|
Author
|
Message
|
|
davesearles
|
|
 Posted:
09 Sep 2008 09:05 am Post subject: Discussion with
the Communist League
|
|
http://www.communistleague.us/
league@communistleague.us
comleague@gmail.com
Sept. 12, 2008 - This topic was split off
from the WIIU topic. -- M.L., admin
___________________________________________________
The whole Communist Leage is communicating with the
members of this list, or is it a single individual? Does that single individual
have a name?
I went to the Communist Leage website - just as an
observation offhand I didn't see anything that would indicate that CL
advocates worker control of the means of production or has a coherent
plan of how to achieve that goal. If I am wrong on this I would be most
happy to be corrected .
Thanks,
Dave Searles
An example of CL writing from its latest newletter.
There is only one way to make sure that we are not “passing the buck” to our
children or grandchildren: when we fight, we
fight to win and fight to the end. In our opinion, that means moving
beyond mere reform or the replacement of a few individuals at the top.
For us communists, it means fighting for real
democratic transformation and change — it means fighting for a social
revolution, carried out by working people themselves, that changes every
aspect of society.
We describe the outcome of this revolutionary act
as the establishment of the Third Republic in the U.S. The Second
Republic, formed after the Civil War, was wiped away by the corporatists
in power in order to make way for an imperialist Empire. This
reconstruction is not complete and can be stopped, but only if we as
workers take responsibility for the future of society and work together
to stop it.
Brothers and sisters, it is all up to us now. No
one is going to do it for us. It is time to ask ourselves what kind of a
future we want and how we can achieve it.
http://www.communistleague.us/wr/2008/spring/bulletin.html
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 09:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
it means
fighting for a social revolution, carried out by working people
themselves, that changes every aspect of society.
|
To me this is as amorphous as "change we can
believe in"
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 10:18 am Post subject:
|
|
From basic principle 14 of the
CL
http://www.communistleague.us/outlook/principles.html
|
Quote:
|
|
Thus, for
communists to carry out work among and alongside proletarian
socialists, it may be necessary to become a member of one or more of
these bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialist organizations, with the
goal of winning as many of these proletarians to the project of
building a principled, revolutionary political party of the
proletariat, composed of communists and proletarian socialists.
|
So are we of the deleonism.org discussion group
looked upon by the CL as a "bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialist
organization" ??
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 06:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
http://www.communistleague.us/about/whoweare.html
"By putting the economy into the hands of
working people, though the organization of direct workers’ control of every factory, shop and
workplace, we would not only be able to reorganize production to meet
your needs and those of everyone you know, we would
also be able to raise the living standards of everyone and make it
possible for us all to live decent lives."
In this proposal, how are political organization
and workers' control of workplaces to be connected? How should things be
implemented?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 06:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
And perhaps I'm being over picky on the wording, and
perhaps not -
"By putting the economy into the hands of
working people"
Who other than workers - can do the putting?
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 06:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
I believe CommunistLeague is a person named Miles. If
I am wrong then please over look this. I am at the library again so this
will be brief--stinkin hard drive is shot therefore all the PDF files died
with it. Why would production have to be re-organized? The only
difference that we advocate is that the means of production would be
under the control of workers but it would also be very under the control
of local communities (those who desire certain products) and not the
political government "we".
I am more and more convinced that
"communism" cannot exist or to say that the vague phrase
"To each to each" would become reality. I have to say no thanks
to any Leninist political party who believes they have the right to rule
over society.
Move in, move in, move in,
Though the streams are swollen,
Keep those doggies move in
Rawhide...
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 09:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
The whole
Communist League is communicating with the members of this list, or is
it a single individual? Does that single individual have a name?
|
My name is Henry Miles, I'm a member of the Central
Committee of the League. When I say "we", I mean we as the
League. When I say "I", I mean my personal opinion.
As for the WIIU, as I said in my last post, it is
something that we as the League would help with building. At our last
convention, we discussed this issue at length, then in the context of our
work in the IWW and the criticisms we had of it. When I saw this
discussion about the WIIU, I had a quick discussion with other C.C.
members over the phone before posting. It was a no-brainer for us.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
I went to the
Communist League website - just as an observation offhand I didn't see
anything that would indicate that CL advocates worker control of the
means of production or has a coherent plan of how to achieve that goal.
If I am wrong on this I would be most happy to be corrected.
|
Actually, we speak about the need for workers'
control of production -- and, for that matter, workers' control of all
aspects of society -- at every opportunity. It is in our Basic Principles
as well as our statements, editorials and articles. The
"Marxist-Leninists" attack us all the time because of our view
on this and, as a side note, our critique of their positions on the USSR.
As for a "coherent plan of how to achieve that
goal", I am inclined to say that it is not our job to "achieve
that goal". That belongs to working people themselves. Our position
is that it will take a revolution organized and led by workers, and the
overthrow of capitalist rule, to achieve that goal. The organization of
workplace committees at the point of production, working together with
committees across industries and throughout the economy, would be the
basis of achieving that goal. Personally, I'm very much supportive of the
Socialist Industrial Union structure, though I might use different language
to describe it. I cannot speak precisely to what other members of my
organization think, but my sense is that they believe the same.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 09:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
So are we of
the deleonism.org discussion group looked upon by the CL as a
"bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialist organization"??
|
As far as I understand it, this forum and website
are just that. If I am intruding on some private venture, tell me and I will
leave you alone. I'm not here to troll or disrupt. I came here because I
thought I could have some interesting discussions on political questions
with comrades who are similar in thinking.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 09:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
Why would
production have to be re-organized? The only difference that we
advocate is that the means of production would be under the control of
workers but it would also be very under the control of local
communities (those who desire certain products) and not the political
government "we".
|
Production would have to be re-organized in the
sense of moving away from the chaos and anarchy of production under
capitalism and moving toward production for human needs.
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
I have to say
no thanks to any Leninist political party who believes they have the
right to rule over society.
|
Good. Then we can agree on that.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 10:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
And perhaps
I'm being over picky on the wording, and perhaps not -
"By putting the economy into the hands of working people"
Who other than workers - can do the putting?
|
No one. You're welcome to suggest a better choice
of word for this. Perhaps it would be better if it read: "By taking
the economy into our hands, we as working people...", and then
taking out the "we" after "workplace".
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
09 Sep 2008 10:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
ds:
Thanks Henry for introducing yourself.
hm:
|
Quote:
|
|
Actually, we speak about the need for workers' control of production --
and, for that matter, workers' control of all aspects of society -- at
every opportunity.
|
ds:
I didn't see anything that would indicate that CL
advocates worker control of the means of production or has a coherent
plan of how to achieve that goal.
hm:
|
Quote:
|
|
I am inclined
to say that it is not our job to "achieve that goal". That
belongs to working people themselves. Our position is that it will take
a revolution organized and led by workers, and the overthrow of
capitalist rule, to achieve that goal.
|
Glad to see that you recognize that it is the job
of the workers, but to repeat my point it did not seem that cl has a plan
for the workers to achieve worker control of the means of production - so
let's be real clear:
A. cl has a plan for the workers to achieve worker
control of the means of production?
or
B. cl does not have a plan for the workers to
achieve worker control of the means of production?
|
Quote:
|
|
In our opinion, that means moving beyond mere reform or the replacement
of a few individuals at the top.
For us communists, it means fighting for real democratic transformation
and change — it means fighting for a social revolution,
carried out by working people themselves, that changes every aspect of
society.
We describe the outcome of this revolutionary act as the establishment
of the Third Republic in the U.S.
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Our position
is that it will take a revolution organized and led by workers, and the
overthrow of capitalist rule, to achieve that goal. The organization of
workplace committees at the point of production, working together with
committees across industries and throughout the economy, would be the
basis of achieving that goal.
|
ds:
I am assuming that the goal here is worker control
of the means of production, so I have to get symantical here:
A: Organization of workplace committees at the
point of production - a basis for achieving the goal?
true?
B: Organization of workplace committees at the
point of production in control of production - the goal?
true?
Thank you in advance for your clarifications.
And just for the record, my communications here are
with Henry in his capacity as a private individual - nothing in this or
future communications should be interpreted that I in anyway endorse or
support the "Communist League".
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 03:53 am Post subject:
|
|
'bourgeois and petty-bourgeois socialist
organization"
Why were the words "'bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois" applied? We are working class people without
income-generating property. Perhaps we have different definitions of
these words?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
As for a
"coherent plan of how to achieve that goal", I am inclined to
say that it is not our job to "achieve that goal". That
belongs to working people themselves.
|
Actually doing it will be all of the working
people's task, but preliminary discussion of what would constitute a
coherent plan can be the task of anyone who today writes an essay on the
subject.
|
Quote:
|
|
Our position
is that it will take a revolution organized and led by workers, and the
overthrow of capitalist rule, to achieve that goal. The organization of
workplace committees at the point of production, working together with
committees across industries and throughout the economy, would be the basis
of achieving that goal. Personally, I'm very much supportive of the
Socialist Industrial Union structure, though I might use different
language to describe it. I cannot speak precisely to what other members
of my organization think, but my sense is that they believe the same.
|
Do you agree with the part in the SIU program where
is says to have the people use the political process to capture the state
and to express a mandate to adopt socialism, and then have workplace
organizations "back up" that mandate by "taking and
holding" the means of production?
I'm asking this question because I also hang out
frequently in the revleft.com forum, where many people seem to advocate
violent methods for their own sake, and they don't know how to
distinguish what I wrote above from a more simplistic generality that
"that crazy Lepore seems to think that socialism can be
voted-in", and they think that what I described is
"parliamentarian."
I believe that the methods I described above would
make the revolutionary change, not absolutely "peaceful", but,
rather, maximize the probability that it will be as peaceful as possible,
compared to other strategies.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:16 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
I didn't see
anything that would indicate that CL advocates worker control of the
means of production or has a coherent plan of how to achieve that goal.
|
From Point 10 of our Basic Principles:
|
Quote:
|
|
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.
|
From the League's "Who We Are, Where We
Stand" statement (as corrected per comments here -- pending formal
correction):
|
Quote:
|
|
By taking the
economy into our hands, we as working people, through the
organization of direct workers’ control of every factory, shop and workplace, would not only be able to reorganize production to
meet your needs and those of everyone you know, we would also be able
to raise the living standards of everyone and make it possible for us
all to live decent lives.
|
From the League's leaflet, "Make it Your
Workplace":
|
Quote:
|
|
Through its
control of the workplace, the capitalist is trying to push all working
people deeper into poverty and wage-slavery in order to maximize their
profits.
In order to fight this, however, working people must organize to
secure control of the workplaces. The first step is to organize a
workplace committee where you work.
Bring together all your brothers and sisters who are ready to
participate
in the struggle to win control of the shop. Organize them into a
workplace
committee.
This committee can coordinate and carry on the work of agitation and
education among your co-workers. It can collect funds, and produce and
acquire papers and leaflets for distribution in your workplace.
The work of the committee should be to unite all of your brothers and
sisters where you work into a single organization. Machinists,
carpenters, shipping clerks, heavy equipment operators, workers of
every trade — they all must unite into one working people’s organization.
Brothers and sisters! You must build these organizations — these expressions of
your power — if you are to win your freedom. The workplace
committee is the basis for the organization of the power of all working people. Prepare to take control of your workplace, of
your work, of your lives and happiness.
Organize and make it your workplace!
|
A bonus! From "Daniel De Leon and His Place in
Communist History", Workers' Republic, Spring 2007:
|
Quote:
|
|
The theory of “socialist industrial
unionism,” first expressed by De Leon and the SLP at the beginning
of the 20th century, was the concretizing of more than 50 years of
collective experience in the class struggle, from the 1848 revolutions,
to the Paris Commune of 1871 and
the St. Louis Commune of 1877, to the rise of the radical industrial
unionist movement at the turn of the century. Indeed, the concept of
socialist industrial unionism emerged and developed in parallel with
the growing movement that culminated in the formation of the IWW in
1905.
Today, the fundamental precepts of De Leon’s greatest
contribution to communist theory are spoken by self-described
[socialists and communists] around the world, albeit using different
terms and language. Whether one is talking
about “workers’ councils,” the “soviet
system” (“soviet” in lower-case, as opposed to the
so-called “Soviet” government of Russia in the 1920s), the
“commune state,” etc., it is found in such phrases the voice
and explanation — if not always the understanding — of De Leon....
For the Communist League, Daniel De Leon holds an honored place among
those who came before us, in spite of his contradictions and
shortcomings. The fact that he was able to contribute so much while
having such problems is a measure of his importance, relevance and
largesse in a movement often inundated with self-appointed “leaders” and
“theoreticians,” each claiming to be the next coming of Marx
(or Debs, or Lenin, or Trotsky, or Mao, or even De Leon!) and all
failing to contribute,
when it is all said and done, to offer even one-tenth of the
theoretical weaponry given to us from De Leon’s arsenal.
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Glad to see
that you recognize that it is the job of the workers, but to repeat my
point it did not seem that cl has a plan for the workers to achieve
worker control of the means of production - so let's be real clear:
A. cl has a plan for the workers to achieve worker control of the means
of production?
or
B. cl does not have a plan for the workers to achieve worker control of
the means of production?
|
Nothing official ... yet. We have a convention next
year, and it is probably time we adopted something formal along the lines
of the SIU concept. So far, it has been unofficial general acceptance of
the SIU with the exception of the view toward the ballot (since we do not
run candidates and are not a political party per se).
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
I am assuming
that the goal here is worker control of the means of production, so I
have to get semantical here:
A: Organization of workplace committees at the point of production - a
basis for achieving the goal?
true?
|
True. Very true.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
B:
Organization of workplace committees at the point of production in
control of production - the goal?
true?
|
Again, true. Very true.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Thank you in
advance for your clarifications.
|
Not a problem. If this is all you needed, then I'm
happy to oblige.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
And just for
the record, my communications here are with Henry in his capacity as a
private individual - nothing in this or future communications should be
interpreted that I in anyway endorse or support the "Communist
League".
|
No problem with me. I'm here to participate as
myself, not as an "official representative", although there
will be times when I present the League's view vis-à-vis a specific
question raised here.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Do you agree
with the part in the SIU program where is says to have the people use
the political process to capture the state and to express a mandate to
adopt socialism, and then have workplace organizations "back
up" that mandate by "taking and holding" the means of
production?
I'm asking this question because I also hang out frequently in the
revleft.com forum, where many people seem to advocate violent methods
for their own sake, and they don't know how to distinguish what I wrote
above from a more simplistic generality that "that crazy Lepore
seems to think that socialism can be voted-in", and they think
that what I described is "parliamentarian."
I believe that the methods I described above would make the
revolutionary change, not absolutely "peaceful", but, rather,
maximize the probability that it will be as peaceful as possible, compared
to other strategies.
|
I know I'm not answering on behalf of CL
here, but there is a reason why I've got a "democracy" thread
in the Fundamentals of Marxism forum. ;)
|
Quote:
|
|
to capture the
state
|
Unfortunately, the nation-state is NOT a neutral
entity (contrary to your Kautskyan view here); it is a bourgeois entity.
Marx made this explicitly clear in light of the Paris Commune tragedy.
|
Quote:
|
|
where many
people seem to advocate violent methods for their own sake
|
Hey, considering all the union-busting activity in
the past (unionization not being revolutionary at all), why shouldn't
this be a standard position?
BTW, there's a huge difference between this mass
political revolution and hooliganism, conspiracist insurrectionism, etc.
done by small groups on the other.
|
Quote:
|
|
I believe that
the methods I described above would make the revolutionary change, not
absolutely "peaceful", but, rather, maximize the probability
that it will be as peaceful as possible, compared to other strategies.
|
No, you don't do that through
parliamentary/"representative"/liberal "democracy";
you do that through participatory, class-strugglist democracy (per my
democracy thread).
From that thread:
|
Quote:
|
|
This could be
worthwhile to think about. Should we adopt a better political method so
that it will be easier for the people adopt addtional changes, and then
use that improved system to implement social ownership of the means of
production?
|
B-I-N-G-O! Per my new WIP (which you have), much of
the far left, yourself included, is stuck in "broad economism."
:(
Sorry for being overly emotional here. :(
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:25 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Why were the
words "bourgeois and petty-bourgeois" applied? We are working
class people without income-generating property. Perhaps we have
different definitions of these words?
|
I think you're taking this personally, and I think
that's wrong. I have never said you or anyone here, or deleonism.org in
general, is either bourgeois or petty-bourgeois socialist (well, maybe
Jacob Richter :wink: ). The terms and root definitions themselves come
from Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, and we did a
little updating of them for our Basic Principles.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:26 am Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Why were the
words "bourgeois and petty-bourgeois" applied? We are
working class people without income-generating property. Perhaps we
have different definitions of these words?
|
I think you're taking this personally, and I
think that's wrong. I have never said you or anyone here, or
deleonism.org in general, is either bourgeois or petty-bourgeois
socialist (well, maybe Jacob Richter :wink: ). The terms and root
definitions themselves come from Marx and Engels, in the Communist
Manifesto, and we did a little updating of them for our Basic
Principles.
|
Hi CL,
You may wish to consider my Basic Principles
material in my USL e-mail (now officially titled "Programming Class
Struggle and Social Revolution").
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:32 am Post subject:
|
|
Question to henry miles:
As a political proposition what would you think of
the workers running candidates for congress for the express purpose of
amending the US Constitution to specifically recognize a right of the
workers to establish an industrial union to collectively operate the
industrial means of production?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:32 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob, if the state is "not neutral", all
the more reason to "capture" it, no? Because then it means
taking a weapon away from the enemy.
*****
Tae Kwon Do: Someone's coming at you with a stick.
You fracture some part of that person.
Aikido: Someone's coming at you with a stick. A
moment later, that person doesn't hold it anymore.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
I have never
said you or anyone here, or deleonism.org in general, is either
bourgeois or petty-bourgeois socialist
|
Huh? Your exact words were "As far as I
understand it, this forum and website are just that."
I'm not taking it personal, I'm just asking about
definitions.
Bourgeois means capitalist. Petty bourgeois
(French: petit bourgeois) is small-business self-employed capitalist.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:48 am Post subject:
|
|
jr quoted someone:
Quote:
to capture the state
and then jr wrote:
Unfortunately, the nation-state is NOT a neutral
entity (contrary to your Kautskyan view here); it is a bourgeois entity.
Marx made this explicitly clear in light of the Paris Commune tragedy.
ds:
Marx made that explicity clear? I beg to differ.
We won't need police under socialsm? I am
emboldened to think that we shall need police. The difference being that
there will not be a capitalist or bourgeois state becuase there will be
no capitalist or bourgeois class - no classes at all, therefore no class
corruption of the collective republican mission of all public servants.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Actually doing
it will be all of the working people's task, but preliminary discussion
of what would constitute a coherent plan can be the task of anyone who
today writes an essay on the subject.
|
I understand what you're saying here. As I said
above, I think it's time for the League to adopt something more official
on this question. Given how the League's unofficial view is quite close
to SIU, I suspect a formal League position, adopted at our next
convention, would be along those lines.
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Do you agree
with the part in the SIU program where is says to have the people use
the political process to capture the state and to express a mandate to
adopt socialism, and then have workplace organizations "back
up" that mandate by "taking and holding" the means of
production?
I'm asking this question because I also hang out frequently in the
revleft.com forum, where many people seem to advocate violent methods
for their own sake, and they don't know how to distinguish what I wrote
above from a more simplistic generality that "that crazy Lepore
seems to think that socialism can be voted-in", and they think
that what I described is "parliamentarian."
I believe that the methods I described above would make the
revolutionary change, not absolutely "peaceful", but, rather,
maximize the probability that it will be as peaceful as possible,
compared to other strategies.
|
I guess the question here hinges on the definition
of "the state". I tend to hold to Marx's view that the state in
a specialized instrument of repression, created and "perfected"
by the ruling class to suppress all other classes and maintain its
version of "law and order", and is composed of the "bodies
of armed men" -- the police and intelligence services, the prison
system, the military and officer corps, etc. If we go by that definition,
then, no, I do not think the state can be "captured" in any way
other than how a unit of soldiers captures and holds enemy prisoners.
On the other hand, if you mean "the
state" as in the institutions of political power -- the Congress,
the presidency, and equivalent state and local entities -- then we are
talking more about "capture" for the sake of "banging the
gavel" on capitalist rule. On this point I, and I would say the
League as a whole, view the question as one of tactics. And it certainly
is an interesting tactic to consider!
I am all for finding the most peaceful and
non-violent means to achieve revolution, the overthrow of capitalist rule
and the victory of the working people's republic. If the material
conditions were right, I would not rule out this tactic as a means of
achieving the goal of initiating the transition from capitalism to
communism. Indeed, if it was possible to do this, I would be among the
first to suggest it, advocate it and build for it.
My problem is that, based on my own experiences
with running working-class candidates for local, state and federal
office, it seems you would need a revolution carried out through
extraparliamentary* means to get to the point where such tactics are
possible. With the way that the capitalist political system has been
organized today, if you are a working-class candidate, chances are you
cannot get on the ballot in most states except as a write-in (and often
times, those votes aren't even counted). And if you do get on the ballot,
you're effectively shut out of the media and most candidates' events. If
that fails to stop a workers' candidate, then there are active efforts by
both of the main capitalist parties to keep working people away from the
polls (the two parties use them on each other, too, as was the case in
Florida in 2000). And if that fails, then they resort to
good-ol'-fashioned ballot fraud. I saw this happen even at a local level,
when a working people's candidate running for Detroit Board of Education
in 2005 had the election stolen out from under her by the corporatist
candidate who was a darling of the local Democratic Party establishment.
* Note that I said "extraparliamentary",
which does not necessarily mean "violent" or "armed"
actions.
But I do accept that conditions can change
qualitatively. One only has to look at events in the last 20 years to see
that. So, yes, I keep my mind and my options open ... in both directions.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:52 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Huh? Your
exact words were "As far as I understand it, this forum and
website are just that."
|
OK. I see. There was a misunderstanding. It was my
fault. When I said "this forum and website are just that", I
meant they are just that -- that is, a forum and website, not a bourgeois
or petty-bourgeois socialist organization. My apologies for the
confusion.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:53 am Post subject:
|
|
ml quoting hm:
Huh? Your exact words were "As far as I
understand it, this forum and website are just that."
ds:
I took that to me that he did not thik that
deleonism.org or its forum was any kind of an organization at all - so if
deleonism.org and its forum are not organizations they cannot be
bourgeois or petty bourgeois organizations.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Question to
henry miles:
As a political proposition what would you think of the workers running
candidates for congress for the express purpose of amending the US
Constitution to specifically recognize a right of the workers to
establish an industrial union to collectively operate the industrial
means of production?
|
It would certainly be a meaningful reform, and I
tend to think we'd join in the movement to see that it happens.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
I took that to
me that he did not thik that deleonism.org or its forum was any kind of
an organization at all - so if deleonism.org and its forum are not
organizations they cannot be bourgeois or petty bourgeois
organizations.
|
Is there a formal organization behind
deleonism.org? If there is, I didn't know about it.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:57 am Post subject:
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood.
On another subject, what does bourgeois socialist
mean? Is it another way of saying liberalism or reformism or something?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 04:59 am Post subject:
|
|
No organization. I just registered this domain name. I
was a member of the SLP from approximately 1973 to 1980 -- quit.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:01 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
On another
subject, what does bourgeois socialist mean? Is it another way of
saying liberalism or reformism or something?
|
Basically, yes, it's another way of saying
reformism. Here's Marx and Engels' definition, from the Communist
Manifesto:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
(It's section 2 of the above Part.)
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
No
organization. I just registered this domain name. I was a member of the
SLP from approximately 1973 to 1980 -- quit.
|
Then I'm sure you're aware of the crisis they're
going through right now: lost their office; no money to print The
People; etc. I may not agree with every dot and comma that the SLP
puts out, but I think it's a damn shame that The People seems to
be down for the count. The League even published a little appeal in our
own paper about it, telling our readers how they could help get it going
again, if they were so inclined.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:10 am Post subject:
|
|
Question to henry miles from ds:
As a political proposition what would you think of
the workers running candidates for congress for the express purpose of
amending the US Constitution to specifically recognize a right of the
workers to establish an industrial union to collectively operate the
industrial means of production?
hm answer:
It would certainly be a meaningful reform, and I
tend to think we'd join in the movement to see that it happens.
ds:
Here is the text of a proposed amendment. After you
have read it, I would be interested to know if you would still consider
it a reform? A reform of what?
text of a proposed workers' amendment:
Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective
ownership and control of the means of production and distribution shall
not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
Section 2. The workers have a right to organize
into industrial unions which shall control and operate the means of
production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the
workers at all times democratically determine.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:19 am Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
I guess the
question here hinges on the definition of "the state". I tend
to hold to Marx's view that the state in a specialized instrument of
repression, created and "perfected" by the ruling class to
suppress all other classes and maintain its version of "law and
order", and is composed of the "bodies of armed men" --
the police and intelligence services, the prison system, the military
and officer corps, etc. If we go by that definition, then, no, I do not
think the state can be "captured" in any way other than how a
unit of soldiers captures and holds enemy prisoners.
|
This way of looking at it may be my ideosyncracy,
not precisely the same as the terms that other De Leonists use, but:
I think the issue is that the U.S. has a very solid
tradition of civilian control of the violent agencies of the state, that
is, from the local police chief to the commander of the army and
everything in between, they are all either publicly elected offices or
the appointees of publicly elected offices.
So the question boils down to whether, on the day
the workers are grabbing control of the means of production for the first
time, do we want the orders that are delivered within the violent
agencies of the state to be: (1) "Troops, your orders are to
massacre the workers" [and then hope they will disobey it] -- or --
(b) "Troops, your orders are to NOT interfere with the workers in
any way; in fact, just go home."
So, elect socialists to be the officials of these
lethal agencies, and I think that it may save a million lives.
This reasoning is not necessarily applicable to all
political systems. I have been told that Chile at the time of Allende did
NOT have a strong tradition of civilian control over the military.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:21 am Post subject:
|
|
I wasn't aware of the SLP losing their office.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:31 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Here is the
text of a proposed amendment. After you have read it, I would be
interested to know if you would still consider it a reform? A reform of
what?
text of a proposed workers' amendment:
Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and
control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions
which shall control and operate the means of production and
distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all
times democratically determine.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
|
The problem I see is with Section 1. I think it is
a formulation issue, because I believe I see what you're getting at. The
problem is that while you prohibit "exclusion of the workers from
collective ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution", you do not prohibit private ownership of the means of
production itself. That is, the way this would be interpreted by a
constitutional court is that collective ownership is not prohibited, but
neither is private ownership. Your intent might be to exclude private
ownership, but since it is not explicit, it would not be "the law of
the land".
I think the language can be corrected to make it
more of a revolutionizing amendment. But as it stands right now, it is
still only a partial advance (though, yes, a pretty big one).
Five years ago, some of us put together a
"Working People's Bill of Rights" for electoral work we were
doing, which had something of a similar approach -- amending the current
Constitution, I mean. If I can find a copy of it, I'll post it.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:38 am Post subject:
|
|
I no longer agree with the view of the
"state" that I previously held for almost forty years! I now
believe that the coercive aspects of the state (legislature, police,
courts and jails) are to be reduced in magnitude considerably as they
cease to be devices of class oppression, and maybe even reduced to one
percent of their current magnitude, but whatever then remains of them
cannot be eliminated. To say that they can be entirely eliminated would
be to make an unprovable and therefore unscientific "human
nature" argument, a covert way of asserting that we can have certain
knowledge that a classless society would not have a single murderer or
rapist who needs to be dealt with; not merely to say that it would have
numerically few of them, but to say that it would have literally none.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:39 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
I think the
issue is that the U.S. has a very solid tradition of civilian control
of the violent agencies of the state, that is, from the local police
chief to the commander of the army and everything in between, they are
all either publicly elected offices or the appointees of publicly
elected offices.
So the question boils down to whether, on the day the workers are
grabbing control of the means of production for the first time, do we
want the orders that are delivered within the violent agencies of the
state to be: (1) "Troops, your orders are to massacre the
workers" [and then hope they will disobey it] -- or -- (b)
"Troops, your orders are to NOT interfere with the workers in any
way; in fact, just go home."
So, elect socialists to be the officials of these lethal agencies, and
I think that it may save a million lives.
|
We might be conflicting on language issues here,
and that's all. You're definitely talking here about capturing the
institutions of political power, which, yes, do have formal control of
the state bodies. Based on what I wrote above on this question, I would
expect that, if it were to become possible to "capture" those
positions, among the first executive or legislative orders would be to
tell them to go home, to begin breaking up and disbanding the old
"armed bodies".
But the problem, as stated above, is getting to the
point where that is possible -- if it's even possible at this point
without an extraparliamentary democratic revolution happening first.
(I might argue about the real extent of
civilian control of the state, given the recent movements demanding
civilian review and oversight boards for the police that have developed
in virtually every city and town where incidents of brutality have come
to light.)
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
I think the
issue is that the U.S. has a very solid tradition of civilian control
of the violent agencies of the state, that is, from the local police
chief to the commander of the army and everything in between, they are
all either publicly elected offices or the appointees of publicly
elected offices.
So the question boils down to whether, on the day the workers are
grabbing control of the means of production for the first time, do we
want the orders that are delivered within the violent agencies of the
state to be: (1) "Troops, your orders are to massacre the
workers" [and then hope they will disobey it] -- or -- (b)
"Troops, your orders are to NOT interfere with the workers in any
way; in fact, just go home."
So, elect socialists to be the officials of these lethal agencies, and
I think that it may save a million lives.
This reasoning is not necessarily applicable to all political systems.
I have been told that Chile at the time of Allende did NOT have a
strong tradition of civilian control over the military.
|
Participatory democracy could potentially be the
driver for this peaceful change, as I said. And yes, I did tell you about
Allende in Chile (Chapter 6). ;)
|
Communist League wrote:
|
|
The problem I
see is with Section 1. I think it is a formulation issue, because I
believe I see what you're getting at. The problem is that while you
prohibit "exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and
control of the means of production and distribution", you do not
prohibit private ownership of the means of production itself. That is,
the way this would be interpreted by a constitutional court is that
collective ownership is not prohibited, but neither is private
ownership. Your intent might be to exclude private ownership, but since
it is not explicit, it would not be "the law of the land".
|
I addressed this with Dave recently:
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=336&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
|
Quote:
|
|
HOWEVER, it
could be turned into a directional / transitional demand (if especially
Section 2 were modified). Section 1 says "exclusion" and
"collective," and I was thinking of a "Dual Power"
situation like in Russia (Provisional Government vs. soviets). The end
to this "exclusion" would not necessarily imply "full
worker ownership and control over the economy" (my draft
"programmatic combination"). Section 1 also does not talk
about "nationalization" vs. expropriation
|
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:45 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
I no longer
agree with the view of the "state" that I previously held for
almost forty years! I now believe that the coercive aspects of the
state (legislature, police, courts and jails) are to be reduced in
magnitude considerably as they cease to be devices of class oppression,
and maybe even reduced to one percent of their current magnitude, but
whatever then remains of them cannot be eliminated. To say that they
can be entirely eliminated would be to make an unprovable and therefore
unscientific "human nature" argument, a covert way of asserting
that we can have certain knowledge that a classless society would not
have a single murderer or rapist who needs to be dealt with; not mere
to say that it would have numerically few of them, but to say that it
would have literally none.
|
Well, the question is whether those kind of
investigative and civil-peace organs, at the point when we are in a
classless society, actually constitute a state. I don't think they do,
both because they are not organs of suppression used by one class against
another for the purposes of maintaining one class' definition of
"law and order", and because they would not be used for
collective policing, but rather for individual policing.
I tend to think that those kind of investigative
and civil-peace entities would look nothing like the police we know of
from capitalism, would be more like specialized laborers doing a job, and
would be wholly accountable to local associations of producers. They
would not constitute a state by any definition.
P.S.: I'm heading to bed for the night. I'll pick
this up tomorrow. This is why I came here!
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:49 am Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
(I might argue
about the real extent of civilian control of the state, given
the recent movements demanding civilian review and oversight boards for
the police that have developed in virtually every city and town where
incidents of brutality have come to light.)
|
True, in that sense of the word
"control", but the people who give them the orders get to
decide in what part of the town or nation those headbusters will be
located in. They can be sent on distracting or "wild goose
chase" assignments, or simply told to take a vacation.
Also, even where they are out of control, they are
out of control in terms of behavior, not in terms of which laws they are
enforcing. Amend the law so that the workers are now the formal owners,
and the dethroned capitalists are the trespassers, and now the rioting
capitalist may be on the receiving end of the overzealous billyclub.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 05:56 am Post subject:
|
|
Now you made me miss "Best Sex Ever" which
was on Cinemax.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 06:34 am Post subject:
|
|
hm to ds re proposed amendment:
while you prohibit "exclusion of the workers
from collective ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution", you do not prohibit private ownership of the means of
production itself.
ds:
You are god dammed right about that, and I will
tell you why it was left out.
I do not envision the means of production as a
monolith. the steel mill and the coffee and pie shop next door. Both are
arguably pieces of the means of production. Are Tillie and Bert and their
daughter Jo, the three owner workers of the coffee and pie shop required
to join the industrial union of coffee and pie workers?
Is the SIU going to be required to incorporate
every coffe and pie shop in the country into the organized industrial
means of production?
If you want to ensure ultimate failure of the siu
function, that would be the way to do it.
To me it would seem far better to have a binary
economy probaby right along with a binary currency system, for a while
anyway.
The amendment proposal purposefully says :
Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership
and control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The
workers have a right to organize into industrial unions ...
If Tillie Bert and Jo are not satisfied with what
they are being paid then they can join the union. However the union might
say if you want to join the union you can, but you can work in an
industrial bakery becuase we're simply not going to pick up a pie and
coffee shop to be a part of any industry.
The same goes for farms. Of course some farm
workers will choose to unionize. Some farms are family farms and will
chose not to. As long as some shop's workers are happy not being in the
industrial union and the shop is a good fit with the rest f the community
then socialism ought to encourage this kind of diversity as much as
possible. IWSTM
So the idea is to not outlaw private ownersip of
the means of production but to allow its free conversion to social
property as the particular workers see fit.
I know that this doesn't fit the anal expulsive
mentality of many on the left but they will have to just grow up.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 06:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague wrote:
|
|
Well, the
question is whether those kind of investigative and civil-peace organs,
at the point when we are in a classless society, actually constitute a
state. I don't think they do, both because they are not organs of
suppression used by one class against another for the purposes of
maintaining one class' definition of "law and order",
|
I avoid calling it a state, for that reason, but
any future society must have laws, mandatory rules, formal authority. Use
of these latter words will repulse the anarchists but honesty requires
that I use these words.
|
Quote:
|
|
and because
they would not be used for collective policing, but rather for
individual policing.
|
What do you mean when you say that?
|
Quote:
|
|
I tend to
think that those kind of investigative and civil-peace entities would
look nothing like the police we know of from capitalism, would be more
like specialized laborers doing a job,
|
If you take something that has a nugget of
relevance, but then change several of its forms and functions, the new
thing may look very different.
I do NOT agree with the usual leftist proposal to
replace the police with a workers' militia or neighborhood militia. Such
a job needs to be done by someone with years of training in psychology
and sociology, in addition to the specialized skill of physically
restraining a crazy person with minimal force and without losing one's
compassion.
|
Quote:
|
|
and would be
wholly accountable to local associations of producers.
|
Why local? A legal system that's as global as
possible can more easily adopt a universal definition and guarantee of
everyone's civil liberties. Locality allows the problem that society may
have little pockets in which people see discriminatory practices, diminished
privacy rights, etc.
Why should one say "producers" instead of
government by the voting adults or citizens?
|
Quote:
|
|
They would not
constitute a state by any definition.
|
The SLP's definition of the state is a rare
mixture, combining class oppression, government of people instead of an
administration of things, and it has nested territories such as counties
and provinces. We all agree that class rule has to go. As I said, I
believe that some amount of coercive government over people will be
necessary permanenty. I believe that government taking the form of nested
territories is grossly inefficient but that is an orthogonal issue, not
necessarily connected with the other parts of the definition of
"state."
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 11:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Also, even
where they are out of control, they are out of control in terms of
behavior, not in terms of which laws they are enforcing. Amend the law
so that the workers are now the formal owners, and the dethroned
capitalists are the trespassers, and now the rioting capitalist may be
on the receiving end of the overzealous billyclub.
|
Not always true. For example, the gang squad in
Detroit has become infamous for selecting which laws they want to enforce
at any given time. There are often times when the enforcers of "law
and order" determine among themselves what constitutes that
doctrine. It is something to watch out for; the bodies of the state will
often pass their own judgment on what constitutes "legal
authority".
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 11:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Now you made
me miss "Best Sex Ever" which was on Cinemax.
|
Well, I missed Robot Chicken and Aqua Teen Hunger
Force, so we're all sacrifing here. :wink:
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
10 Sep 2008 11:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
You are god
dammed right about that, and I will tell you why it was left out.
I do not envision the means of production as a monolith. the steel mill
and the coffee and pie shop next door. Both are arguably pieces of the
means of production. Are Tillie and Bert and their daughter Jo, the
three owner workers of the coffee and pie shop required to join the
industrial union of coffee and pie workers?
Is the SIU going to be required to incorporate every coffee and pie
shop in the country into the organized industrial means of production?
If you want to ensure ultimate failure of the siu function, that would
be the way to do it.
To me it would seem far better to have a binary economy probably right
along with a binary currency system, for a while anyway.
The amendment proposal purposefully says:
Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the
means of production and distribution shall not exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a
right to organize into industrial unions ...
If Tillie Bert and Jo are not satisfied with what they are being paid
then they can join the union. However the union might say if you want
to join the union you can, but you can work in an industrial bakery
because we're simply not going to pick up a pie and coffee shop to be a
part of any industry.
The same goes for farms. Of course some farm workers will choose to
unionize. Some farms are family farms and will chose not to. As long as
some shop's workers are happy not being in the industrial union and the
shop is a good fit with the rest f the community then socialism ought
to encourage this kind of diversity as much as possible. IWSTM
So the idea is to not outlaw private ownership of the means of
production but to allow its free conversion to social property as the
particular workers see fit.
I know that this doesn't fit the anal expulsive mentality of many on
the left but they will have to just grow up.
|
OK, I see your argument, but it does not invalidate
what I said before. The problem you're going to run into is that, unless
it is a constitutional court under a working people's republic that is
passing judgment on the interpretation of this amendment, it's not just
going to be Tillie, Bert and Jo's little coffee shop left in private
hands, but General Motors, Boeing and Microsoft. Remember that bourgeois
right under capitalism applies across all classes, and allowance of
private ownership for one is allowance of private ownership for all. You
may be looking out for the small, independent producer, but unless you
build in some more specific language, you'll be allowing the capitalists
that own the large corporations off the hook, too.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 12:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
I avoid
calling it a state, for that reason, but any future society must have
laws, mandatory rules, formal authority. Use of these latter words will
repulse the anarchists but honesty requires that I use these words.
|
Well, some anarchists, yes. But those who are more
theoretical will be more understanding of your argument, once you start
talking about specifics.
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Quote:
|
|
and because
they would not be used for collective policing, but rather for
individual policing.
|
What do you mean when you say that?
|
Well, such bodies would not be used to suppress a
strike at a factory, or to carry out "crowd control" at a
demonstration. They would exist more to investigate and carry out
civil-peace activity against individual breaches of civil order.
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
I do NOT agree
with the usual leftist proposal to replace the police with a workers'
militia or neighborhood militia. Such a job needs to be done by someone
with years of training in psychology and sociology, in addition to the
specialized skill of physically restraining a crazy person with minimal
force and without losing one's compassion.
|
I don't see where these have to be necessarily
exclusive. I would think that there would be centers of education to
handle training and development for such self-defense militia, but they
would be based on the principles and methods of a post-capitalist society.
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Why local? A
legal system that's as global as possible can more easily adopt a
universal definition and guarantee of everyone's civil liberties.
Locality allows the problem that society may have little pockets in
which people see discriminatory practices, diminished privacy rights,
etc.
|
At the same time, locality can also insure
accountability, since there would be physical and geographical proximity
to where incidents occur. Again, I don't see why there should be exclusivity
here; global laws and standards can enforced and overseen at a local
level.
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Why should one
say "producers" instead of government by the voting adults or
citizens?
|
I guess I'm using language akin to that used by
Marx, when he referred to a classless communist society as a "free
association of producers". "Citizen" can be an arbitrary
or subjective definition (i.e., a "citizen" of where? the
world? a particular region?), and "adult" is certainly
arbitrary and subjective (i.e., what constitutes "adulthood"?
is it an arbitrary age? is it ability to work and contribute to society?)
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
The SLP's
definition of the state is a rare mixture, combining class oppression,
government of people instead of an administration of things, and it has
nested territories such as counties and provinces. We all agree that
class rule has to go. As I said, I believe that some amount of coercive
government over people will be necessary permanently. I believe that
government taking the form of nested territories is grossly inefficient
but that is an orthogonal issue, not necessarily connected with the
other parts of the definition of "state."
|
Personally, I don't think there will be a need for
coercive organs that resemble the current state. As I said above, there
might be a need for bodies that deal with individual issues as they
arise, but they would not fulfill the role of a state, as outlined by
Marx and Engels in their writings. Those kinds of bodies would not
constitute a "state", in my opinion, but I do think they will
be more or less permanent bodies. There's no telling when someone with a
chemical imbalance or genetic defect will go off and massacre a bunch of
people, and there will need to be people to deal with the investigative,
civil-peace and corrections tasks.
I look at the issue very much like the difference
between a permanent officer corps under capitalism and trained elements
that are elected to command at various levels in a communist military.
The two might look similar in form, but the content behind each is
qualitatively different.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 02:11 am Post subject:
|
|
hm:
|
Quote:
|
|
The problem
you're going to run into is that, unless it is a constitutional court
under a working people's republic that is passing judgment on the
interpretation of this amendment, it's not just going to be Tillie,
Bert and Jo's little coffee shop left in private hands, but General
Motors, Boeing and Microsoft.
|
ds:
|
Quote:
|
|
Exclusion of
the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution shall not exist within the United States,
or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers have a right to
organize into industrial unions which shall control and operate the
means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor
as the workers at all times democratically determine. Congress shall
have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
|
ds to hm:
Tell me what you think would have to happen before
this proposed amendment proposal could become the law of the land?
Wouldn't have to be a political revolution that you
had talked about before?
|
Quote:
|
|
You're
definitely talking here about capturing the institutions of political
power .... But the problem ... is getting to the point where that is
possible -- if it's even possible at this point without an extra
parliamentary democratic revolution happening first.
|
"Parliamentary" means a lot of different
things - Parliamentarism usually refers to the idea of possibly
legislating our way through the revolution, a notion pretty universally
rejected on this list anyway.
We have two ways of amending the present
constitution, one is for the US Congress to initiate an amendment
proposal, the second is for state constitutional conventions under state
law to propose same.
As a practical matter - starting from a position of
essentially absolute zero (we admit this if we are honest with ourselves)
- a single person or a small group would start agitating for the workers'
amendment by running a candidate for US Congress, who if elected his or
her main job would be to rail for the amendment.
In order to get even one candidate elected would
take something of a political revolution. I don't want to insinuate my
ideas upon yours but getting even one candidate elected who openly
espoused the amendment proposal might fall into the category of an
"extra parliamentary democratic revolution."
To me there is little ambiguity in the wording of
the proposal that workers at each workplace may socialize that workplace
by organizing an industrial union there.
If you have an idea for a better wording I would be
very happy to see it. BUT I think that the idea is very important to
preserve that workers at each work place have to choose whether to join
the industrial union. It cannot be imposed even by the constitution of
the United States.
If workers indeed have a choice then has to mean
that some work places will choose not to join. We can embrace that
reality with confidence or with trepidation. I suggest confidence. If the
workers at some major corporation decide that they would rather have the
corporation maintain ownership - why should that cause us any
consternation whatsoever? If the workers were politically astute enough
to elect sufficient members of congress and state legislatures to get the
amendment proposal adopted as the organic law of the land I have littler
doubt that state and federal legislation ought to be sufficient to curb
any excesses that might be engendered because of some or even many
workplaces choosing to allow private ownership to continue there.
What do you think?
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 04:25 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Tell me what
you think would have to happen before this proposed amendment proposal
could become the law of the land?
|
Well, you tell me! My initial impression was that
this proposed amendment would be fought beginning under current
conditions and that the movement for it would also seek to improve those
conditions as they grow. If you're proposing this for a different
situation, such as after a working people's political party were
to "capture" the institutions of power and use the amendment to
"bang the gavel" on capitalism, then, yes, the situation would
be fundamentally different.
Nevertheless, being the trained editor that I am, I
would still suggest tightening up the language, if only to make it more
clear.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 04:39 am Post subject:
|
|
hm:
Quote:
The problem you're going to run into is that,
unless it is a constitutional court under a working people's republic
that is passing judgment on the interpretation of this amendment, it's
not just going to be Tillie, Bert and Jo's little coffee shop left in
private hands, but General Motors, Boeing and Microsoft.
ds:
Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership
and control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The
workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall
control and operate the means of production and distribution and allocate
the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically
determine. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
ds to hm:
In order for such an amendment to have been adopted
wouldn't there have to be a political revolution, such as the one that
you talked about ?
|
Quote:
|
|
You're definitely talking here about capturing the institutions of
political power .... But the problem ... is getting to the point where
that is possible -- if it's even possible at this point without an
extra parliamentary democratic revolution happening first.
|
"Parliamentary" means a lot of different
things - Parliamentarism usually refers to the idea of possibly
legislating revolution, a notion pretty universally rejected on this list
anyway.
We have two ways of amending the present
constitution, one is for the US Congress to initiate an amendment
proposal, the second is for state constitutional conventions under state
law to propose same.
As a practical matter - starting from a position of
essentially absolute zero (we admit this if we are honest with ourselves)
- a single person or a small group would start agitating for the workers'
amendment by running a candidate for US Congress, who if elected his or
her main job would be to rail for the amendment.
In order to get even one candidate elected would
take something of a political revolution. I don't want to insinuate my
ideas upon yours but getting even one candidate elected who openly espoused
the amendment proposal might fall into the category of an "extra
parliamentary democratic revolution."
To me there is little ambiguity in the wording of
the proposal that workers at each workplace may socialize the ownership
of that workplace by organizing an industrial union there.
If you have an idea for a better wording I would be
very happy to see it. BUT I think that the idea is very important to
preserve that workers at each work place have to choose whether to join
the industrial union. It cannot be imposed even by the constitution of
the United States.
If workers indeed have a choice then has to mean
that some work places will choose not to join. We can embrace that
reality with confidence or with trepidation. I suggest confidence. If the
workers at some major corporation decide that they would rather have the
corporation maintain ownership - why should that cause us any
consternation whatsoever? If the workers were politically astute enough
to elect sufficient members of congress and state legislatures to get the
amendment proposal adopted as the organic law of the land there would be
little doubt that state and federal legislation ought to be sufficient to
curb any excesses that might be engendered because of some or even many
workplaces choosing to allow private ownership to continue there.
What do you think?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 08:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
If the workers
at some major corporation decide that they would rather have the
corporation maintain ownership - why should that cause us any
consternation whatsoever?
|
I'd agree if you added some conditions. If what you
said applies to cases that don't have large social effects. Maybe they're
one of many places that make gift sets or program videogames. But I think
there should be no private ownership of mines because the resources must
belong to the people. No private ownership of a pharmaceutical lab that
protects "trade secrets" in the formulas for medically
important drugs. No one should be permitted to turn the endangered
rainforests into paper pulp so they can print junk mail with it, or waste
limited petrocarbon fuels on advertising, even if they can
"buy" and therefore "own" the resources that they are
wasting.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 12:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
Sure but assuming there is enough political support
for the amendment to pass it, i.e. super majorities in both houses of
congress and majorities in three fourths of the state legislatures, there
would be ample political clout to #1 simply abrogate all "intellectual"
property protection #2 also come up with an appropriate rent or tax on
mineral extraction. (but you'd want to do the same thing for the
socilized industries as well. Just because they are socialized wouldn't
mean that there going to get free reign over resources.
That doesn't have to be spelled out in the
amendment, congress and the states already have the authority to do that.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 06:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
Hi Henry, Mike, Carl, and Dave:
Very interesting thread indeed. I do agree with
Dave that there will be workers who would rather not be part of the SIU
system. The Amish and Mennonites comes to mind and there will be those
who would rather have small business ventures. And why not? The organization
of labor would mostly be concerned with large and heavy industry such as
mining, agriculture, building large cargo ships, tractors, air
conditioning units, computers, pharmaceutical, etc.
The small businesses would still have to do
business with the organization of labor when Aunt Tillie has to buy
flour, surgar, vanilla, apples, lemon, cherries, rhubarb, custard, etc.
to make her county famous home made pies. Same with the local plumbers
who has to buy tools and pipes to either install plumbing, fix leaks or
clean out the sewer. Then we have air conditioning and heating, which are
mostly very small business ventures, as the plumbers and Aunt Tillie, who
have to obtain air conditioning and or heating units along with copper
pipe, electrical wiring and sheet metal to make vents for installation.
All the pipe, plastic, electric wire, tools, etc., are manufactured today
by large corporations. The idea, I believe, is to bring the idea of the
Amendment Proposal to the American people as a whole so that they can
either own, not through stocks or bonds, the means of production and
distribution rather than privately by corporations. I like the idea of
choice which is a strong American belief.
To go "gun ho" communist style would be a
major turn off to the American people who thinks very differently from
the rest of the world. Communism still scares the heck out of people and
it does me as well. I think this is often ignored by the Left. The
American people would not tolerate the government running every aspect of
the economy or telling people how to live and what they can or cannot
say. The American people believe that socialism is government in full
control over everything therefore the concepts of socialism is
continually rejected by them.
Socialism is the workers themselves running the
means of production apart from government and that message is not being
told. I don't believe it will have an idelogial base either. I may have
wrote this before but I do believe that making after the ownership of production/distribution
becomes reality it should be left alone just to see how it would grow and
mature rather than trying to mandate what Marx or some other idealoge has
written.
Another thing to say that "material
conditions" have to be right for socialism better think again.
Capitalism has gotten very good at adapting in every crisis situation.
Workers adapt to those changes as well and continue to believe the
capitalists has the right to "own" the means of production and
be the boss.
Henry...please get rid of the "Soviet"
symbolisms and the word Communist. That is a very great turn off with a
lot of people.
My prayers are with you Carl :D
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 08:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Henry...please
get rid of the "Soviet" symbolisms and the word Communist.
That is a very great turn off with a lot of people
|
John that commie stuff is the same as kids walking
down the street with pink orange and green dayglow hair and various
pieces of hardware and shrapnel sticking out of their bodies. Sorry Henry
that CP stuff is all for attention, that's what I see anyway.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 09:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
In order to
get even one candidate elected would take something of a political
revolution. I don't want to insinuate my ideas upon yours but getting
even one candidate elected who openly espoused the amendment proposal
might fall into the category of an "extra parliamentary democratic
revolution."
|
Yes and no. I think that such an event could be a
culmination in one phase of such a revolution, but, as I think you would
agree, that electoral campaign would need a mass movement behind it to
see that it happens. I tend to think of the movement as the revolution,
and the candidate-elect as a product of it.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
To me there is
little ambiguity in the wording of the proposal that workers at each
workplace may socialize the ownership of that workplace by organizing
an industrial union there.
If you have an idea for a better wording I would be very happy to see
it. BUT I think that the idea is very important to preserve that
workers at each work place have to choose whether to join the industrial
union. It cannot be imposed even by the constitution of the United
States.
|
OK, here's some ideas. I added a couple of points
that I think would need to be included if you're going to accomplish
something like this.
Here's your original:
|
Quote:
|
|
Section 1.
Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the
means of production and distribution shall not exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions
which shall control and operate the means of production and
distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all
times democratically determine.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
|
Here is what I would have it say:
|
Quote:
|
|
Section 1. No
Chartered Corporation, Company or Incorporated Enterprise with a
combined employment exceeding Fifty (50) persons that produces or
distributes commodities for trade or sale within the United States or
any State, or between the United States and other nations, hereinafter
referred to as the Means of Production and Distribution, shall be
considered a Person by law.
Section 2. Ownership of the Means of Production and Distribution shall
be decided by democratic vote of its non-managing employees,
hereinafter referred to as Workers. If the Workers at each Corporation,
Company or Enterprise shall choose it, those Means of Production and/or
Distribution shall be considered the collective Property of the People
of the United States and of the State in which they live, and shall be
collectively controlled by the Workers.
Section 3. Exclusion of Workers from collective control of the Means of
Production and Distribution shall not exist within the United States or
any State, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 4. All Workers have the right to organize themselves into
Industrial Unions or other similar Bodies, which shall control, manage
and operate the Means of Production and Distribution on a daily basis,
and shall coordinate with other Industrial Unions and other similar
Bodies across Industries and throughout the United States and the State
in which they exist, and allocate the Products of their collective
labor as they at all times determine.
Section 5. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
|
I added sections 1 and 2 to clear up the language,
to define in constitutional terms (which are, admittedly, arbitrary, but
I think they get the job done) what the means of production and
distribution are, and to clarify the process by which we achieve
collective ownership and workers' control of production and distribution.
I think that Section 1 is especially important,
since the law currently defines corporations and such as persons (as per
one of the worst interpretations of the XIV Amendment ever!). This strips
corporations and capitalist enterprises of their "citizenship status"
and opens the door for collective ownership and control to be exercised.
I also beefed up Section 4 a bit, to add
industry-wide and cross-industrial workers' control -- otherwise you run
the risk of Congress legislating state management on a macroeconomic
level.
What do you think?
(Note: I've had some experience with writing
constitutional amendments for ballot initiatives and electoral campaigns,
which is why I was such a prig about the language.)
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
If workers
indeed have a choice then has to mean that some work places will choose
not to join. We can embrace that reality with confidence or with
trepidation. I suggest confidence. If the workers at some major
corporation decide that they would rather have the corporation maintain
ownership - why should that cause us any consternation whatsoever? If
the workers were politically astute enough to elect sufficient members
of congress and state legislatures to get the amendment proposal
adopted as the organic law of the land there would be little doubt that
state and federal legislation ought to be sufficient to curb any
excesses that might be engendered because of some or even many
workplaces choosing to allow private ownership to continue there.
What do you think?
|
I think that if such an amendment was to reach the
point of passage, most, if not all, workers would want to control their
own workplaces, and the need for the loophole would be pointless.
Nevertheless, you never know, so I put the loophole in Section 2.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
11 Sep 2008 09:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Henry...please
get rid of the "Soviet" symbolisms and the word Communist.
That is a very great turn off with a lot of people
|
John that commie stuff is the same as kids
walking down the street with pink orange and green dayglow hair and
various pieces of hardware and shrapnel sticking out of their bodies.
Sorry Henry that CP stuff is all for attention, that's what I see
anyway.
|
Well, I can tell you from my experience that it's
not as bad as it used to be. Most people (workers) we talk with ask more
questions than assume answers. We've been able to redefine their
understanding of communism, and they are much more positive about it as a
result.
And, for the record, the hammer and sickle
pre-dates the "Soviet" period. In fact, it was used by European
and North American socialists as early as the last decade of the 19th
century. Even De Leon's SLP used it once or twice in their literature,
IIRC. Yes, a lot of people associate it with the "official
Communists" and what-not, but a lot of others don't even know what
it means.
I remember talking a couple years ago to a woman
worker in her 40s at a 7-11 in Frederick, Maryland. I was wearing a
hammer-and-sickle pin and she asked me about it. At first, I was a little
gun-shy, expecting to get the typical anti-communist response. I moved a
little closer and she got a good look at it. "It's a hammer and
sickle," I said. "What does that stand for?" she asked.
After I picked my jaw up off the floor (proverbially), I explained that
it was a symbol of the unity of workers in the urban and rural areas and
of the communist movement. "Communism? I've heard that before. What
does it mean?" A comrade who was with me and I stood there and
talked about workers' control of production, a working people's republic
and a classless communist society, about the role and power that workers
like her actually had. Today, she has the pin I was wearing and is a Friend
of the League.
I hate to say it, but it seems that only
"seasoned leftists" and their fellow-travelers give the kind of
responses you two have given. My experiences have been different.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 04:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
That doesn't
have to be spelled out in the amendment, congress and the states
already have the authority to do that.
|
The Constitution says, if private property is taken
away from anyone for public use, compensation must be paid. So where is
the authority you cite?
The amendment says workers can control industry but
it doesn't say the capitalist is deprived of ownership. This may be
construed to mean that the capitalist and profiteering shall rule but
subject to a more liberal degree of regulations than before.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 05:29 am Post subject:
|
|
Based on my experiences in this rural section of New
York State and my advanced :o) age of 54, I agree with John about the bad
connotations of the hammer'n'sickle and the word communist. In fact, most
people around here believe that the word and the symbol, and the red flag
also, _mean_ by definition "that's where there is no freedom",
"it means the whole country is one big prison camp", "at
night people make a run for it, they dash through machine gun fire and
try to climb over the Berlin Wall", "people diving into
shark-infested water to escape from Cuba."
The word socialism doesn't have that connotations
(except in the Libertarian Party where socialism and slavery are
synonyms). Most people mainly associate the word socialism with
inefficiency, bureaucracy and high taxes -- or, in a more pure form,
"pure socialism", the popular connotation is "a beautiful
dream that will never happen and it would never work" -- a
troublesome set of connotations, but not quite as bad as the machine guns
and extermination camps of "communism."
Your choice to pick your own name. It's your time
to dedicate, to decide which stumbling blocks you want to work on
overcoming. Maybe for myself I like a path of least resistance.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 12:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
ds:
|
Quote:
|
|
In order to
get even one candidate elected would take something of a political
revolution. I don't want to insinuate my ideas upon yours but getting
even one candidate elected who openly espoused the amendment proposal
might fall into the category of an "extra parliamentary democratic
revolution."
|
hm:
|
Quote:
|
|
Yes and no. I
think that such an event could be a culmination in one phase of such a
revolution, but, as I think you would agree, that electoral campaign
would need a mass movement behind it to see that it happens. I tend to
think of the movement as the revolution, and the candidate-elect as a
product of it.
|
ds:
Do you see some important difference between what I
wrote:
"getting even one candidate elected who openly
espoused the amendment proposal might fall into the category of an 'extra
parliamentary democratic revolution.'"
and what you wrote?:
I tend to think of the movement as the revolution,
and the candidate-elect as a product of it.
[/quote]
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
hm proposal:
|
Quote:
|
|
Section 1. No
Chartered Corporation, Company or Incorporated Enterprise with a
combined employment exceeding Fifty (50) persons that produces or
distributes commodities for trade or sale within the United States or
any State, or between the United States and other nations, hereinafter
referred to as the Means of Production and Distribution, shall be
considered a Person by law.
Section 2. Ownership of the Means of Production and Distribution shall
be decided by democratic vote of its non-managing employees,
hereinafter referred to as Workers....
|
and hm commented:
I think that Section 1 is especially important,
since the law currently defines corporations and such as persons (as per
one of the worst interpretations of the XIV Amendment ever!). This strips
corporations and capitalist enterprises of their "citizenship
status" and opens the door for collective ownership and control to
be exercised.
ds writes:
On the one hand you acknowledge that it would take
a revoluiton to get candidates elected openly espousing the amendment
(the original amendment proposal anyway) but then you come up with text
that does not assume that revolution has occurred.
hm's Section 1 - corporations as persons??
hm's Section 2 - "ownership" implies the
ability to alienate that propeorty through sale.
The existing proposal says in part:
"Exclusion of the workers from collective
ownership and control of the means of production and distribution shall
not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions
which shall control and operate the means of production and distribution
and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times
democratically determine."
You will notice that the current proposal does not
give current workers an unfettered ability to "determine
ownership" (an ability to alienate) - under the original proposal
where the workers have exercized their right to organize into industrial
unions which shall control and operate the means of production and
distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all
times democratically determine, law will not recognize any other form
other than the workers' collective ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution - so they will not in principle be able to
sell it (an attribute of determining ownership)
If the original is suffient to accomplish what we
want then any additions to the original actually take away from it.
And just as an aside - the concept of a corporation
as a person itself is hardly offensive to the idea of collective
ownership of the means of production by the workers when the law
invalidates all ownship except collective ownershio and control of the
means of production where the workers organize into industrial unions.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 01:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
ds originally wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
#1 simply
abrogate all "intellectual" property protection #2 also come
up with an appropriate rent or tax on mineral extraction. (but you'd
want to do the same thing for the socilized industries as well. Just
because they are socialized wouldn't mean that there going to get free
reign over resources.
That doesn't have to be spelled out in the amendment, congress and the
states already have the authority to do that.
|
and ml commented:
|
Quote:
|
|
The Constitution says, if private property is taken away from anyone
for public use, compensation must be paid. So where is the authority
you cite?
The amendment says workers can control industry but it doesn't say the
capitalist is deprived of ownership. This may be construed to mean that
the capitalist and profiteering shall rule but subject to a more
liberal degree of regulations than before.
|
ds writes:
I am pretty sure that this is correct that
"intellectual property" is psudo-property. It exists only where
positive law provides for it. The U.S. Comgress could without
constitutional violation end all intellectual property simply by
repealing all intellectual property laws.
Under the current constitution congress also has
the power to tax mineral extraction to any degree it wishes.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 08:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Your choice to
pick your own name. It's your time to dedicate, to decide which
stumbling blocks you want to work on overcoming. Maybe for myself I
like a path of least resistance.
|
I guess I'm not a big fan of
"shortcutting" or "shorthanding" things. Even when I
talk about politics, I concentrate more on the specifics -- workplace
committees, workers' control of production, working people's republic,
etc. -- than attempting to encapsulate it all in a single term, like
"socialism" or "communism". This may be why I don't
run into such resistance to calling myself or my politics
"communist"; I get it to a point where I define what I/we stand
for and then say something, "This is what we see as communism/being
a communist", which does get them to acknowledge (at least to
themselves) that there is more than one definition of the term. This
method works really well, too.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 08:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
The
Constitution says, if private property is taken away from anyone for
public use, compensation must be paid. So where is the authority you
cite?
|
The V Amendment says, "... nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation." The term
"just compensation" is the key term here. It's a subjective
category, determined by the government, not the individual or group of
individuals deprived of the private property. The government can decide
that no amount of remuneration or compensation is really
"just", and therefore take control of the property without
paying anything out. As well, they can do what occurred with the
nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and decide that "just
compensation" is paying the owners and top managers the balance of
their contract.
Personally, I've always thought that a
"buyout" of the individual capitalists would be more preferable
to other methods of removing them from the scene. Offer to set them up on
the Caymans or some other islands with everything they'd need for the
rest of their lives, and in exchange they don't contest the seizure and
socialization of the means of production.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 08:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Do you see
some important difference between what I wrote:
"getting even one candidate elected who openly espoused the
amendment proposal might fall into the category of an 'extra
parliamentary democratic revolution.'"
and what you wrote?:
I tend to think of the movement as the revolution, and the
candidate-elect as a product of it.
|
Not really. Just pointing out differences in
emphasis. I'm not trying to start an argument about it.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 09:10 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
On the one
hand you acknowledge that it would take a revoluiton to get candidates
elected openly espousing the amendment (the original amendment proposal
anyway) but then you come up with text that does not assume that
revolution has occurred.
|
My understanding was that this amendment was to be
proposed as an addition to the existing Constitution. If you are choosing
to go that route, then, yes, you have to come up with text that fits it
as it is today. If I am wrong, and you're proposing a new Constitution
that is along different lines, then please let me know.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
The existing
proposal says in part:
"Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of
the means of production and distribution shall not exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The workers
have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control and
operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the
products of labor as the workers at all times democratically
determine."
You will notice that the current proposal does not give current workers
an unfettered ability to "determine ownership" (an ability to
alienate) - under the original proposal where the workers have
exercised their right to organize into industrial unions which shall
control and operate the means of production and distribution and
allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times
democratically determine, law will not recognize any other form other
than the workers' collective ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution - so they will not in principle be able to
sell it (an attribute of determining ownership)
If the original is sufficient to accomplish what we want then any
additions to the original actually take away from it.
|
The problem is that it is insufficient. There are
too many loopholes and contradictions with existing law that it would
take years and years of court litigation and new legislation to
straighten it out. OK, yeah, there will already be some of that going on,
but the lack of a clear and comprehensive constitutional mandate will
present added problems.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
And just as an
aside - the concept of a corporation as a person itself is hardly
offensive to the idea of collective ownership of the means of
production by the workers when the law invalidates all ownership except
collective ownership and control of the means of production where the
workers organize into industrial unions.
|
Actually, it is, and Mike had sort of begun to
bring it up in his last post. The V Amendment says, "nor shall any
person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law". If a corporation is recognized as a person, as per
constitutional interpretation, then they cannot, constitutionally
speaking, be deprived of their property without due process.
Look, I'm not trying to be impossible with you, but
I do have an understanding of how this will be argued out. I think it's
better to cover all the bases than it is to leave anything to chance. To
use another baseball analogy, it's still better to hit a home run than a
stand-up triple.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 10:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
hm:
|
Quote:
|
|
The government
can decide that no amount of remuneration or compensation is really
"just", and therefore take control of the property without
paying anything out. As well, they can do what occurred with the
nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and decide that
"just compensation" is paying the owners and top managers the
balance of their contract.
Personally, I've always thought that a "buyout" of the
individual capitalists would be more preferable to other methods of
removing them from the scene. Offer to set them up on the Caymans or
some other islands with everything they'd need for the rest of their
lives, and in exchange they don't contest the seizure and socialization
of the means of production.
|
ds:
Buy them out so they don't contest the seizure and
socialization of the mop??
We bought out King George or we adopted a
Declaration of Independence?
We paid the slave holders for their property in
slaves or we dispossed them as a wartime measure by the Emancipation
Proclamation and generalized it and made it permanent through the 13th
Amendment.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 10:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
davesearles wrote:
And just as an aside - the concept of a corporation
as a person itself is hardly offensive to the idea of collective
ownership of the means of production by the workers when the law
invalidates all ownership except collective ownership and control of the
means of production where the workers organize into industrial unions.
hm ansered:
Actually, it is, and Mike had sort of begun to
bring it up in his last post. The V Amendment says, "nor shall any
person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law". If a corporation is recognized as a person, as per
constitutional interpretation, then they cannot, constitutionally
speaking, be deprived of their property without due process.
ds replies:
Henry, the 5th amedment was in place when the
slaveholders were dispossed under the Emancipation Proclamation and the
13th Amendment - you didn't read that article on the 13th amendment did
you?
The amendment changes the entire law including the
prior portions of the constitution. The amendment proposal, if you will
read the thirteenth amendment was structured as much as possible word for
word with the 13th amendment. It ought to be able to hold some water
therefore, I would think anyway.
And in any event nothing of this has one bit to do
with corporations as persons. Whether or not they are considered to be
persons (a minor distiction relevant in only a limited number of
instances under the law) a corporation can still own property whether or
not it is considered a person, by reason of the charters granted to them
by the various states and government entities to do just that.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 11:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Henry, the 5th
amendment was in place when the slaveholders were dispossessed under
the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment - you didn't read
that article on the 13th amendment did you?
The amendment changes the entire law including the prior portions of
the constitution. The amendment proposal, if you will read the
thirteenth amendment was structured as much as possible word for word
with the 13th amendment. It ought to be able to hold some water
therefore, I would think anyway.
|
Believe me, I've read the XIII Amendment often
enough to know what it says. That amendment redefined those held as
slaves and indentured servants as non-property, not a different
kind of property. If we were to define the MOP as non-property, then
your argument would hold water. However, we are talking about redefining
the property relations, not whether the MOP are property.
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Whether or not
they are considered to be persons (a minor distinction relevant in only
a limited number of instances under the law) a corporation can still
own property..., by reason of the charters granted to them by the
various states and government entities to do just that.
|
But if you are seeking to deprive these
corporations of their private ownership of the MOP, then the question of
whether the corporation has rights is immediately raised. Current
interpretation of the V and XIV amendments says yes; so unless you
address that concretely, you will run into problems.
|
|
|
CommunistLeague
|
|
Posted:
12 Sep 2008 11:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Buy them out
so they don't contest the seizure and socialization of the mop??
We bought out King George or we adopted a Declaration of Independence?
We paid the slave holders for their property in slaves or we
dispossessed them as a wartime measure by the Emancipation Proclamation
and generalized it and made it permanent through the 13th Amendment.
|
Well, did you want the Third Revolution to be as
peaceful as possible or violent and bloody like the First ("We
bought out King George or we adopted a Declaration of
Independence?") and Second ("We paid the slave holders for
their property in slaves or we dispossessed them as a wartime measure by
the Emancipation Proclamation and generalized it and made it permanent
through the 13th Amendment?")?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
| |