Author

Message

davesearles

PostPosted: 25 Feb 2008 12:34 pm    Post subject: IWW

John wrote (in another topic):

I don't think Socialist (definitely the Leninist don't think) want an actual definition of Socialism but would rather do reforms instead. This is puzzling to me. That is why I believe the IWW has a better concept of workers owning the means of production through an organization of labor.

Dave:

That IWW is just plain maddening as to politics - the workers may have a political voice but not through them at all. They have NO position on anything political, not even a constitutional amendment for the workers to set up the "one big union". It's all to magically happen some how, some way.

IWW preamble:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 26 Feb 2008 09:23 am    Post subject:

I don't think an amendment is needed for the workers to establish the one big union, but I think an amendment is needed for that union to do more than collective bargaining and actually change the system.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 26 Feb 2008 09:44 am    Post subject:

If the IWW simply didn't want to take a position on which of two or more socialist parties is better, which was the major argument between 1905 and 1908, I would agree with that. But it's absurd that they won't even take a stand that support for a socialist party better than supporting an ultra-conservative or even a fascist party. Why is that? Do they want to make sure that they don't say anything that might offend any ultra-conservatives that are considering joining the IWW? As if they would want to join!

The Greenman

PostPosted: 26 Feb 2008 02:04 pm    Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Quote:

That IWW is just plain maddening as to politics - the workers may have a political voice but not through them at all. They have NO position on anything political, not even a constitutional amendment for the workers to set up the "one big union". It's all to magically happen some how, some way.



Mike responded I don't think an amendment is needed for the workers to establish the one big union, but I think an amendment is needed for that union to do more than collective bargaining and actually change the system.

That's it Mike. The ability to go beyond collective bargaining to change the system. The IWW has kept politics out of their union but the members of the IWW can participate in politics so long as they leave it outside the door during a union meeting but I have heard speeches on YouTube by individual IWW members making political demands for better housing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xXgp2ia16d0&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ABFRePTkD8Q&feature=related

The members are not apolitical. I don't think the IWW will ever abandon being non-political. That is good in a lot of ways because the unions we have today support the Capitalist Parties of the Left and the IWW could follow suite if they became political. However, the IWW cannot be left out of the picture. They believe "By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." Some members of the IWW can actually be rallied to support a Socialist Political Party. But the Party has to has to make a clear understanding as to what Socialism is and I don't see anything of the sort to suggest what Socialism means anywhere except the idea of the government nationalizing and running production and distribution. I believe Leninism has had a big impact in Socialist thinking and there are many Leninist who are members of differing Leftist Parties. What was the term you used Mike when people en mass join a political organization for the purpose of making idealogical change?

John T.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 26 Feb 2008 03:51 pm    Post subject:

If and when any if the Socialist Parties within the U.S., and anywhere else, define what Socialism is then we may see more support from the average Joe and Jane. As far as the political goes, as a suggestion from my point of view, the Socialist political government would still have to make political mandates on the industrial union as to keep toxic waste from being dumped into creeks, pounds, rivers, lakes, oceans, and other environmental concerns. Upkeep of the infrastructure and to plan, give everyone the right to health care and decent dwellings in which the All Industrial Congress would have to plan and set in motion. To tally labor hours and universal labor hours for the use of Labor Time Vouchers and to set prices on all commodities and materials. Apart from the industrial union the political government would have to maintain rights and liberties of the individual and to have courts of law for those who do crimes against another individual or group. Everything has to be very simple rather than complicate matters with demands on the present system. Some other organization should do that but it should never be identified as Socialism.

John T.

davesearles

PostPosted: 27 Feb 2008 06:26 pm    Post subject:

theoretically there is no absolute condition for socialism to occur (as the IWW advocates, worker control of the industries, one big union) for the US Constitution to be amended to alter the laws of ownership of the means of production.

And I can see that the IWW would not want to support one political party over another. Supporting a constitutional amendment to alter the law of ownership of the industries is not the support of a political candidate. They take their non-politics so far that they will not oppose the basic law of capitalism, or so it seems.

What could be possibley be counter to the idea of worker control of industry to say even in the broadest terms: "we want the basic law changed which allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production "?

Let's put it the other way round - suppose there was an amendment afoot to ban labor unions outright. Would the current apparent policies of the IWW organization prohibit it from offering even a whisper of protest?

Dave

mikelepore

PostPosted: 27 Feb 2008 07:22 pm    Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

the term you used Mike when people en mass join a political organization for the purpose of making idealogical change



It's called raiding an organization.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 27 Feb 2008 07:33 pm    Post subject:

John wrote:

but I have heard speeches on YouTube by individual IWW members making political demands for better housing.

 

Dave wrote:

Let's put it the other way round - suppose there was an amendment afoot to ban labor unions outright. Would the current apparent policies of the IWW organization prohibit it from offering even a whisper of protest?



IWW speeches and literature often contain political and legal demands, some things they support and some things they oppose. Nothing unusual there. When they say they are nonpolitical they only mean they won't advise people to vote, or whom to vote for. IWW members and literature may say, "Force the congress to pass this legislation by threatening that, if they don't, we'll have a general strike and shut down the country's food distribution." But they won't say: "Get the congress to pass this legislation by encouraging voters to vote for candidates who pledge to support the legislation."

So I would foresee some degree of support in the IWW for the amendment. They just wouldn't support any *candidate* who supports the amendment. Instead, they would probably say things like boycott things and set up barricades and block things and sabotage things and keep applying that pressure until the legislatures pass the amendment -- do anything but vote.

There would be some others in the IWW who would oppose the amendment because they believe that government should be either ignored or "smashed", but not changed.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 28 Feb 2008 05:53 pm    Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

When they say they are nonpolitical they only mean they won't advise people to vote, or whom to vote for. IWW members and literature may say, "Force the congress to pass this legislation by threatening that, if they don't, we'll have a general strike and shut down the country's food distribution." But they won't say: "Get the congress to pass this legislation by encouraging voters to vote for candidates who pledge to support the legislation."



That's about what I think. The IWW as an organization won't tell their members to vote or support a political candidate. However, individual IWW members may in fact do vote considering the political demands that are made.

On the other hand, the IWW has the industrial structure it just may have to be politically mandated for labor time accounting to determine those scales of pay and prices. Many may not like it calling it a different form of wage slavery.

John T.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2008 03:15 pm    Post subject:

I am still not convinced that the IWW is wrong for keeping politics out of the union. I think this allows for a wide variety of people to be members without having to be concerned over the differing political views that are held. It does not stop members from being political. I do know that IWW members are members of the SP-USA. One thing that always brewing in my mind is that there is no mention of new economics and the system to go with it. As far as I can tell I have not run across it except for those website which try to promote participatory economics, i.e., paracon which believes that some sort of empathy has to exist for it to work.

I see the Labor Time Voucher being much more efficient and simpler to use. Work--->labor credit earned electronically and deposited into personal accounts (deductions or creation of labor credit units for the public electronic fund)--->exchange credits for anything like clothes, building materials, furniture, food, etc.--->credits cease to exist after electronic transaction is completed. Public fund electronic units pay for those in health care in which labor credits are earned (deductions or creation of labor credit units for the public fund), education, social services, etc. That's easy to comprehend. Who gets what when they work would depend on stress and caloric expenditure. All work is different and I guess that is another aspect that would justify a *gasp* pay scale. There are those who think that the LTV system smacks of Capitalism. How when profits are done away with. Marx wrote this:

Quote:

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.



I don't see how a Communist society can be created from the get go. Perhaps a Communist society is nothing more than wishful thinking. Because we are all different I can see that being reflected in our work. Though Socialism can address some of the societal ills of Capitalism Socialism may have it's own societal ill to address. Socialism does not make a perfect world but hopefully can better it.

John T.

davesearles

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2008 06:41 pm    Post subject:

I am still not convinced that the IWW is wrong for keeping politics out of the union.

There is politics and politics.

We ought to vote for Joe Schmoe is one and the people ought support a constitutional change from private ownership of the means of production to social ownership seems to be another.

I do not see IWW engagng in either.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 08 Mar 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject:

It's a matter of time when the members of the IWW realize that support for a candidate for the common ownership of the means of production would be for their benefit. Once that happens the entire organization follows. Until then we work with what we got and hope for the best. :D

davesearles

PostPosted: 09 Mar 2008 03:50 am    Post subject:

Oh I'm not suggesting that they support a candidate who pushes such an amendment.

But many, too too many people in this country have gotten so damned cynical about GOVERNMENT and the STATE that they haven't read THEIR constitution ---- We the People of the United States do ordain and establish the constitution.

We individual people express our thoughts to other individual people - participate in the marketplace of idea as Jefferson said to build a consensus as to what ought to be. A person or an organization doesn’t have to support a candidate running for office in order for that or organization person to help promote the idea of industrial democracy.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 09 Mar 2008 04:40 pm    Post subject:

Dave, I understand what you are saying. A lot of people don not read the Constitution are both cynical of the government and the State. I find it ironic that the IWW searches out every labor law written to use but on the other hand, refuse to engage in any sort of demand in local law for the common ownership of the means of production and that would include Constitutional change. I know I wrote that I felt that it was good that the organization was not political simply because they just might end up Capitalistic as the other trade unions.

John T.

davesearles

PostPosted: 10 Mar 2008 02:30 am    Post subject:

the IWW searches out every labor law written to use but on the other hand, refuse to engage in any sort of demand in local law for the common ownership of the means of production


Its real potential strength and they don't use it.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 10 Mar 2008 10:05 am    Post subject:

Ah, now it makes better sense. Laws that came about were not just randomly written and voted on. They came about by political demand that "something had to be done to make a change." The political demand for the public ownership of production has to be made by the very people themselves. I can see how those on revleft were already defeated because they already raised the white flag to the Capitalist vowing not make any political demands, but on the other hand, threaten the Capitalist with bloody revolution which no person in their right mind would want. No one wants a Leninist One Party State except for the Leninist. It's sort of strange the Anarchist-Syndicalist will use labor laws but won't make political demands. They sort of use the political gun by only firing warning shots.

Another thing comes to mind. Many people are cynical of government and the State. But those who do read the Constitution tend to be on the Right rather than the Left. I believe they are politically active workers who believe that Socialism would destroy their Civil Rights and Liberties. I can imagine how that came about during the Soviet Union era with human rights abuses. Has the Left gone so against the Constitution and our form of government to the point of being crippled?

John T.

davesearles

PostPosted: 10 Mar 2008 11:19 am    Post subject:

JT:

I believe they (conservatives) are politically active workers who believe that Socialism would destroy their Civil Rights and Liberties.

DAS:

or perhaps the simpler explanation, they can't envision worker control of the means of production. (And I would suggest that this applies to people on the left as well.)

The Greenman

PostPosted: 10 Mar 2008 11:52 pm    Post subject:

Dave, that hit the nail on the head. The question in my mind is why the Left can not envision workers owning and operating the means of production? Here the IWW exist being a collective bargaining union which really is not much different from other unions except their preamble states that Capitalism must end. I can see where they are organized with Industrial Unions. They are non-political except for some members who make demands on the present system. But you are right, there is no political demand for the workers to own the means of production even though they operate them. They missed the mark.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 11 Mar 2008 04:36 am    Post subject:

Or some on the left do call for workers to control the means of production, but have a mushy idea of what that would really involve. Some tell me that they don't think their should be any managers, even worker-elected ones, because that would be "authority", which is supposedly bad. Many of them say that a management job i a socialist system would "become a new ruling class". They have no idea of how many details have to shuffled to run a plant. People often comment on what a frustrating degree of planning has to go into an event like a wedding reception, etc., well, just try arranging all of the activities of all of the people who make all of the parts that go into a television receiver. The anarchy-tending leftists who think that technology can just snap together spontanoeusly don't know what they're talking about.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 11 Mar 2008 11:52 am    Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

Or some on the left do call for workers to control the means of production, but have a mushy idea of what that would really involve. Some tell me that they don't think their should be any managers, even worker-elected ones, because that would be "authority", which is supposedly bad. Many of them say that a management job in a socialist system would "become a new ruling class". They have no idea of how many details have to shuffled to run a plant. People often comment on what a frustrating degree of planning has to go into an event like a wedding reception, etc., well, just try arranging all of the activities of all of the people who make all of the parts that go into a television receiver. The anarchy-tending leftists who think that technology can just snap together spontaneously don't know what they're talking about.



Capitalist do hire managers to direct a factory or store and then the managers either hire or appoint others to manage individual departments. However, if there was no directing by those professionals then production (including distribution) would become sloppy and inefficient. The difference with Socialism is that the people would elect those who have leadership abilities to direct the operation of factories, etc. Then those managers would appoint the best qualified people to direct the differing departments. On the other hand, if the manager does a poor job then he/he is voted out and another is voted in. I do believe that under Socialism there would be educational training for leadership roles of managing. I really wonder if there is a fear of educated people by the Left when it comes to actually owning and running the means production.

How does a management job equate to a new ruling class? Under Socialism these people are elected by those within each factory and store being organized as a economic government. It would be rough at first since, after Capitalism is replace with Socialism, the existing managers may have to be ousted. Not all since some would see that their best interest would be to conduct business under Socialism. They would have to adjust to the new economic system of Time labor Vouchers. I see TLVs and the public ownership of production going hand in hand.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Mar 2008 05:49 am    Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

How does a management job equate to a new ruling class?



The anarchists have a phobic reaction to anything that seems like "authority."

That's why I think most of them are subconsciously rebelling against mom and dad and the mean old school principal.

They don't understand that the right kind of authority can simply be sensible (and necessary) control of complicated processes, and it doesn't have to imply slavery.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 12 Mar 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

The anarchists have a phobic reaction to anything that seems like "authority." That's why I think most of them are subconsciously rebelling against mom and dad and the mean old school principal. They don't understand that the right kind of authority can simply be sensible (and necessary) control of complicated processes, and it doesn't have to imply slavery.



Yes, of course! I do recall a new poster on revleft and the advice given was to give mom and dad a hard time because, get this, "You didn't ask to be born." How can a fetus demand that it does not want to be born? A child is conceived because of the union between a man and woman. The child conceived is either the result of two people wanting a child or to manipulate the man or the woman which may be the social outcome of Capitalism. But what do I know?

I see complicated processes where I work at and if everyone did only what they wanted to do the entire department would be in chaos and no orders filled. It would be because no one wanted to wash the dishes, bake a certain type of bread, make donuts, cut meat in the deli, unload truck, etc. Someone has to direct the processes because people are not very willing to do things that actually involves work. That is why I don't have a problem dismissing people who refuse to do their "fair" share of work. I know each person is different and that we all have problems but if a person is going to sit back most of the time, smoke, talk most of the time and tell jokes I don't see the reason for them to be part of the work process of Socialism. A work ethic has to exist in Socialism even though the hours are reduced. If the work day is four hours people have to understand that those four hours are actual work hours that they get in TLVs. This is something the IWW better understand.

When labor time is measured I do hope the equation of down time is included. If machines don't run in a factory and people get TLVs just for being there that would not be fair to the factory that is working getting the same income of TLVs. Right now, thanks to Right Wing propaganda on AM radio, people are being told that Socialism is welfare and an excuse not to work. I would expect that under Socialism more people would have the chance to contribute wherever they work at. Socialism is about work and people have to know that. The difference is that they no longer work a block of time to make profit for the Capitalist. They work for their edification as well as others.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 13 Mar 2008 12:49 am    Post subject:

Like this writer who posted in revleft in mid-February (link to original message).

Note that he doesn't begin with the goal of a classless society or a just society or a well-planned society -- instead he begins with the goal of an "anarchist society".

Then he raises the question: how can the law track down a murderer or a rapist, without, in his words "making the group that does this a source of authority."

Well, duh! If anarchy were the goal, you couldn't! You would have to let the murderer and the rapist run loose. Otherwise it wouldn't be anarchy.

So he senses that there's a problem, but he doesn't realize that he created the problem himself, when he supposed that an "anarchist society" had to be the goal.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 13 Mar 2008 04:32 pm    Post subject:

Most of them shrugged off any idea of a police force thinking that a "volunteer" militia would do just as good or better. The concept of police, in their thinking, equals an obsolete purpose.

Quote:

Well, duh! If anarchy were the goal, you couldn't! You would have to let the murderer and the rapist run loose. Otherwise it wouldn't be anarchy.

So he senses that there's a problem, but he doesn't realize that he created the problem himself, when he supposed that an "anarchist society" had to be the goal.



I wonder why there is such a strong leaning to be either an "Anarchist" or "Leninist" of various shades? But besides being curious I don't see how any sort of "specialized" work could take place with Anarchy. Even in nature there exists forms of hierarchy. I don't think these kids understand that there are leaders and followers everywhere. Even children form groups and follow one or two of their peers who took on leadership roles. What we try to envision in a Socialist society, as you once wrote, that leaders can be used as tools elected by those who believe they are the most qualified.

Quote:

A police department is better solution than a militia. With a continuous department of people specializing in this task, society can see to it that they have a lot of helpful education. We would want them to have studied ethical guidelines, and probably social work and psychology. We want them to be solidly educated to use the minimum amount of physical force. We want them to be educated about individuals' civil liberties. It is also a matter of practiced skill to be able to restrain an out-of-control person in a compassionate way, a fact known to people who work in institutions that house mentally ill patients. The more skills involved, the more there's a need to have people who specialize in it.



That was really good reasoning but even after that they still shrugged it off as I don't see how this would be any different to the current police force as obviously police do have psychologists and are taught to restrain, so I don't see what you're purposing is any different.

You were saying police have psychological training and are taught to use "humane" forms of restraint. I have worked at a detention center and proper restraint methods have to be taught because either you or the the person being restrained could get hurt.

Mike also wrote:

Quote:

The advantages of making police work a specialization are difficult for us to recognize only because of the way today's society perverts the entire role. Today the police departments knowingly recruit wild-west types of personalities who enjoy screaming orders at people and acting out the role of we-heroes versus them-savages. Police are also given promotions and raise according to how many arrests and convictions they win, so instead of seeking the truth itself they are biased toward saying that anyone with shifty eyes is probably guilty. The departments use the filter of the Bureau of Internal Affairs to make police officers somewhat immune from being personal responsible for their misconduct. Some of the excessive force is institutional in origin, for example, the reason Amadou Diallo was shot by a total of 41 police bullets is that the NYPD has a written policy that, once the police begin to shoot at a suspect, they are required to continue shooting the person until all police officers' guns are empty. These procedural outrages make it appear to leftists that the whole idea of having a police department is an outmoded idea. I argue that, once the many kinds of misdirection are removed, police work will be a necessary and useful job.



Very good. The police in our present capitalist Society are rewarded for how many tickets they hand out, how many arrest and how many end up locked up. Bad cops do crimes against the general public or within their department. When they get caught they get exhonorated but not always. Usually their word is taken over their victim. If we ever have something that resembles a Socialist Society then the best aspects of being a police professional would take the front seat because the very nature of society is very different. A volunteer militia may just may be nothing more than a lynch mob if you think about it.

John T.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2008 03:03 pm    Post subject:

I was looking through the IWW website and came across this:
Connolly did not consider himself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, however in 1908 when a split in the IWW occured between the Marxist Daniel De Leon and the Anarcho-Syndicalists, Connolly sided with the Anarcho-Syndicalists. Although De Leon was a major influence on Connolly for many years, he never the less became repulsed over time by De Leon's sectarianism and dogmatism.

De Leon argued for a revolution that involved seizing control of the state by politicians through the election of a Socialist party, and that the role of industrial unions would be to support the party.

Would that sectarianism be the concept of politics? The Socialist political party, in my opinion, does not exist to dictate how the Industrial Unions operate but exist for the Industrial Union to exist and operate legally. The SIU may support the party to get Representatives elected but the party is nothing more than the political arm of the SIU. It is also a separate power being political and not economical. The political arm of the SIU being elected would maintain civil rights, liberties and maintain law and order to protect citizens from those who would otherwise harm them.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2008 07:07 pm    Post subject:

See how far you've come in your social education, John? You've reached the point where it immediately leaps out you on the page when someone makes a false attribution. Of course you're right about that. It's just not correct when some syndicalists claim that De Leon considered the role of the union to be to support the party. With De Leon, it was always the principle that the union is the foundation of the future, the assemblage of workers who will do intelligent planning to allow a classless society to function. The pupose of the party is the fact that government and its laws are a strong power, government may declare either right or wrong principles, depending on who takes control of it, but government can't be ignored.

The "dogmatic" and "sectarian" spitballs are vague to the point of being empty. De Leon's critics might have a point if they were talking about specific actions. De Leon disowned his own son, he literally denied Solon entry into the house, because Solon had joined the SP instead of the SLP. To me, that shows some severe crackpot characteristics in De Leon. But the critics usually aren't talking about specific behaviors. When they say "dogmatic" and "sectarian" they only mean that De Leon argued: this approach is workable, for a list of reasons, and that approach is unworkable, for a list of reasons, and if you adopt a strategy that can only be unworkable then you will be doing more harm than good. The critics merely disagree with De Leon's assessment of which is which there, which socialist strategy is to be recommended and which is to be discarded. So they use "dogmatic" and "sectarian" in a way that is vacuous, devoid of content, nothing but a synonym for "I'm so reasonable, while you're so unreasonable." That's just a ball of fluff. If they have a real position to argue for, let them present it.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2008 07:28 pm    Post subject:

I'm not familiar with Connolly converting to anarcho-syndicalism, so I can't comment on that. All I recall is De Leon and Connelly having two big arguments. One was that Connelly was a devout Catholic and he claimed that De Leon was treading into the territory of being anti-religion. The other argument was that De Leon said that an economic law makes the buying power of workers' wages continuously return to the "living wage" level, so raises in wages, including those raises won through strikes, are only temporary. Connolly had a fit and claimed that De Leon's economic statement was non-Marxian. The truth is, Marx had often said the same thing that De Leon said.

1904, Connelly's reply to De Leon: http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm

The Greenman

PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 10:19 am    Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

I'm not familiar with Connolly converting to anarcho-syndicalism



I can't comment on what that person wrote. Thanks for the link. I see what he means by Socialist trying to indulge in other topics that are not economic or political in nature. Even though some workers win their contract during collective bargaining many workers are without any contract except the contract that got them hired in the first place. Prices are raised to offset wages. So he was wrong on that aspect. On the religious argument I would agree with Connolly that Socialism focus should be upon the economic and political but I never thought for a moment that De Leon was against religious people or religion. Religion will be around for as long as mankind exist. If any religion that should have died out it would have been Judaism. Despite the persecutions and killings they remain steadfast. That can be said of other religions as well. I never read Babel so I cannot comment on that. Whatever women have won in the past century and this century was political I believe.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 29 Mar 2008 02:34 am    Post subject:

This is an interesting document -- the Comitern (the abbreviation for Communist International) (the so-called "international" that was really nothing but a front for the Bolshevik government demanding to have the final say in all worldwide labor movement matters) wrote to the IWW in 1920 to persuade the IWW to change its views about state and political activity.

http://marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/australia/iww/open-letter.htm

They tried to get the IWW to drop the idea of "building the new society within the shell of the old" -- one of the concepts that I believe the IWW is correct about.

They tried to get the IWW to realize that union organization isn't all-sufficient, which I also believe, although I don't believe it in the same sense that the Comintern believed it, since, as we now know, the Bolshevik government was really building up a very repressive regime.

And see the Comintern say: "The Communists are also opposed to the 'State.' They also wish to abolish it – to substitute for the government of men the administration of things." --- We would have to search far to find a better paragon of hypocrisy. When Paine, Thoreau, Marx and Engels predicted the dawning of a day when governments will no longer "govern" people, they were somewhat utopian but sincere. When the Comintern said it, it was strictly in the spirit of P. T. Barnum's dictum that "there's a sucker born every minute."

The Greenman

PostPosted: 30 Mar 2008 08:11 pm    Post subject:

The term Yellow Socialist is unknown to me.

Mike wrote:

Quote:

They tried to get the IWW to realize that union organization isn't all-sufficient, which I also believe, although I don't believe it in the same sense that the Comintern believed it, since, as we now know, the Bolshevik government was really building up a very repressive regime.



Yes, I read that.

Quote:

But unfortunately this cannot be done immediately. The destruction of the capitalist State does not mean that capitalism automatically and immediately disappears. The capitalists still have arms, which must be taken away from them; they are still supported by hordes of loyal bureaucrats, managers, superintendents, foremen and trained men of all sorts, who will sabotage industry – and these must be persuaded or compelled to serve the working class; they still have army officers who can betray the revolution, preachers who can raise superstitious fears against it, teachers and orators who can misrepresent it to the ignorant thugs can be hired to discredit it by evil behavior, newspaper editors who can deceive the people with floods lies and “yellow” Socialists and labor fakers prefer capitalist “democracy” to the revolution. All these people must be sternly repressed.



I see that the "proletarian dictatorship" was meant as the Party's political State. These people they repressed were ordinary people. From our youths we developed to live with a capitalist society. We all have the social norms of this society. To have the social norms of socialism it would have to develop, not forced, over a very long period of time.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 02:46 am    Post subject:

That's right! The bolsheviks, or perhaps that should be spelled bullshitviks, claimed "dictatorship of the proletariat", and then they enslaved the ordinary people. Little school kids were even taught to turn their own parents in to the police! (And they said it was going to be temporary, as in briefness being implied -- and it lasted for over seventy years.)

I hadn't previously heard of the term "yellow socialists" either. From the context in that article, it seems it refers to the gradual reform crowd. I recall that there was, in the Socialist Party of America, a sect, nicknamed the right wing of the SP, that actually said that the public school system, etc. _was_ the socialism that they were talking about.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 01 Apr 2008 02:26 am    Post subject:

Interesting term "Yellow Socialist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism

The IWW was wise enough to reject the Party of Lenin's reasoning of what that dictatorship entailed:
for all these tasks a Government is necessary – a State, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which the workers, through their Soviets, can uproot the capitalist system with an iron hand.

Instead of social norms developing people were to undergo a ruthless enforcement of what the Party believed was Socialism. When force and terror are used the people end up fearing and hating those not only those who are in authority but the very system itself. Does not matter what numbers are used to describe who was imprisoned, tortured or used as slaves--the idea that it was done anyways. No wonder so many people believed socialism as would bring death and destruction and force them to live and share in the poverty while Party members would live high on the hog.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 01 Apr 2008 03:54 am    Post subject:

This one is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_Socialism

Establishing the municipal sanitation and sewer system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was described by many people as socialism.

Uncle Joe Stalin condemning people by the millions to death camps was described by many people as socialism.

Is it any wonder the population is confused?

More than anything else, clarification is needed.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 01 Apr 2008 11:21 am    Post subject:

Over on Youtube I called a bunch of names but what stands out is that that I am broad brushed as a Communist type who follows Lenin's ideology. Definitely there needs to be clarification of who is who. National health insurance is a communist conspiracy along with public education which equals to people who were sent to the gulags. doesn't help when Nazi types chime in .

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 09:14 pm    Post subject:

I think the point has been missed in a lot of the discussion about the IWW. The IWW position on politics is simply this: They reject the De Leonist two pronged approach calling for political as well as economic organization in order to establish socialism, or whatever sort of system the IWW advocates. They believe the economic organization alone is sufficient for accomplishing this task.

I think one of their main problems was they felt that the IWW would become subservient to the SLP or the SP. The anarcho-syndicalist or non-political element seized control, at the 1908 convention I believe, refused to seat De Leon and the pro political group and then voted to remove the political clause from the preamble to the IWW constitution.

This led to the establishment of the Detroit IWW, later called the W.I.I.U. which retained political action as part of its program. There is conflicting information as to whether or not De Leon played a part in organizing this alternate IWW. According to Olive Johnson's booklet Industrial Unionism, De Leon advised against forming the new IWW. The SLP did endorse the WIIU so that leads me to believe that De Leon did at least support its founding. After De Leon's death in 1914 relations between the WIIU and the SLP cooled considerably with the eventual withdrawal of their support and the disbanding of the WIIU in 1924.

Here is the preamble to the WIIU constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the toilers come together ON THE POLITICAL FIELD under the banner of a distinct revolutionary political party governed by the workers class interests, and on the industrial field under the banner of One Great Industrial Union to take and hold all means of production and distribution, and to run them for the benefit of all wealth producers.

The rapid gathering of wealth and the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands make the trades union unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class, because the trades unions foster a state of things which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. The trades unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These sad conditions must be changed, the interests of the working class upheld, and while the capitalist rule still prevails, all possible relief for the workers must be secured. That can only be done by an organization aiming steadily at the complete overthrow of the capitalist wage system, and formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.


This is essentially the original preamble to the IWW constitution. I see by other posts here that the IWW has changed their preamble considerably over the years.

I have stated elsewhere in this forum that I am in favor of reviving genuine industrial unionism, in the form of the W.I.I.U., and I am looking for those who have an interest in doing the same. I would like to see a topic organized in this forum for the purpose of discussing this. In the meantime those who are interested in reviving the W.I.I.U. can contact me off list at cmiller85@verizon.net

davesearles

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 11:25 pm    Post subject:

Dave S. to CM Miller, It seems that we are way beyond the time of labor unions as viable worker's organizations for the time being. But I would love to have it demonstrated how wrong I am on this.


From the book
The I. W. W.: A Study of American Syndicalism
Book by Paul F. Brissenden; Russell & Russell, 1920. 442 pgs.

pp. 253-255

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58949095

===========================================

POST EDITED JUNE 18, 2008 BY M.L. ----- BOOK EXCERPT MOVED TO FILE:

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=wi000001

mikelepore

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 11:26 pm    Post subject:

I hope that goes well, Carl. Aside from my two well-known forms of personal uselessness (that I don't join groups and I don't go anywhere), I may be able to help in some other ways, whether it's computer programming or graphic design or whatever. If you want free web site hosting I can get you that, whether youre hosting your own domain name (xxxx.org) or a subdomain off of this one (xxxx.deleonism.org). If you want me to host web content for you, you can be in charge, that is, you would know the password and I wouldn't. If you want to write up some announcements or press releases in the form of stand-alone documents, as opposed to forum posts, my main page can link to them. I know about some online mailing lists that might be used to obtain publicity. If you want to use this forum, you can start a new topic yourself, or if you find that you need a "category" to contain several topics then just tell me to create it and what you want to to call it (it takes me about three minutes).

mikelepore

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 11:40 pm    Post subject:

Here's one way the IWW baffles me. Officially and supposedly, they are "nonpolitical and not anti-political", so that De Leonists could still, in theory, persuade the individual IWW members to support the political organization, as individuals, with the IWW as a whole remaining hands-off. But then they do what they promised they wouldn't -- they put definitely anti-political articles into their newspaper and web site, which is NOT being "nonpolitical and not anti-political".

This IWW answer to De Leonism, http://www.iww.org/culture/myths/myths3.shtml , says, in part:

"In fact, the IWW proposes almost exactly the same structure as the SLP calls for in its program of Socialist Industrial Unionism, except the IWW rejects the idea that this can be achieved through electoral politics, and because of that basic truth, there is no need for a political party to accompany the IWW's program of industrial unionism. All of the coordination can and will be done by the workers and their industrial unions without the interference of the political state."

They have it backwards. De Leonism doesn't call for "interference" by the state. On the contrary, interference by the state would occur if the union tries to seize the means of production while the capitalist class still controls the state. That interference would come in the form of tremendous violence against the workers. Socialists need to capture the state so that the state will NOT interfere.

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 03:05 am    Post subject:

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides (the IWW and the SLP)

The purpose of political action while capitalism prevails is to advocate the change to socialism and challenge the capitalist parties on the political field. Once the working class is ready for that change the purpose of political action is to capture the political state (through the use of the ballot) and destroy it in favor of the industrial form of government, or put simply, the establishment of genuine socialism. The political arm would then disband as it serves no purpose any longer. The IWW seems to think that the political party of labor would seize political power and hold it, lording it over the workers, like in the former Soviet Union etc etc. Of course, everyone in this forum already knows all this.

As far as reviving the WIIU, as I have stated elsewhere in this forum I just think that there needs to be a genuine working class union in existence, small though it may be. I don't think the IWW fits the bill because they don't advocate political action and they seem to have become more mainstream in that they behave like a business union as far as organizing workers. Not to mention that there is no doubt that they are very anarchist-leaning. While I am not suggesting that the WIIU can provide all the benefits of a trade union (pensions, health care etc.) it can foster worker unity and carry on campaigns in favor of reforms that would give some relief to workers. It would also of course support all worker actions such as strikes and the like. Above all it would educate workers about the need for socialism.

And, should the WIIU grow sufficiently in strength it would form out of its ranks the political party of labor to carry out the mission stated above. In other words I feel that the political side of the De Leonist formula should come out of the union itself.

In keeping with the mission of Industrial Unionism all workers would be able to join, trade unionists included.

There are things that need to be done though. The WIIU constitution needs to be updated and some things added and some removed. I guess I could update it to suit myself but that wouldn't be very democratic. That's not how you form an organization. What is needed is a group of interested individuals who come together, probably online, and discuss how the organization should look and what it's immediate goals should be. All those interested should read over the constitution, suggest the needed updates and changes and then the group would vote on the changes. Once that happens and the new constitution is approved then you have an organization. After that it's a matter of recruiting and promoting.

Any thoughts?

davesearles

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 03:59 am    Post subject:

CMiller, Let me play devil's advocate-

It seems that you are proposing a organization that is not a union but a loose affiliation of workers that perhaps in pockets could become concentrated enough to constitute a union?

Essentially like the present IWW but with a political plank?

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 11:49 am    Post subject:

Yes, basically that would be all it could be in the beginning anyway. I think just the fact that it would be out there advocating worker's issues puts it head and shoulders above the IWW already.

Then, hopefully, as numbers grow, would come a fully fledged political organization to challenge the capitalists on the political field as well as on the economic field.

Just some thoughts.

davesearles

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 12:33 pm    Post subject:

I would be the last person to object were that to happen. Let Mike help you set up your website and see what happens.

Have you taken a look at the developments in thought that have occurred on this list concerning the state? and concerning a mixed economy the other side of the revolution.

+++++++++
For example there seems to be a consensus that one of the political tools that ought to be tried is to run candidates and collect petitions for a constitutional amendment similar to the 13th amendment that eliminates the law of private property concerning the means of industrial production and distribution:

proposed amendment to U.S. Constitution

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++
another example is the open thinking about the idea of the structure of the political state remaining in tact but with the workers in control of the economy and therefore supplanting the current role of capital in controlling the state.

++++++++++++++++++++++
another example is the idea of the desirability of a non-exploitative private economy in a symbiotic relationship with the socialist industrial economy - barbers, hair dressers, tailors, small farmers, cabinet makers, artisans of all descriptions who may choose to remain outside of the industrial economy and barter their wares for other products directly and even for labor shares.

(anyone please correct me if I have strayed from what seems to be consensus on these ideas as they have evolved over the past year.)

I know it's a lot but what are your reactions to these? Are they valuable evolutions of thought in these areas - or just plain outright blasphemy?

Thanks,
Dave Searles

mikelepore

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 01:12 pm    Post subject:

When the SIU gets close the day of victory, like "take, hold and operate" is planned for next month, I think we have a good idea what the SIU is. The workers will be putting the final touch on the structures that need to be ready to take over as management, with necessary departments and elected representatives. But what seems fuzzy to me is - what's going on when the proportion of socialists among the population is very small, stereotypes about socialism dominate working class thinking, etc., as it is today? Isn't any socialist organization, whether it's called political or industrial, really an association that happens to perform some of its activity at the workplace, just as it happens to perform some of its activity at public podiums, in artistic representations, on the internet, in letters to the editor, and every other channel of communication? In the early stage what makes it an SIU? Does it, like the IWW does, say, these two individuals are construction workers, so they're both assigned to I.U. 310, but that person's a teacher and so is assigned to I.U. 630 -- what's the point of doing that if we're nowhere near the day of victory? In what way is it an SIU as contrasted with something else?

I have the same question about a political party. At least until there's a try for the ballot, what is a party? An association of people using any communications medium they have available, whether it's a printing press, a literature table at a street event, call-ins to the local radio program, etc. I'm not clear on what demarcations such as political or industrial mean until we get close to Democracy Day. When victory is close, it's clearer, as De Leon explained the procedure, the people's mandate and backing it up.

davesearles

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 02:13 pm    Post subject:

ML:

But what seems fuzzy to me is - what's going on when the proportion of socialists among the population is very small, stereotypes about socialism dominate working class thinking, etc., as it is today? Isn't any socialist organization, whether it's called political or industrial, really an association that happens to perform some of its activity at the workplace, just as it happens to perform some of its activity at public podiums, in artistic representations, on the internet, in letters to the editor, and every other channel of communication? In the early stage what makes it an SIU? Does it, like the IWW does, say, these two individuals are construction workers, so they're both assigned to I.U. 310, but that person's a teacher and so is assigned to I.U. 630 -- what's the point of doing that if we're nowhere near the day of victory? In what way is it an SIU as contrasted with something else?

DAS:

The amendment model to the rescue -

In order to get to SIU day consensus has to build to the point of overwhelming political support for and pressure by the workers on congress to implement the "will of the people" -

Congress in this case becomes the overseer of all of the administrative parsing as to figuring out the set up. The basic question it seems is how engineer Mike Lepore and every other worker is going to have input into the economic decisions at work while at the same time maintaining individual political input to decisions of the state.

Maybe because of my own particular fuzziness I don't see anything insurmountable in all of the give and take that of course will have to exist.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 08:03 pm    Post subject:

Dave, you didn't convince me of that role for Congress -- to help with the industrial setup. We had a little bit of consensus but that wasn't part of it. What _I_ said was I don't agree with the idea that "the statistics of the wealth needed, the wealth producible, and the work required" (from "The Burning Question ...") is the ONLY kind of government that a classless society will need. I believe that even the most perfected classless society of the future must have a council of law makers, laws, cops, courts and jails -- although drastically fewer of them than class divided society must have -- perhaps a ninety-nine percent reduction in their size and significance -- but some still needed. What I also said was it would be aceptable to me if the present political system continues to exist through the time when the SIU takes possession of the industries, and then those of us who think the union of fifty states is a bad system still wouldn't be done propagandizing, we would still have that additional thing that the people needed to be persuaded to do. But I don't think the Congress or the states whould have a role in setting up the new industrial structure other than to authorize it with the people's democratic mandate.

davesearles

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject:

ML:

Dave, you didn't convince me of that role for Congress -- to help with the industrial setup.

DS:

Optimally it ought to be as a result of a "do it yourself" plan for labor. I'm not waiting for optimally. Congress under the watchful eye of the workers can establish an administrative agency to charter various unions at various locations. Do we have a better way of establishing primacy or legitimacy among various groups that are sure to spring up? Someone or something has to establish a recognition procedure for union x to follow. Who's it going to be the IWW or some agency recognized through a statute passed by the US Congress? I'm going with the statutory agency unless there is a compelling reason not to.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject:

Your scenario sounds like socialists have taken control of the Congress, and workers in their workplaces haven't started yet. I'd expect it to be the other way a around. It's the election that's delayed. It's the election that has to wait for "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November." More - with the staggered terms of office around the country, even if the whole population converts to socialism today, it may takes two year for socialists to begin to enter the House of Representatives, four years to become a majority, and six years to fill the House. With four years of delay, the SIU might be years old, as ready as they'll ever be, waiting for the political signal.

davesearles

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 01:48 am    Post subject:

ML:

Your scenario sounds like socialists have taken control of the Congress, and workers in their workplaces haven't started yet. I'd expect it to be the other way a around.

DS:

The behaviour of humans is very circumstance dependant. I believe that people in the US in the 21st century are more independent minded at the hustings than at work.

I'll take it anyway I can get it but I will bet you 10 labor hour vouchers that the people assert themselves politically for socialism and then expect the political govt. to set the system up. I agree it's not optimal but I'll take it none the less.

ML:

More - with the staggered terms of office around the country, even if the whole population converts to socialism today, it may takes two year for socialists to begin to enter the House of Representatives, four years to become a majority, and six years to fill the House. With four years of delay, the SIU might be years old, as ready as they'll ever be, waiting for the political signal.

DS:

In a crises politicians will all come around pretty quickly I would assume. But if I'm wrong the unions oragnizing one two three will pretty quickly show me that I am.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 01:53 am    Post subject:

Your last sentence, are you saying you expect Democratic Party and Republican Party politicians eventually to vote for the workers' control amendment?

davesearles

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 10:01 am    Post subject:

The scenareo - a whole raft of amedndment announced candidates get elected to congress because of the idea catching on nationwide - and petitions for same pouring into congress every moment. Yes I expect that politicians elected as Democrat and Republican shall throw over. Yes I do. But if I'm wrong hopefully the workers will pick up the slack by forming into radical unions where they work. (And I will owe you ten labor hour vouchers)

As the crises thickens and jobs become even less available and even more insecure I think that a radicalized political movement is more likely to come way before a radicalized work based movement.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 03:36 pm    Post subject:

Most every change has been political and that's the down side of things. Psychologically people resist change in their lives and actually fear it. People are use to capitalism and their life styles as a result. Even though the idea of social programs being used as incremental change toward socialism has been either cut or eliminated over the years. Those programs have not raised any questions about socialism nor raised the so-called class consciousness of anyone other than a small handful of people. The radicalization of the working class has been nothing more than the sound of breaking wind.

I do like the approach of using both the economic and political fields as points of attack on the the very capitalist system itself. But the system uses psychology, sociology and propaganda to keep the population within its ideas, decisions and actions knowing how to manipulate humans as herd animals. Socialism does not have that advantage. Socialist argue over ideology, in my opinion, and ignore what makes people tick.

Socialism may be futile as a doctrine but simple ideas are not. The idea of having people rally around social ownership of production may generate support or it may not since the American people hold that private ownership is something to strive for in obtaining wealth. We hear it on the radio on TV about how to get wealth and they know how to stroke it too.

Rallying for national health insurance years ago I did learn something that would not even be considered among socialist. It won't turn out as expected. Private insurance companies will still run the show. They will get the tax monies to run the program and those who are poor will get a different card than those who can buy insurance. They will make a difference between the haves and have not as they do with Medicaid and Medicare today. Even these programs are now being run by the private health insurance industry.

Even if people rally for a Constitutional Amendment and we get some social ownership of production I would expect that the capitalist would make sure that they get management rights politically. With that right they could run the social experiment into the ground and exclaim that private ownership is more efficient meaning that they have to own the land and tools to make profits. Just some thoughts I have.

John

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 05:16 pm    Post subject:

Dave:

I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box on this thing and some of your suggestions are really excellent. I think that struggling for the Constitutional amendments, while they may or may not meet with success, would certainly start people to thinking about the realities they currently live under. That could only lead in the right direction as far as we're concerned.

I wanted to discuss another thing that I have been thinking about, the name of our chosen system. I don't think anyone here in this forum can deny that the meaning of the word socialism has been twisted completely and that socialism now means something completely different from what it was originally intended. In the time of De Leon and others, around the turn of the 20th century socialism meant exactly what we advocate here, namely a democratic, worker controlled system which benefits everyone, without the domination of a political state and centrally planned economies. Now, you mention socialism and people automatically think of state control, government ownership, welfare state etc.

I honestly think we have to come up with a new name. I don't advocate this as part of a PR ploy to deceive people, but I actually think that we have to come up with something that would be descriptive of what we advocate in order to separate it from what the name socialism has come to mean. I can remember at one of the SLP conventions someone sending in a motion to rename the Party. I can't remember what the suggestion was for the name but they wanted to drop the Socialist part because of all the confusion surrounding it. Of course, at the time I was totally against it but now that I think back on it, the person had a good point.

I can't remember if I am correct on this, but isn't that why Marx and Engels called their manifesto the Communist manifesto as opposed to the Socialist manifesto, because of the fact that Socialism at that time was associated with reformism? Of course, for obvious reasons now, the name Communism has an even worse stigma attached to it.

Maybe I'm off base with this but I really think the name socialism is a hindrance to what we're trying to accomplish. I mean, it is so ingrained into people's minds that socialism is a really bad thing that we spend most of our time explaining the difference between genuine and fake socialism. The result is that people are more confused after the explanation than they were to start with and they really don't want to listen to the details of the difference between the two.

My point being that if we are going to advocate something it has to have a clear meaning and not be associated with something that has a less than favorable stigma attached to it.

I haven't really thought about alternative names much. Democratic Collectivism comes to mind, but not sure that it's very descriptive of what we advocate.

Here is the definition of collectivism- a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

Sounds good eh?

mikelepore

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 06:57 pm    Post subject:

Carl, I authorized you to see a private forum where people can write rough drafts of letters or documents and ask other for comments, but the public can't see it.

As for new beginnings and new names, I wonder if you have an opinion position on those non-SLP De Leonist groups which Dave calls the Diaspora :o) When you were in the party you couldn't say anything nice about them, but now you say anything you want.

Campaign for a Working Democracy (formerly the New Union Party)
http://www.newunionparty.org/

People for a New Society (formerly the Industrial Union Party)
http://peopleforanewsociety.org/

Real Union Of Social Science
http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/
The people in this group also have co-membership in World in Common, which for anyone with any "non-statist non-market" idea of socialism regardess of their different programs
http://www.worldincommon.org/

The De Leonist Society of Canada
(if they still exist)

The Neo-WIIU you are talking about overlaps with their missions. Have you let go of the SLP's old Hatfield-versus-McCoy feuds with the Diaspora?

mikelepore

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 07:50 pm    Post subject:

I tend to like using the name "socialism" even while undemocratic connotations are popularly associated with it. This is because the same thing is done with every name. It's not only "socialism" but also the people, the interests of the people, the will of the people, the republic, democracy, freedom, liberty, and justice. Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot confiscated all of these words for their own use. The abusers of the language want all of the words all of the time, so verbal communiation forces us to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Because of this, a big part of me thinks that fighting for the meaning of each of these words is the same hour of educational lesson as clearing up the misconceptions about the referenced ideas.

By the way, the name problem also happens is the pure sciences. The biology teacher has to explain, "Blue-green algae isn't a kind of algae. It's an incorrect but popular name for cyanobacteria, while we know that bacteria and algae are in different kingdoms. An inaccurate name has stuck by habit." The physics teacher has to explain "This voltage is called an e.m.f., where the letters don't stand for anything. The letters used to stand for the phrase electromotive force, but we stopped saying that because it's a voltage and it's not a force. So now we continue to say e.m.f. only for historical reasons." Except for the fact that the misconceptions associated with socialism are related to the strong social interests, I think there is a similar concern about how best to explain to learners that there is some bad terminology going around, and how best to choose a balance between fixing conceptual errors and fixing linguistic errors.

The Greenman

PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject:

But the problem is that socialism is defined differently by different organizations. DSA definitions would make a person think they were talking Liberalism. Then there are those that make useless blanket statements. Other organizations define it as a state run economy. Then you have those who believe that control is exclusively by a political party. The misconceptions of what socialism is run rampant everywhere.

I think community concept ideas has to be introduced. Cooperative is a bit vague for my taste but the idea of "working together" locally as a community sounds better. Communities link with other communities which network nation wide each electing their leaders and representatives. SIUs work locally within the community being part of the vast network of SIUs. The local people elect their SIU leaders and representatives. Community = local control socially, politically and economically.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 12:31 am    Post subject:

That's true, JT - I was only thinking about a smaller piece of the problem, explaining to people that the socialism we envision isn't totalitarianism, like Stalin and Mao. The additional connotations, but non-totalitarian ones, such as the DSA, this makes our educational work more complicated.

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 12:41 am    Post subject:

I guess I was mainly thinking out loud, but having the word "socialism" attached to anything, whether it be the name of a party or whatever is a definite negative. You wind up spending the majority of your time explaining to everyone that our socialism is not the same as their socialism.

I know this from experience, as I have spent many hours at anti-war rallies, protests of various sorts and even times when we were just handing out leaflets and newspapers to folks on the street. I found that I was constantly having to distance ourselves from that other type of "socialism". Even my own father thought I was in with the Communist Party. It took a knock down drag out argument to get my point across, but even then I don't think he believed me.

I understand that we should fight for the true definition of the word, that it really belongs to those who believe in the genuine kind of socialism, but it is a huge hill to climb. The media promotes the SP, DSA, Communist Party socialism as the real deal. A lot of online definitions of the word are incorrect as they give the above mentioned types of fake socialism as the bona fide definitions. I can remember I got into a heated e-mail battle with one of the online encyclopedias, I think it was MSN Encarta, because of their definition of socialism. In the end I gave up because the guy just would not listen to reason.

I remember when Spain elected its "so called" socialist president, everyone I knew was coming up to me and saying "Congratulations, you guys got someone elected in Spain!" All I said was, "Yeah, it's great" I just didn't feel like standing there and trying to explain to them the difference between my socialism and this guy's version of it. They probably wouldn't have wanted to hear it anyway. In my last few months as a member of the SLP we had an NEC member resign over the Party's position on Hugo Chavez. The guy was convinced that Chavez was honestly trying to build genuine socialism in Venezuela and that we should not criticize him in the pages of The People. He felt it was like shooting ourselves in the foot. Now, come on, if a guy who has been in the Party long enough to know the difference between fake socialism and genuine socialism buys into the fake kind of socialism, what kind of hope do we have with John Q. Public?

My point is that the small number of us who believe in genuine socialism and with our limited resources we squander a lot of our time and energy just explaining how it is different from everyone else who calls themselves socialist. This is time better spent simply explaining what our program is, in my opinion anyway.

But this is all just for the matter of discussion, I still call myself a socialist and I think I would have a hard time calling myself a Democratic Collectivist, although I think people would be more willing to listen to what I have to say.

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 01:02 am    Post subject:

Oh, I almost forgot, my position on the "diaspora" In my first few years of membership in the SLP I didn't much care for these people as some of these organizations were started by ex-members, and as you well know any organization started by an ex-member is a faulty organization with faulty philosophies, even though those philosophies may have been almost indistinguishable from our own.

Since I resigned I am a lot more open minded to other points of view. I am very familiar with the New Union Party but the others I am not too familiar with. I looked over the PFANS website and actually watched the interview with Wally Petrovich but was somewhat disappointed by the lack of mention of the use of the economic organization as a means of acheiving working class emancipation. I did find the program as a whole rather intriguing though.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 07:09 am    Post subject:

cmiller2005 wrote:

My point is that the small number of us who believe in genuine socialism and with our limited resources we squander a lot of our time and energy just explaining how it is different from everyone else who calls themselves socialist. This is time better spent simply explaining what our program is, in my opinion anyway.



I can reconcile this with my newest latest blasphemy - I now consider the socialist movement to be a lot less like a single force, and a lot more like a shorthand name we give to the collection of all of the projects of the individual members. If you explain socialism in certain terms and in certain communications media, and I explain it in different terms and different media, and other individuals in their own way, and the SLP and other organizations each in their own way, someone is more likely eventually to stumble across the kind of communication that will get through to people.

Dave's newest project is the Amendment. John's choice seems to be to travel around online and contrast the most democratic with the Leninist and vanguardist conceptions. Vince finds an overlap between scientific socialism and the ethical philosophies. I'm a geek so I mainly write about abstractions - a dozen posts in the past two days on economic theory in another forum. What is our movement? To me its the solidarity among all of our individual projects.

I refer to Richard Dawkins' theory that phrases and ideas get spread throughout society in the form of "memes." There is great variety of ideas and expressions blowing around. Mysteriously, a few of these seedlings attach themselves to people's brains -- a figure of speech here, an urban myth there, this joke, that superstition. A few things that someone says in public will "catch on", and no one knows why. We could say the most profound things many times and yet no one remembers. But on one particular day a single person publicly spoke the silly phrase "between a rock and a hard place" and, for some reason that no one knows, that phrase rapidly spread throughout the world. Isn't this phenomenon weird?! But that's the way it seems to work. I think socialists have to toss thousands of memes into the wind. Someday something will catch. The more variety we have in our individual projects the better.

So the other day I was complaining about PFANS using what I feel is a bit too much of the Jeffersonian language about "a real government by the people and for the people", whereas I tend to use different style. But that's the meme they are casting out. It may be the thing that "does it." As long as basic principles aren't compromised, there's no one right way to phrase something. If the way the other guy says something is the one that catches on, whereas my way gets forgotten forever, then more power to the other guy, since we will all be winners.

davesearles

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 12:14 pm    Post subject:

Carl:

I wanted to discuss another thing that I have been thinking about, the name of our chosen system. I don't think anyone here in this forum can deny that the meaning of the word socialism has been twisted completely and that socialism now means something completely different from what it was originally intended. In the time of De Leon and others, around the turn of the 20th century socialism meant exactly what we advocate here, namely a democratic, worker controlled system which benefits everyone, without the domination of a political state and centrally planned economies. Now, you mention socialism and people automatically think of state control, government ownership, welfare state etc.

Dave:

For myself I have been less and less advocating for "socialism" and then having to explain what it is and get into arguments with people who think that it must mean something else- I have tried to be a little more goal directed. Worker ownership and control of the means of production. Give me that and they can call it whatever they want.

The amenedment proposal focuses on that. The amendment institutes socialsm? No. Purports to institute socialism? No. Gets people thinking about worker control of the means of production? yes. Provides a peaceful and orderly way of obtaining that? yes. (analogy alert) Floats my boat.

davesearles

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 07:13 pm    Post subject:

JT:

But the system uses psychology, sociology and propaganda to keep the population within its ideas, decisions and actions knowing how to manipulate humans as herd animals. Socialism does not have that advantage. Socialist argue over ideology, in my opinion, and ignore what makes people tick.

DS:

It sometmes seems like it uses psychology sociology etc to keep us down just like on certain days I am convinced that at least half of the world is out to simply piss me off. (This is an improvement becuase at one point I belived on certain days that 99% were) But in reality we don't move for no reason. We can rationalize it but we don't move simply becuase we don't move, nothing more than that, that I see anyway.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 08:19 pm    Post subject:

I believe most people who hear Dave's phrase "worker ownership and control of the means of production" will not visualize what we visualize. A much more common image would be that of a worker-owned Ford Motor Co. in competition with a worker-owned General Motors Corp., which means capitalism. And they are still going to associate it with dictatorship ("I want go to church, so does that mean I will be arrested and shot?") And they will still say "it would never work because there will be no incentive or motivation", 'it's against human nature." So I don't worry that use of the maligned word "socialism" forces us to explain the whole thing. No matter what words we use we will still have to explain the whole thing anyway. But try it and see. My own prediction is that the use of any alternative phrase, whether it's Dave's ""worker ownership and control of the means of production" or Carl's "democratic collectivism" will conjure up as many public misconceptions that we will have to address, and require just as much effort from us, as the word "socialism" has done. I hope I'm wrong. I hope you bring in a lot of new people.

cmiller2005

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 10:59 pm    Post subject:

You make a good point Mike, it would probably take just as much of an explanation for "Democratic Collectivism" as it would to convince people that the socialism we advocate is not the same as the so called socialism of the SP, DSA, CPUSA etc. etc. But, I was only using "Democratic Collectivism" as an example. I certainly haven't adopted it as a name for my political beliefs.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 11:19 pm    Post subject:

I say this partially because a lot of the objections that people have to socialism are related to the supposed need for its capitalist opposite. People will argue that the competitive market is necessary, every type of competition is necessary, the theoretical right of the individual to be the founder and boss is necessary, a division of society into leaders and followers is necessary. In online forums, a surprisingly large number of people, an enormous number of people, "inform" me (they think they're breaking some bad news to me) that Professor Ludwig von Mises has proven -- yes, proven -- that any society must be inefficient to the point of collapsing unless its economy is based on prices that are determined by a competitive marketplace. So, while association of the word "socialism" with phony socialists is part of the problem, it's not the whole problem. We have to go so far as to show that capitalism has faults and causes problems, that these faults and problems are preventable. That task, I think a new set of terminology won't help with.

But I'm coming off as sounding too insistent, as usual -- that's just the way I write. I really hope that everyone will follow their instincts. As for me, I have dropped the words "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" as too archaic and unfamiliar, but I still say "socialism."

The Greenman

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 01:09 pm    Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Quote:

In online forums, a surprisingly large number of people, an enormous number of people, "inform" me (they think they're breaking some bad news to me) that Professor Ludwig Von Mises has proven -- yes, proven -- that any society must be inefficient to the point of collapsing unless its economy is based on prices that are determined by a competitive marketplace. So, while association of the word "socialism" with phony socialists is part of the problem, it's not the whole problem. We have to go so far as to show that capitalism has faults and causes problems, that these faults and problems are preventable. That task, I think a new set of terminology won't help with.



Seems as though Von Mis-use has caught a lot of people's attention everywhere and being held up as the person who dis-proved Marx. Is there not a Von Mises Institute that is a "think tank?" That is why I wrote that the capitalist has an advantage seeing that they hire people to manipulate the population through economic propaganda and also using psychological and sociological methods. Then there are those mysterious memes that catch on with the population and the biggest mystery is how David Hasselhoff got famous. :x

My wife has a CD of Dr. Phil, I can't stand the guy, and he blames the individual for their problems but never the society that created the circumstances of which those problems came into existence. I am no psychologist but I can see how they are being used to try to keep people's behaviors within capitalist boundaries whether they are old or new ones. Since capitalism is changing society faster there is resistance to change and this is why these people are being seen more and more in the media.

Mike makes a good point about continuing using the term socialism. But we still have problems with socialist who believe socialism is attained a little at a time within capitalism. There is the big misconceptions on what socialism is and people do believe the final outcome is a Stalin or Mao with full political power. We are at a disadvantage because we cannot prove that socialism would work. Social ownership does not have that "power" control that exist with private ownership. I don't know if the "union" model is the best one to use but it is clear that some organizational structure has to exist in which people don't feel they are left out and what they do is in their own interest and "profit." In other words people would be more accepting than resisting.

John T.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 03:43 pm    Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

But we still have problems with socialist who believe socialism is attained a little at a time within capitalism.



Now I see think I see signs of Dave beginning to sink into that mire. Grab onto something that floats, Dave - we're jumping in to save you.

I refer to his recent post where he want the amendment to have a clause to "nationalize the natural resources."

Hmm, should we try to save him or push his head under....

davesearles

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 04:36 pm    Post subject:

In the metaphorical water or not I didn't see the socialism a little at a time part of what is being proposed. It was to prevent it from being dealt with a separate proposal that I added it to the same amendment that would abolish the legal right of private property over workers visa vis the means of production. What good liberating the oil refineries if the oil itself is private property? Moreover - nationalization as opposed to industiralization under the workers recognizes a principle that the workers' unions, while they provide for the liberation of workers from the wages system - is not a mandate for them to possess or utilize the natural resourses free from overarching concern for the natural resources by the sovereign people.

btw while I think the Phil McGraw show is inanely produced he has a few pearls from time to time that I will from time to time watch him for . A close family member was going through some real problems across the board - one small compenent of which was a fear of bees to the extent that I was afraid that sometime a bee would cause him to run out into traffic or cause him to crash a vehicle that he might be driving. Dr. McGraw as an aside in one of his programs stated that such issues are amoung the most sucessfully treatable problems behaviourally. We sought out a behavioural shrink up at Mike's alma mater and over the course of about a dozen visits we were able to get the bee issue down to a rational basis. With that a whole lot of other things that previously seemingly were not controlable started to disappear as well.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 05:59 pm    Post subject:

Do you mean your addition to the amendment is intended to transfer the natural reosurces to the control of congress so that congress can then transfer the control to the workers' organizations? Or do you foresee a continuous role for congress in the administration of such things as oil?

mikelepore

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 06:17 pm    Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

and the biggest mystery is how David Hasselhoff got famous. :x



People tuned into Baywatch to see Pam Anderson, and then Hasselhoff accidentally fell in front of the camera's field of vision.

But did you ever hear of the Zsa Zsa Effect? This is a real thing in broadcasting. She had some small movie roles, but the thing that made Zsa Zsa Gabor really famous was talk show hosts like Merv Griffin continuously inviting her to appear on TV. Why did they keep inviting her? Because they thought she was famous. This made her famous.

I wonder if the way the public thinks and feels about everything is manipulated like this.

The king: "To find out who's going to heaven, listen to the priest!"
The priest: "The people who will be going to heaven are those who obey the king!"

davesearles

PostPosted: 10 Jun 2008 07:44 pm    Post subject:

ML asks:

Do you mean your addition to the amendment is intended to transfer the natural reosurces to the control of congress so that congress can then transfer the control to the workers' organizations? Or do you foresee a continuous role for congress in the administration of such things as oil?

DS:

Neither part would transfer industries or natural resources so much as abrogate current private property law.

Yes I see the continuing role of congress and the political state.

Union A wants natural resources for one thing, Union B another and the representatives of the entire people have another idea. How do we sort it out? I don't see a problem with congress as long as private ownership of the means of production and of natural resources are abolished.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 04:06 pm    Post subject:

A legislature represents everyone and therefore it doesn't provide any of the specialized knowledge that production needs. The legislature is all-powerful and it also doesn't have the faintest idea how to produce anything. That power is appropriate only for expressing value judgements, not technical judgements. Let the legislature pass the laws, and let the workers' departments administer production. If the legislature administers production you get no better administration than if you asked random people on the street. Ask any random guy walking down the street, hey, what's your name, Mack? okay, hey Mack, how do you want this uranium 235 to be separated from the uranium 238 - should I use a mass spectrometer over here? Mack says: Oh, yeah, do it that way. That's all the legislature is capable of as well. And all that a capitalist corporation is capable of also, because if the stockholders, who know nothing about industry, elect the management, then you get management that also knows nothing about industry, ergo, IBM hired the CEO Lou Gerstner away from a factory that made boxes of breakfast cereal and put him in charge of making computers. The same thing happens if the legislature is involved in production: people who know nothing about the industry choose representatives who also know nothing about it and put them in charge. Socialism is based on this truth: Only the workers understand production. Only the workers know how to administer it, and only the workers know how to choose representatives who can administer it.

davesearles

PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 07:23 pm    Post subject:

100% agreed.

Beyond the developmet of the court system for resolving disputes the greatest development in law in the last 100 years has been administrative law.

What did congress know about getting a man to the moon and back - nada. The legislature told NASA what it wanted, provided governmental autority and a truck load of cash and off they went.

A political congress can come up with the necesary legislation to provide for the certification of the unions as provided for by the constitutional amendment. Not a problem that I can see..

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 02:05 am    Post subject:

Why certification of the unions? To say the SIU is recognized as the new administration, whereas the AFL isn't? To give a yes to one as being authentic? If so, I think that's close to what I meant to imply when I said it differently: transfer the authority.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 02:14 am    Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

nationalization as opposed to industiralization under the workers recognizes a principle that the workers' unions, while they provide for the liberation of workers from the wages system - is not a mandate for them to possess or utilize the natural resourses free from overarching concern for the natural resources by the sovereign people



An important point there, although I'm too brainwashed to hear the word "nationalization" without getting a knotty feeling in my belly. I think what you just said seems to be equivalent to an earlier post of mine: the workers' organization should administer production by default; the legislature of the whole people should be able to override it in individual circumstances. I gave the example: if the agriculture industry hadn't, on it own volition, banned the use of the pesticide DDT, then the law-makers should have the power to ban it. Is that the same as when you say the unions don't have

Quote:

a mandate for them to possess or utilize the natural resourses free from overarching concern for the natural resources by the sovereign people



?

davesearles

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 04:21 am    Post subject:

for the same reason elections need to be certified.

Dave and his buddies say that they are the union of a certain workplace. Mike and his buddies another, John and his buddies and now Carl with the WIIU as others. A political govt agency would especially be a good arbiter of such questions.

davesearles

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 04:25 am    Post subject:

ML:

An important point there, although I'm too brainwashed to hear the word "nationalization" without getting a knotty feeling in my belly. I think what you just said seems to be equivalent to an earlier post of mine: the workers' organization should administer production by default; the legislature of the whole people should be able to override it in individual circumstances.

DS:

If you will go back over the course of the last two years, practically all of the developments that I have written about have been suggested by things that you previously had written about. Frightening, isn't it?

Get over that "nationalization" knot. We're gong to start hearing a lot about it and we had better be ready with our own take on it.

davesearles

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 04:33 am    Post subject:

ML:

I gave the example: if the agriculture industry hadn't, on it own volition, banned the use of the pesticide DDT, then the law-makers should have the power to ban it. Is that the same as when you say the unions don't have

Quote:
a mandate for them to possess or utilize the natural resourses free from overarching concern for the natural resources by the sovereign people

DS:

Absolutely.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 02:27 pm    Post subject:

When I hear the word 'nationalization' the image it beings to my mind is the workers _not_ having any control. The word makes me imagine the kind of cold treatment we now get from the Internal Revenue Service, now we're going to have that same lovely experence with the supermarket and the heating oil and the car repair shop.

davesearles

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 03:54 pm    Post subject:

I share your concern - like anything else it can be abused.

From the declaration of independence:
++++++++++++
these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,
and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

AND

that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
+++++++++++

What choice do we have? Absolute union authority? Leave the resources in private hands? The only thing that makes sense to me is control of the resources by and for the people through a political republic without the corrupting influence of capital.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 05:21 pm    Post subject:

Why do you mention natural separately from the industries?

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 05:23 pm    Post subject:

"without the corrupting influence of capital"

No dispute about ending the rule of capital. We're arguing about control by the SIU versus control by the congress.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 05:28 pm    Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

What choice do we have? Absolute union authority?



I suggest letting the SIU administer everthing related to production, with public representatives having the power to override, used sparingly, like the power of judicial review given to the Supreme Court. So "absolute authority", no.

davesearles

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 08:39 pm    Post subject:

resources above I should have written natural resources. Sorry I worked again last night.

ISTM that governance of access to say petroleum deposits is or ought to be a political question of public policy, as much, if not more than it is a technical question of the labor required to extract it and turn it into stuff literally to burn or make synthetic plastics with.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject:

They why shouldn't all of the basic directions that industry takes be matters of public policy?

The people ride the trains. Who should determine the routes and schedules, the people or the transportation workers?

The people use the computers. Who should make the computer industry decisions, the people or the electronics workers?

Why treat natural resources differently from manufacutured goods. Because they have limited quantities in their geological sources?

davesearles

PostPosted: 13 Jun 2008 12:04 am    Post subject:

Then why shouldn't all of the basic directions that industry takes be matters of public policy?

Capital is replaced by labor. Instead of a state highly influenced by capital we have a state highly influenced by labor. Not totally but in the main.

Neither the state nor industry can do anything totally without the other.

Workers come up with a plan to do something. The state says wonderful but these are the parameters by which you must do it. Workers say: hey hold on there state you are interferring too much. State says: Your choices are, influence us to make us change, or do it our way, or don't do it.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2008 03:17 am    Post subject:

Dave, the book excerpt you posted in this thread June 6, Paul F. Brissenden, The IWW : A Study of American Syndicalism ...
I moved it from the forum to a text file:

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=wi000001

davesearles

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2008 05:54 pm    Post subject:

ML:

Why treat natural resources differently from manufacutured goods. Because they have limited quantities in their geological sources?

DAS:

Natural resources are limited and contain no labor therefore only an entitity with recognized sovereignty could legitimately allow their extraction and use.

To the extent the manufacture of goods utilizes natural resources that would implicate the sovereign at least to that degree - the labor involved in manufacture of course would implicate the union.

Shared sovereignty, what a concept!

Clearly with the continuation of the state this would no longer be the two dimensionsal world depicted in Walter Steinhilbur's SIU chart. (And to his credit he merely claimed that the chart helped him understand the concept of SIU better than without it, that he did not intend that the idea behind the depiction was superior to anyone else's. Walter wasn't like that at all.)

http://www.deleonism.org/images/90092209.jpg

davesearles

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2008 09:10 pm    Post subject:

ML:

The people use the computers. Who should make the computer industry decisions, the people or the electronics workers?

DAS:

The people through the state have a legitimate interest to set safety standards, and standards regarding the design of the computer so that it can be easily broken down into components that have as little impact on the environment as practical, these kinds of concerns - beyond that it's all up to the workers to decide what and how many and who's going to get them and under what terms.

Of course the state (then highly influenced by labor as it is by capital now) can always step in under constitutional parameters as it can now.

ML:

The people ride the trains. Who should determine the routes and schedules, the people or the transportation workers?

DAS:

It seems that alocation of rights of way would mostly be a state function.

In vermont, I understand that all of the track is owned by the state.

Question: do we institute passenger service between Burlington and Rutland? A lot of people want to ride, the workers say yes. Question, do we extend the service to Bennington? Not so many are in favor. The union looks at the numbers and says no - that it decreases productivity too much to run passebnger trains to Bennington (of course there are all kinds of alternatives, don't run so many trains, run smaller tains or interburban trollies but let's suppose for the sake of argument the union says no and won't budge. But the state wants it. That would be an impass for which there is no magic solution - they'll have to work it out. Each side has considerable power to bring to the disgareement to try to muscle it's way but it's to no one's benefit not to reach some kind of a compromise.

Imagaine that! A situation where there are no clear cut magic answers for everything. Much like the rest of life. Can we say "maturity" boys and girls?

mikelepore

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2008 09:22 pm    Post subject:

To make a case for shared power, your answer is a good answer except I'm not sure how to contrast it with the kind of shared power that I suggested earlier: let the SIU go first and make economic decisions by default, with government having the power to override individually selected decisions. This idea is also shared power, but it decides in advance to use a default first step, because not every daily occurence will need the second step, while the first step is always where the technical expertise is.

I think that's reasonable for natural resources since, for example, a geologist and chemeist - industrial jobs - know a lot of things about oil deposits that lawmakers don't know.

I think it's resonable for all other industries too because all industries involve non-technical value judgements. Why wouldn't the careful consideration that's good for oil, ore and lumber also be good for food, education, and medicine?

davesearles

PostPosted: 20 Jun 2008 11:40 am    Post subject:

ML:

To make a case for shared power, your answer is a good answer except I'm not sure how to contrast it with the kind of shared power that I suggested earlier: let the SIU go first and make economic decisions by default, with government having the power to override individually selected decisions. This idea is also shared power, but it decides in advance to use a default first step, because not every daily occurence will need the second step, while the first step is always where the technical expertise is.

DAS:

For the most part yes but there are some govt. standards that would be a heck of a lot easier to have in advance to use as design paramters like a complete ban on lead in paint.

davesearles

PostPosted: 20 Jun 2008 11:50 am    Post subject:

ML:

a geologist and chemeist - industrial jobs - know a lot of things about oil deposits that lawmakers don't know.

DAS:

All of whom should be listened to - however just becuase a chemist has a really neat application for petroleum or industry has some appllication for a particular piece of real estate that doesn't mean that they automatically get access to them. We're taking away private ownership of the natural resources and simply turning claim to it to any arm of industry that wants it? I don't think so. Yes obviously technical folks have more expertise than politicos, but they represent the people as a whole. Analogy alert - that would be like turning care of your body over to medical doctors without having the ability to give informed consent.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 20 Jun 2008 05:13 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

for a particular piece of real estate



I can see that land is a special case. The limited nature of land means it has to be handled differently than other things. Allocating five square miles of land to a task is very different than allocating five thousand tons of oil to a task. Allocating land is the most exclusionary decision. The decision to allocate land is automatically a decision about whom to forbid to use it. It may be an industrial function with a degree of sensitivity that's right up there with passing ciivl laws. Just as it takes a value judgment to send a murderer to the pokey for thirty years, it would likewise take a value judgment to say that no one but corn farmers may use Nantucket Island.

But that's LAND. You said "natural resources", which is more ambiguous. Once you dig a pile of gypsum out of the ground and put it into barrels, are you calling that a natural resource or a product? Did you say "natural resources" whne you meant land and surface water?

By the way, something that I have continuously harped on in the past, a plan for rational land use has always been the weakest point of the idea of socialism. We earlier discussed several problems related to *residential* land use; industrial land use is a parallel problem. The capitalist marketplace has a way to handle these things, a miserable way, but nevertheless a way. Whomever is lucky enough to have the money, and desperate enough to spend that money, gets the resource. Probably the worst of all possible way to settle such issues, but at least capitalism's way is defined To abandon the capitalist marketplace, now we don't have a way anymore, and one needs to be invented one from scratch.

You may continue persuading me about the political allocation method as it applies to land and waterways, but to say "natural resources" it needs clarification.

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 02:54 am    Post subject:

ML:

Allocating five square miles of land to a task is very different than allocating five thousand tons of oil to a task.

DAS:

That is true - oil is fungible - however, land with good care can be reused countless times. In today's world the biggest issue with oil is the consequences of burning it - (just a crazy notion, hardly jutifiable except in extreme circumstances IMHO) or turning it into stuff that is going to haunt landfills for millenia. Also the rate of consumption more than likely is way of of whack regarding sustainabilty as to supply.

The industrial union MAY get it right but if it doesn't who eles but the state can comedown on it and make it clean up the mess if it fucks up?

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 02:59 am    Post subject:

ML:

Once you dig a pile of gypsum out of the ground and put it into barrels, are you calling that a natural resource or a product?

DAS:

The state MAY decide to place conditions on the use of the gypsum after it is taken from the ground. How far is up to the state within constitutional limits of course.

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 03:01 am    Post subject:

ML:

Whomever is lucky enough to have the money, and desperate enough to spend that money, gets the resource. Probably the worst of all possible way to settle such issues, but at least capitalism's way is defined To abandon the capitalist marketplace, now we don't have a way anymore, and one needs to be invented one from scratch.

DAS:

The amedment proposal once more to the rescue. (I will finish this tomorrow.)

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 01:58 pm    Post subject:

continued from yesterday

The current set up: Capital exploits labor through the wages system. Capital dominates the political state because of the wealth extracted from the workers. Capital has title to natural resources.

The amendment passes - congress enacts legislation defining what natural resources ought to be transferred, perhaps setting up a schedule as to what and when title passes. It also establishes a mechanism for recognizing unions to take over production and distribution of wealth.

That what exists today is merely being transitioned into different ownership. The idea of ownership is not being abandoned.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 03:10 pm    Post subject:

You mentioned capital dominating the state. Is that now a big part of the capitalist's access to natural resources? I see capital having natural resources mainly because of land ownership. If you bought some land then the ore and trees are also yours. I believe drilling oil on the continental shelf would be allowed for anyone with the equipment, not very dependent on a special permission obtained by bribing the govnerment.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 03:16 pm    Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

That what exists today is merely being transitioned into different ownership. The idea of ownership is not being abandoned.



Property and ownership were always defined in terms of the nominal as well as the effective rights to control something and to derive the benefits from something, so a case could be made for applying these words to new economic systems of the future.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 03:19 pm    Post subject:

I guess the title of each thread is just a launching point, huh? After that there's no telling where each discussion here will go.

Doctor: You've got to stop having sex.
Patient: But why?
Doctor: Because I'm trying to examine you.

mikelepore

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 03:29 pm    Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

congress enacts legislation defining what natural resources ought to be transferred



I'm aware of jurisdictional overlap problems for industry in general, for example, it is yet to be written whether television transmitters will be managed as part of the a media industry with the newspapers, an electronics industry with the gadgets, an entertainment industry with the concert halls, etc.. I suppose there will be jurisdictional overlaps involving natural resources also, although it's easier for me to think of industrial examples than to think of resource examples. If there were no overlaps then this conversation wouldn't have arisen.

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 04:04 pm    Post subject:

ML:

You mentioned capital dominating the state. Is that now a big part of the capitalist's access to natural resources?

DAS:

Not totally. Some of the rights to natural resources capital bought. Some of it acquired from the state many times in what poeple refer to as sweetheart deals.

ML:

I believe drilling oil on the continental shelf would be allowed for anyone with the equipment, not very dependent on a special permission obtained by bribing the govnerment.

DAS:

I'd have to do some resarch but I don't thak that is correct. The stae claims 200 miles out and private entities have to obtain licenses to drill. I think.

Even in some cases the boundary may go out further than 200 miles.

davesearles

PostPosted: 21 Jun 2008 04:06 pm    Post subject:

ML:

Property and ownership were always defined in terms of the nominal as well as the effective rights to control something and to derive the benefits from something, so a case could be made for applying these words to new economic systems of the future.

DS:

Agree, but of course such talk will probably get us shot as counter-revolutionaries.

mikelepore