a socialist candidacy?

Author

Message

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Location: Vermont

Posted: 18 May 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: A socialist candidacy?

As I have stated I have been mulling over running for US House from Vermont. Of course I can go out with my little drum and bang it out that the workers need to take over the means of production. If I had 3 seconds that is what I would say. Then what? We have the reform/revolution dichotomy and I am pretty clear on what I would not propose - but also there is the utopia/scientific dichotomy. That's where one can go wrong really quickly. Mike you touched on this in your discussion about the state . Apart from a name change there are certainly going to be some government functions necessary even in the easy statistics alluded to by DeLeon is bqotu that have to resolve mundane issues like what side of the street do we drive on and what drugs should be available without a physician's prescription. I have been thinking about different ways of presenting "the workers need to take over the means of production" Why can't I describe the system of labor shares that Marx described in Capital (I can come with a reference if pressed) and say that is what we need to do. A "labor share union" Maybe I just too used to the SLP way of thinking but it sounds Utopian but I cannot really say whether it is actually or not. Of course having a real definition of Utopian might not hurt. What would be wrong with (analogy alert) getting my foot in the door of people's minds with a new sounding name for the tired old workers taking over the means of production?

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 354

Posted: 18 May 2007 04:10 pm Post subject:

Did you see the words-and-blurry-diagram leaflet put out by 'People for a New System' formerly 'Industrial Union Party'... http://www.deleonism.org/text/pfans.pdf file size 87k

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 354

Posted: 18 May 2007 04:28 pm Post subject:

You could review the SLP leaflets with the idea in mind of sorting out paragraphs into two categories -- "this is a good way to introduce an idea" and "this is a bad way to introduce an idea." http://www.deleonism.org/leaflets.htm One assumption there is that people are already upset about society's problems, and understanding why things happen is better than directionless emotions. * I think every candicate for public office should be asked to answer this question: In fifty words or less, what are the causes of all social problems and the means to solve them? If the candidate can do that, then they have a guiding principle. The Libertarian Party has guiding principle and they would be able to answer it -- I happen to think their principle is dead wrong, but at least they have one. The Democrats and Republicans don't have any principles to go by -- they just react aimlessly to whatever happens, according to an intuition of "here's an idea that kind of seems to be in the right direction...." I like to debate a Libertarian because we always get right to the point -- you believe in that principle, I believe in this principle, here's how they differ. But the only way to debate a Democrat or Republican is ignore everything they say, which is aimless and unfocused, and continue as though you were the only speaker. * You could use this forum as your scrap paper for composing your speech and leaflet. That will make it easier for me to yell about everything :-) Last edited by mikelepore on 19 May 2007 06:08 am; edited 1 time in total

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Location: Vermont

Posted: 18 May 2007 11:54 pm Post subject:

From the new system leaflet: +++++++++++ How would a New System Change Our Lives? Let Us Count The Ways... One of the most beneficial changes in the new system would be the bottom line motive for production of any kind, be it services or hard goods, and would be different than what it is today. In the present system, houses, food, the clothes we wear, as well as the cars we drive, are not produced for us to use, per se, rather, these are selected for production because of the profits they bring to corporate owners. This certainly explains shoddy goods, unhealthy foods and flaw-ridden, unsafe cars ++++++++++++ Good Christ, I will give you a notarized statement that if you ever hear me say something like this that I should just be shot even before I got to the end of the paragraph. Fucking new system!! What is this soap?? Besides New system has no meaning. Wasn't Nazism new system once? I will go through the old leaflets, but what is your take on Dr. Marx system of labor shares. Why don't I ever see anyone else referring to this? +++++++ Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

The Greenman

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 110
Location: Western New York

Posted: 19 May 2007 12:45 am Post subject:

Dave, don't get complicated in your speech. Keep it simple and get them to think about what you are trying to say. The people I work with, and a lot of them in general, believe the owners of production have the right to own the means of production. To take it would mean theft. I've been reading that certain issues get workers attention. It is usually issues that effect them under the present system. However, Mike is also right when it comes to principles being presented. Freedom, liberties, civil rights can be a guiding principle to speak upon but so is the ethical questions of workers being robbed at the point of production, from their pension fund and other benefits. The capitalist canidate will try and justify those robberies. That's my 15 cents.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 354

Posted: 19 May 2007 06:43 am Post subject:

Is "labor share" in _Capital_ the same thing as the labor "certificate" in _... Gotha Program_, or "voucher" in SLP literature? If so, you kinda know what I think of it, since you and I collaborated on that subject two years ago in the WSM group, and we wrote dozens of posts on it. (Otherwise, what is Marx refering to?) As for 'New System'. Yes, it's meaningless -- but, then again, should a name tell a lot, or should a name be barely enough so that it's truthful but undetailed, and then expect it to spark a followup conversation? I don't know. The name 'socialist industrial unionism', which is about eleven syllables, is a horrible tongue-twister, although it is detailed. Industrial Democracy or Economic Democracy would be close to being another barely-the-truth name, or, as you say, meaningless, since supporters of capitalism are already damn sure that capitalism _is_ a democratic economic system (allegedly, we vote with our money -- ha-ha.). I don't know of any really good names -- except for socialism. Then when people tell me that the word 'socialism' is tainted with bad connotations, I say: sure, just as the words democracy, justice, and freedom from time to time get tainted with bad connotations.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 354

Posted: 19 May 2007 08:11 pm Post subject:

Here's another try-not-to-say-too-much name for an organization: Campaign for a Working Democracy (formerly the New Union Party) http://www.newunionparty.org/ No one gets fooled. The "likely to be turned off" person whom one is trying "not to turn off" by coming right out and saying the obscene word socialism ... responds ... how? By taking one look and immediately saying, "Ugh. Socialism." No delay there.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 354

Posted: 19 May 2007 08:24 pm Post subject:

Wait a doggone minute. How could you not know what to say if you know that you want to run for office? There must be a reason you want to run for office. What's the reason for occupying a political office, if elected, or in making the attempt, if unelected? That _is_ the topic of the speech, of course. That much is true even of a capitalist candidate, although their hopes 'n' dreams may be moronic ("Read my lips. No new taxes." -- George H. Bush). If, in contrast, one has a brain, it's still true. The purpose _is_ the speech. Why would it be worth it for me to burn 25 cents worth of gasoline to go to Town Hall and vote, not to mention your much greater effort in deciding to run?