of delicious and healthy freshwater fish. The ENTIRE watershed has been poisoned with mercury - a neuro toxin - because the owners of coal fired power plants in the midwest will not install the proper equipment to eliminate hg from their exhausts. If this and similar poisoning were to be viewed by the workers as acts of terrorism by the capitalist class - I think that the workers wouldn't be likely to wait another hundred years to simply exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow the existing order. I view capitalism's further "progress" to oblivion or "race to the bottom" as it has been termed, right now to be the cataclismic event of our era. I keep harping back to the political revolutions of the 1770s and 1780s in this country. Just to refresh our memories on just one segment of our history I have pasted a brief article on the Continental Congressses. I do not know what others think - but I claim this history as at least a general guide to how I act and think and as to what I expect people will do as they face the reality of the quickly crumbling present social order. From the Encarta site on the Continental Congress: Continental Congress, American intercolonial assemblage of delegates, which evolved into the de facto revolutionary government that directed the war for independence. The First Continental Congress convened in Carpenters' Hall, Philadelphia, on September 5, 1774, to consider and act on the situation arising from the so-called Intolerable Acts, passed by the British Parliament in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party. Twelve colonies were represented in the First Continental Congress by about 50 delegates designated principally by the colonial assemblies; Canada and Georgia were not represented. One of the Virginia delegates, Peyton Randolph, was unanimously elected president of the assembly. The First Continental Congress issued a petition to George III, king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, and invited the people of Canada to join in an appeal to the king to help restore harmony between Britain and the colonies. In addition, the Congress called for the colonies to adopt a radical agreement—the Continental Association—boycotting trade with Britain. Extralegal bodies known as Committees of Safety were charged with enforcing the association; they soon became revolutionary spearheads in the towns and counties, creating the first effective union among the colonies and silencing Loyalist opinion. Before adjourning on October 26, 1774, the First Continental Congress summoned a second Congress to assemble in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, if the king failed to respond favorably to its petition. When the Second Continental Congress convened on the appointed date, the battles of Lexington and Concord had recently taken place in Massachusetts, and militiamen were besieging the British occupying force within Boston. The delegates, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, were elected in part by colonial assemblies and in part by the provincial congresses that had sprung up to replace those rebellious legislatures dissolved by royal governors. The Congress had no basis in law and its delegates were uncertain about their functions. The crisis, however, compelled them to form committees and to assume governmental duties, essentially executive in character, that had previously been exercised by the king. The Congress thus commissioned Washington to organize a continental army and assume responsibility for the siege of Boston. It formulated regulations for the conduct of trade; issued paper money; and sent emissaries abroad to negotiate with foreign powers for financial, diplomatic, and military assistance. Most of the delegates, including Washington, still hoped for reconciliation with Britain, but by the end of 1775 this possibility had faded. In August the British monarch had issued a proclamation "for suppressing rebellion and sedition" in the colonies and in September had hired 20,000 Hessian mercenaries to be sent to America. The radicals in Congress remained unable to convince a majority of their colleagues that independence was their only alternative until the spring of 1776, when Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense created such massive support for the break with Britain that conservative delegates could no longer resist. After voting in May to instruct the colonies to form their own governments and to suppress all vestiges of royal authority, the Congress began debating a resolution in favor of independence. It approved the resolution on July 2, 1776, and on July 4 it adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted mainly by Jefferson. End of article Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 30 May 2005 10:50 pm    Post subject: Given that the First American Revolution was fought with muskets, bayonets and cannons, what part of that history is applicable to the Second American Revolution?
davesearles	Posted: 31 May 2005 02:47 am    Post subject: I do not envision a second american revolution but a worldwide socialist revolution. You seem to be proposing revolution in the US via an amanedment to the US Constitution - and I 'm try to explain to you that the change from captialism to socialism is going to have noting to do with the US Constitution. We are not trying to alter the form of the US Government or to alter some principle under which it operates. Or at least I didn't thnk that we were. I imagine instead of the workers fighting back with muskets and cannons that their mere possession of the means of the entire means of production would make them a pretty potent force not too likely to be physically challenged - but of course anything is possible. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 04:11 am    Post subject: "that the change from captialism to socialism is going to have noting to do with the US Constitution. We are not trying to alter the form of the US Government or to alter some principle under which it operates" I believe that most members of society will have the interpretation that, for the ruling class to lose its property, we must first alter the provision in the constitution that people cannot be deprived of their property without due process and compensation.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 04:16 am    Post subject: "I do not envision a second american revolution but a worldwide socialist revolution." I doubt that it will occur in various countries on exactly the same day, so the various countries must first have national revolutions.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 04:35 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: One thing is for sure - We have widely divergent even disparate views of capitalist "end time." Maybe that's good, because it helps to show other people that folks don't have to agree on everything in this movement. As long as they support the SIU, they should be part of it.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 04:55 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: that if I can see it and accept it that everyone else can see it and accept it. True, but people go through the various changes at various rates. I expect that popular doubts about the profit motive will be the first signal. The first thing that will happen is that people will see production for use instead of profit as a common-sense idea, almost like they way they have come to view recycling aluminum cans as a common-sense idea, the two things being similar in that they view the concept as just-plain-practical, without necessarily adopting any ideological labels. Worker self-management will also be viewed increasingly as a common-sense idea. People won't enunciate, "Wow, look at me - I've become a revolutionary." A large number of people will simply view as normal a notion that which was once considered radical. When this happens, encompassing and packaging the idea in political and legal terms will be the first thing that most people think of. The socialists will have to step in as teachers, reminding everyone to carefully avoid substituting state control of the economy in place of control by the assemblies of workers. But a large number of people will still stick to their legal ways of thinking, with warnings about "don't insult the national flag" and all that kind of ideological framing. Old-time socialists will be grossed out by much of that, but will have to work with it, in order to tap into the thing that really matters, the growing awareness that we need production for use and self-management by the workers' assemblies. Working through the prescribed channels of the U.S. Constitution will probably turn out to be the "cultural compromise" that eventually gets made.
Social Greenman	Posted: 31 May 2005 09:56 am    Post subject: Sorry, I can't write much. I have been diagnosed last night at the hospital with pneumonia. Social
davesearles	Posted: 31 May 2005 11:01 am    Post subject: If I was any good at the prediction business I would set up an off track betting account. The workers are going to do what they are going to do - revolutions have a habit of coming at unpredictable times and places - especilly this being not only a political revolution but a revolution of epochs as well. However I think each of us projects upon the working class what we personally would do, or what we thiunk we would do. Neither the political state nor capitalism were amended into existence and I (for one) do not think that either will be amended out of business. Dave P.S. sorry to hear about your illness S.G.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 03:36 pm    Post subject: S.G., Don't you worry one bit about this web site. Just take care of your health and the other home and family issues.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 03:42 pm    Post subject: Davey, how come when I say what I think would work right, I'm trying to "make predictions", but when other people tell me that what I have proposes would actually break down and exhibit failures, they're "not making any predictions"? :o)
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 03:53 pm    Post subject: In documents to educate the working class, we should be covering this in these terms: Some of us in the socialist movement believe that the working class should blah-da-blah-da-blah, however, others in our sector believe that the working class should blah-da-blah-da-blah. We hold that it's important for the working class to unite into a large political movement, although numerous separate tasks for this political movement have been proposed, each of these tasks finding support among different tendencies of socialists. Therefore, we support the political organization of labor, and then it will be the working class majority, not the socialists who exist today, how will determine how best to apply this political power. How come socialist resolutions never say anything like that? Why do socialists pretend that all the theoretical problems have been solved?
davesearles	Posted: 31 May 2005 06:49 pm    Post subject: Mike- Can you run the gist of your last two posts by me again? I'm not catching it. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 31 May 2005 08:22 pm    Post subject: We (past and present SLP personnel) have always spoken of "the principle" of organization on the political field as though we uniformly knew what we were refering to, and assuming that we are communicating empathically among ourselves. However, when we dissect it, I find at least 7 separate and independent ideas being confused with one another, interwoven carelessly from moment day to the next, and given a single name as though they were all the same thing. 1. Ballot campaigning is educational and therefore helps to launch the SIU (the "fill the bucket" argument from "As to Politics") 2. An election that is won would permit the use of that public office for education (De Leon in "Berger's Hit and Misses") 3. Election results permit the movement to know its own numerical strength (the "thermometer" argument; Engels advanced this one in Chapter 9 of "Origin of the Family....") 4. Win control of the state in order to dismantle it from the inside. (The "sine die" thing.) 5. Keep the movement "above ground" and "in the open", instead of confined to the "rat's nest of conspiracy" (De Leon, "As to Politics") 6. The political method is the more democratic; "civilization, not legality, demands it"; (The the-rose-is-not-all-thorns argument, "As to Politics") 7. To have a "peaceful trial of strength"; to avoid "wading through a massacre" ("As to Politics") My assertion is that these are seven logically independent claims. When we speak of the "principle" of organizing on the political field, we are carelessly mixing giving different concepts the same name. I have never seen an SLP pamphlet say anything like, "Numerous reasons for using the political field have been suggesed. Some writers int he party prefer some of the reasons, and other writers prefer other reasons." Since the SLP has never said this, this indicates that the SLP doesn't yet realize that it is smooshing together at least seven separate ideas and giving them a common name.
Social Greenman	Posted: 10 Sep 2005 09:18 pm    Post subject: Sorry I 've been absent. I had to return to this topic considering that the working class votes for the capitalist class in every election. Sort of who are we going to vote for to repress us for another four years. I have noticed in local elections, my area, that the petite bourg always are in elections. Most likey this is because the working class does not have the means to do so. Here is a link: http://redstar2000papers.com/
mikelepore	Posted: 12 Sep 2005 05:44 am    Post subject: Social G., since Dave and I have recited the same memorized lines about this topic since the 1960s, and are therefore probably unable to see our own stick-in-the-mud tendencies with fresh eyes, maybe we can benefit from your perspective. Suppose some people who are interested in socialism are talking about political organization, and then they shove you in front of an audience or stick a microphone in your face, and ask you what this organization should do, be, say, want, etc. Do any particular ideas make themselves apparent to you?
Social Greenman	Posted: 18 Sep 2005 12:43 pm    Post subject: Sorry, been thinking about this for awhile. I believe that the political aspect of workers will be outside the mainstream politics of the bourgeoisie. Even if socialist candidates were to get elected they are still a party of one and would mostly remain voiceless. This is how the capitalist government works. I am sure that local elections of a large bloc of socialist and such would bring in the Army National Guard and the elections declared illegal by the capitalist class. They will play dirty with the bucket. The bourgeoisie may allow for a few self proclaimed socialist in government but that is all. It's all for show on a stage. Hell, there have been socialist mayors but all they were able to do was to be conservative with tax payers monies. They played by capitalist rules. The political aspect is not about reforms but a clear intent to raise the consciousness of workers. Perhaps a temporary worker's republic would be voted in after the revolution to implement those changes that started the revolution. However, before a revolution can occur the differing faction of socialist, anarchist and communist have to unite. The socialist getting away from trying to implement reforms in capitalism, the anarchist who may have to accept a temporary government and social structures, and the communist who will have to abandon democratic centralism and vanguardism. And finally, the workers need to unite. That's a lot of uniting to do here as you can see. A huge task to pull off. A really big pulling together. A tremendous amount of energy that could supply enough electricity to light up a country for three days. I'm being silly now.
Social Greenman	Posted: 18 Sep 2005 05:50 pm    Post subject: I thought this was intersting: http://www.communistleague.org/principles.html The Communist League does not hold to democratic centralism or having a vanguard party of elite professional politicians who would lead the proles on toward communism. I am talikg to someone who is involved with the CL. He is also a DeLeonist.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2005 12:08 am    Post subject: I was trying to determine from that Communist League document what they consider workers' democracy to be, e.g., would the managers of a plant be elected by the workers in that plant. There have been so many top-down interpretations with the marxist label attached to them, where the officials of the "workers' state" would appoint the managers of the plant, in other words, bureaucracy, that this is where we have to be careful. It's in this kind of area where people who use many of the same general words might mean something different by them. I didn't get a clear understanding from reading the document.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2005 12:51 am    Post subject: Their "action platform" document http://www.communistleague.org/platform.html gives me a better sense of the group. For example, it says: "A minimum weekly wage of $560, adjusted to the cost of living and tied to the rate of inflation. Raising of unemployment benefits to the minimum wage. A sliding scale of wages and hours to aid in the elimination of unemployment and poverty." Just to classify this group in the right folder, this group is clearly one of those groups which propose several of what it views as "realistic" and "more immediate" goals, instead of just saying something "unrealistic", such as,"capitalism out and socialism in -- resulting instantaneously in the abolition of all poverty and economic insecurity." The reasoning goes like this -- why are the "realistic" goals realistic? Because the workers would be able to understand them and more willing to adopt them. Minimum wage of $560 dollars. Easy to imagine getting recruits under that slogan. And why would "unrealistic" goals be unrealistic? Well, if we sound too revolutionary, a greater proportion of the people who read the document would be "turned off." We have to say what people seem to be able to handle without being "turned off." Therefore, let's trick the working class into joining the revolutionary movement, by getting them to think they're signing up for something that doesn't sound too drastic, such as a higher minimum wage, debt cancellation, etc.. Then, after we have the membership all lined up, already carrying membership cards and paying dues, then we can zing them with the surprises, little by little, without shocking them all at once, that we really want a Revolution, and all that stuff about raising the minimum wage was a psychological gimmick to get them to join. By then, they will understand that the use of lures was for their own good, and they will be ready to handle it without being "turned off." That's how the reformist "Marxist" theory always goes. It's always a variation of that same general idea. That is vanguardism. In my view, more important than any specific goal, even the goal of social revolution, or social change of any kind -- is the fact is: "the worker must be taught before all else to walk by himself." (Marx, 1843 letter to Schweitzer). We shouldn't tell people what they are psychologically "prepared" to hear. We should tell them they're NOT "prepared" to hear. The more shocking the truth seems, the more people need to hear it. The more people are "turned off" by a truth, the more people benefit from hearing it. The truth is that all poverty and economic insecurity can be abolished in an instant, by switching over to a new system, but it has to be pre-organized carefully and deliberately. It's better to recruit five people who understand that than to recruit five thousand people who don't understand that. The former would be efffectively five, while the latter would be effectively zero.
Social Greenman	Posted: 19 Sep 2005 07:35 pm    Post subject: Hi Mike, Thanks for the response. I have not gone over the "action platform" very well. In essence, what you are saying is that this group will hold to vangaurdism even though they claim they will not. However, I did asked the person who is ahead of the Communist League and this is his response: Quote: In terms of your friend's comment, let me reassure both you and him that we certainly do not agree with the idea that the state should appoint managers/supervisors for worker-controlled workplaces. That negates the very concept of workers' control of production, and re-establishes social relations between classes at the point of production. State control over management and direction was, in fact, one of the key turning points in the degeneration of the USSR, and was ultimately its undoing. (For more information, please see "Lessons of the USSR Experience", in Workers' Republic No. 2) I also asked about the TLVs and his response was: Quote: Thank you for your letter. I suppose you are wondering about our view on the use of labor vouchers during the transition from capitalism to communism. My answer would be to merely quote back to you what you wrote. I think it is a decent summary of how communists would advocate transition from a money to moneyless society, including the use of modern technology to coordinate and account for it (backed up with a paper trail, of course, in case of any kind of major malfunction or disaster wiping out the system). Perhaps we should see what this Communist League is about through a long correspondence. Maybe he is really sincere about this group not being Marxist-Leninist. I am moving next week so after Wednesday I will be off line. I may have to get another ISP. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 21 Sep 2005 12:11 am    Post subject: I have to read that platform a couple of more times. Off the top I didn't see anything that I would find too objectionable - the middle "class" is always a problem though. But thank you SG for finding it. It is interesting. The tone is a bit much for my tastes - but if writing the platform served some purpose then so be it. Your remoarks about the vangard Mie were on point but on first reading I didn't get this feeling from the document but I will look further. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Sep 2005 09:12 am    Post subject: I'm sure they are sincere when they say they want the workers to run the industries themselves, and not state bureaucrats. The problem is in what would their program of action itself lead to, regardless of how sincere they are. I believe that recruiting the working class by the slower method of analysing one system versus another system would lead to the most democratic outcome. With the usual leftist method of recruiting people by "raised expectations" (lists of demands), I find that leftist followers sometimes don't know what they're for, and if you ask them what socialism basically means they are often unable to get past the "form" issues (good education, good nutrition, etc.)
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Sep 2005 09:35 am    Post subject: I never know how to explain myself here. Let me try again ... This is the way I think socialist literature should speak favorably of the so-called "practical" or "immediate" demands ... We support working class efforts to raise wages and improve working conditions, defend civil rights, stop war, protect the natural environment, and more. However, these improvements should not be mislabeled as actually being part of the transformation to socialism. The program to adopt socialism consists of this: organize in preparation to seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves, and then, when sufficiently organized, seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves. That's what I think socialists should announce publicly as their position. Not "opposition" to reforms -- just persistent caution to point out that a socialist reconstruction has to be something separate, and not simply the accumulation of a large number of reforms. Leftist literature usually leaves people with the impression that hundreds of reforms, accumulated into a total, makes socialism. I believe that's a false idea.
Social Greenman	Posted: 21 Sep 2005 10:13 am    Post subject: From what I understand is that these "demands on the capitalist system" are not goals of the Communist Leauge. But the reason for them are a bit fuzzy for me to comprehend. I believe perhaps that the demands are useful as a tool to raise the class awareness of the workers before they are aggitated for socialism. I could be completely wrong here. Communist League: Quote: 10. The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat — is not merely another form of the state, or of class rule. Rather, it represents the transition between defeated bourgeois rule and the classless, communist society. The state is the linchpin of class society. Its abolition is key to the abolition of class distinctions and antagonisms. But the abolition of the state cannot be accomplished merely with the stroke of a pen. The capitalist state, due to its nature as a combination of armed agencies, must not only be dismantled, but its armed forces must be broken up and atomized. In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks: 1) the ouster of the bourgeoisie from political power; 2) the eradication of the old organs of the bourgeois state; 3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property; and 4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated. As the material basis for class distinctions and antagonisms disappears, those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor. The proletariat comes to encompass all members of society, and the proletariat itself ceases to be a class. Thus, the state becomes an anachronism of society, to be discarded like an empty orange peel. With the disappearance of classes comes the disappearance of the state. Also, a tidbit from: http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/wr2005q1-ussr.html Quote: Because of these continuing manifestations of the capitalist mode of production in all sectors of the Soviet economy, other features common to a capitalist system could not be eliminated. The use of money is one excellent example. In the transition from capitalism to communism, Marx and Engels both expected that the use of money would be replaced by a system of payment according to labor-hour. That is, one hour of labor in one area of the economy would be equal to an hour of labor in another area, and the two would be interchangeable and exchangeable for the personal accumulation of commodities. This system to providing to each “according to their work” was meant as a means of overcoming the law of value and furthering the transition to a communist mode of production. Early on in the Soviet republic, in the period of the “commune state,” an attempt was made to implement this system, but it was abandoned during the “War Communism” years. Later, the Bolsheviks implemented a concept they thought was similar to the “labor-hour” method of compensation: payment according to “labor-content.” However, this method was little more than a different form of the wages system used in capitalist economies — indeed, it was the same system using different terminology.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Sep 2005 05:24 am    Post subject: Quote: 4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated. It's very odd that they should express a goal that was already achieved many decades ago. Perhaps they don't even know that society has long ago solved the problem of inadequate production. We now have so much automation that every human being could have no more than a ten hour workweek and enjoy more luxury than one of today's millionaires. Nothing more is needed except to adopt a democratic economic system.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Sep 2005 05:47 am    Post subject: Quote: 3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property Dangerously unclear. The "abolition of private property" is only a negatively phrased statement, indicating what we are not to have -- that the industries are not to be private property. What are we to have in its place? This negative phrase is oddly placed in the predicate of the remark whose subject is "the institution of democratic workers' control of production." Having said what workers' control will not be, how should we say what it will be? It needs to be said explicitly: * that the workers, under capitalism, preparing for socialism, have to organize whatever councils, assemblies, committees, etc. that they will need in order to manage themselves; * that this has to be done specifically at the workplaces; it cannot be a political party task; the closest thing we have today that resembles this kind of necessary organization is labor union organization; * that the assumption of management responsibilities by this society-wide network of workers' workplace-based assemblies or committees is precisely what we mean by all such phrases as "socialist revolution," "establishing socialism," etc.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Sep 2005 06:04 am    Post subject: Quote: 10. The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat Quote: In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks: Quote: those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor. They think that, during a transitional state, after the workers' have seized power, that this is when the petty bourgeoisie will gradually fade away?!??! This is completely wrong. The sole purpose of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is to enforce the democratic mandate for socialism in the manner that legal mandates are today enforced. If the deposed capitalists or their lackeys resort to counter-revolutionary violence, then the state power, not yet dissolved, and still in the hands of the workers' political party, can apprehend and jail those violent individuals. The "dictatorship of the proletriat" doesn't have to remain in existence any longer than the duration needed to do just that task, which probably means mere weeks, if not mere days. It's incorrect to visualize it as an ongoing historical period of any substantial length, such as a duration in which the petty bourgeoisie will gradually fade away, the means of production will grow, or anything else of that sort. Their Leninist influence is showing through.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Sep 2005 06:16 am    Post subject: Quote: Later, the Bolsheviks implemented a concept they thought was similar to the “labor-hour” method of compensation: payment according to “labor-content.” However, this method was little more than a different form of the wages system used in capitalist economies — indeed, it was the same system using different terminology. But the reason that the Bolshevik's system was a wage system wasn't that labor was time-measured. It was a wage system because, due to the absense of democracy, workers were hired-hands used by the administrative class at the head of industy, as under capitalism. It was a wage system because the workers were outsiders who were brought in by employers, when it was necessary (unavoidable) for those employers to bring some outsiders in, as under capitalism. When the system becomes so throughly democratic that it can be truthfully said that the workers are full partners in ownership of their own shops, then the character of their compensation will change also. It may be time-measured, but it won't be the doles of exploitation.
davesearles	Posted: 22 Sep 2005 10:44 pm    Post subject: Some intellegence finally having seep through the bone matter - Imperialism is not necessarily a development of capitalism - The Roman state, the Soviet state and the US all have used "imperialism". Also "super" exploitation is not at all scientifically accurate term to use when referring to historically excluded minority groups. It is quite possible that higer paid non-minority workers may be exploited at a higher rate IF WE LOOK AT PRODUCTIVITY USING HIGHER DEVELOPED TOOLS OF PRODUCTION. Degradation is not the same as exploitation. If there is any socialist industrial unionism behind any of this I don't see it . Oh well. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 23 Sep 2005 04:59 am    Post subject: I don't know whether this remark applies to the group we're looking at, but I recall that the Trotskyist groups which describe the USSR as a "deformed workers' state" have always rejected the suggestion that the USSR was "imperialist." I recall some of them seeing the cover of the SLP's pamphlet "Stalinist Imperialism", and they objected to the phrase.
davesearles	Posted: 24 Sep 2005 11:47 am    Post subject: How many countries bolted from this union as soon as they were aware that they could do so without the threat of soviet tanks. Let's not even talk about Afghanistan
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Sep 2005 10:30 pm    Post subject: CP-USA offshoot organizations had some bizarre positions in defense of the Soviet empire. Another one was their claim that the purpose of the Berlin wall was to defend the city against the yankee imperialists who were trying to break in. In reality, as everyone in the world knew, the purpose of the Berlin wall was to keep the people imprisoned inside.
davesearles	Posted: 25 Sep 2005 12:30 pm    Post subject: And we can't go to Cuba.
Social Greenman	Posted: 25 Sep 2005 01:03 pm    Post subject: Closing went well on the house. I stopped by to let you know and now we are packing to move out. I am glad to see this thread is still going strong. I'll be back soon.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Sep 2005 02:45 am    Post subject: Social Greenman wrote: I believe perhaps that the demands are useful as a tool to raise the class awareness of the workers before they are aggitated for socialism. I could be completely wrong here. I actually know of one article of evidence to support the "leftist demands" method, and it surprises me that the left (CP, SWP, et. al.) itself doesn't bother to claim it as evidence for its own case. It's the study done decades ago by historian Crane Brinton, and his conclusions that he reported in his book "Anatomy of Revolution." This is one of the few times in which a historian actually treated history as an empirical science, trying to measure data. Brinton found that revolutions by ruled people against their rulers, generally, throughout history, have tended to occur when something has raised the people's expectations, their view of what they were entitled to, and then the existing system failed to provide it. If that thesis is true, then, theoretically, this "demands" method might nudge the working class toward feeling entitled to a better standard of living, which capitalaism will fail to provide, and a social revolution will then occur. This seems to be very similar to what Trotsky called the "transitional program." However, i would argue that there are several things wrong with the idea. 1) That method doesn't seem to be working any better than the De Leonist method is. I don't see thousands, never mind millions, of people flocking to the "radical" organizations. If they have the right psychological tool, wouldn't the effect be demonstrable by now? 2) Capitalism sometimes does increase the people's standard of living. My grandfather worked six 14-hour days to keep his family in poverty. In some ways, things do get better, although, of course, wages remain a pittance, and if, in a hundred years, wages double, that will only occur as corporate profits rise a thousandfold. But this improvement is enough to make the "boiler pressure" leak out of the Crane Brinton method. People interpret the few additional peanut they get as a reason to be more loyal to the system, not as a reason to lose faith in the system. 3) If socialists were to treat the working class like mice in a psychology experiment, and attempt to manipulate popular culture through this or any other less-than-honest technique, how could the outcome ever be the the most *democratic* system ever conceived, with administration by means of *representatives* instead of *leaders* ?
davesearles	Posted: 26 Sep 2005 12:38 pm    Post subject: exactly - if the reform demand route advanced class consciousness we would see it. I haven't seen it - moreover I have seen the reverse - that it produces "Marxists" who are oh so into the words of Marx and others literally like holy scripture (this isn't an analogy because they actually do it). Recall one recent regular writer here ho would go into the Marx archive and pull out a phrase here or there to prove his case and it very rarley, if ever actually supported his case. Of late I have been posting the rsym discussion group - trying to get a handle on why the issue of eliminating British rule from Northern Ireland was so consuming - while at the same time actual class conscious work was a minor piece to their propaganda. They are into an idea that the bourgeoisie revolution has to be completed by the working class before the workers can go on to organizing for socialism. Why must the workers complete the bourgeoisie revolution first? Because that’s what Marx said and to not follow that is to implicitly deny the genius of Marx. But when you look at what Marx actually wrote he essentially said that until the material conditions existed to be able to over throw the bourgeoisie the Irish workers would have to work to complete the bourgeoisie revolution – i.e. get the Brits out. Of course those material conditions have existed in Ireland for years and have existed here for years. BUT Deleonists have no great claim to fame in this area – by not being able to come up with a workable method for dealing with human rights issues to the point of for years and years refusing to directly participate in any kind of a rally with any other organization or to resolve the contradiction of running people for political office without the slightest conception of what they would or should do if one ever got elected to an executive office such as a local mayor instead of a purely legislative office ALSO expelling members who experimented in this area under pretexts of “disorganizational behavior”. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Sep 2005 01:07 pm    Post subject: Quote: years refusing to directly participate in any kind of a rally with any other organization You may recall the SLP late 60s/early 70s leaflet on the subject of the war in Vietnam, entitled "Understanding versus Emotions : Do Demonstrations Have Value?" I'm still not clear myself, i.e., undecided, i.e., agnostic. Sometimes I think these events make a difference, and sometimes I think they don't. Do they reach fence-sitters, or do they preach to the choir? By the way ... I hear 500,000 were in D.C. the other day to protest U.S. imperialism in Iraq. It was televised live on C-SPAN. It wasn't mentioned at all on the three major "all news" networks, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, because these three only cover one story at a time, on any given day, and there happened to be a hurricane down south. So the only channel to publicize the anti-government demonstration was the government-owned channel.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Sep 2005 02:01 pm    Post subject: Quote: that it produces "Marxists" who are oh so into the words of Marx and others literally like holy scripture I would say more frequently it produces "Marxists" who think that the definition of socialism is "tax the corporations, not the poor", "freeze college tuitions", "free daycare centers", or some other manifestational issue. Do you really find a lot of people treating authors as scripture?
Social Greenman	Posted: 26 Sep 2005 10:31 pm    Post subject: We will be moving on the morrow. I am glad that you and Dave know your stuff. Hopefully after we are settled in the new home I can devote more time to develope further knowlege of De Leon and the SIU. Take care until I can get back
davesearles	Posted: 27 Sep 2005 12:04 am    Post subject: I have seen it - where someone will quote Marx (and its usually out of context) and that quotation is supposed to prove something. Oh yes, often enough. We have seen the same thing with DeLeon phrases as well - "The organization and the principle are one!! (I have yet to figure out what the hell that means.) dave
Social Greenman	Posted: 08 Oct 2005 10:13 am    Post subject: I am back and live from New York. Moved in but we have yet to settle in. Boy, have I got my work set out for me. I have a lot of junk from the previous owner to haul away. I been making repairs like putting the kitchen plumbing back together when it literally fell apart. I see we have a different forum here. JT