Author	Message
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Sep 2004 05:11 pm    Post subject: Political Organization What do you think of this comment that De Leon made in his pamphlet "Reform or Revolution"? "Watch the capitalist closely, and see whether the social question is exclusively an economic one, or whether the political wing is not a very necessary one. The capitalist rules in the shop. Is he satisfied with that? Watch him at election time, it is then he works; he has also another workshop, not an economic one - the legislatures and capitols in the nation. He buzzes around them and accomplishes political results. He gets the laws passed that will protect his economic class interests, and he pulls the wires when these interests are in danger, bringing down the strong arm of political power over the heads of the striking workingmen, who have the notion that the wages or social question is only an economic question. Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both."
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2004 02:00 am    Post subject: Excerpted from De Leon, "As To Politics" ---- "Not everything that capitalism has brought about is to be rejected. Such a vandal view would have to smash the giant machine of modern production as well. Among the valuable things that capitalism has introduced is the idea of peaceful methods for settling disputes. In feudal days, when lords fell out, production stopped; war had the floor. The courts of law have become the main fields of capitalist, at least internal capitalist battle, and production continues uninterfered with. It matters not how corrupt the courts have become, or one-sided against the working class. The jewel of civilized or peaceful methods for settling disputes is there, however incrusted with slime. Capitalism, being a step forward, as all Socialists recognize, can not help but be a handmaid, however clumsy, to civilized methods. Of a piece with the court method for the peaceful settlement of disputes is the political method. The organization that rejects this method and organizes for force only, reads itself out of the pale of civilization, with the practical result that, instead of seizing a weapon furnished by capitalism, it gives capitalism a weapon against itself."
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2004 02:04 am    Post subject: From Karl Marx's speech at the Hague in Amsterdam, Netherlands during the 1872 conference of the International .... "Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."
mikelepore	Posted: 19 Sep 2004 02:08 am    Post subject: From Friedrich Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", Chapter 9 ..... "As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand."
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Oct 2004 06:41 am    Post subject: Comment directed to people in the U.S., or others who may be familiar with the system here called the Electoral College. I think it's worthy of working class support to call for the Electoral College to be abolished by constitutional amendment. It's not that it's outdated -- the word 'outdated' implies that it once served a functional purpose but it no longer does. It never served a functional purpose. It was implemented in the 1780s only as a compromise to persuade more of the thirteen colonies to agree to form the nation. It's a method to make states more equal at the expense of making actual human beings less equal. It does this by, approximately, providing one electoral vote per 400,000 population in a more densely populated state, and one electoral vote per 200,000 population in a more thinly populated state. There is no longer any reason to persuade the thirteen original colonies to form the United States. The unfortunate compromise is now moot. There is no purpose served in making states more equal at the expense of making real human beings less equal, since people actually exist, while the states are only legal abstractions.
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Feb 2005 09:43 am    Post subject: A correspondent writes that De Leonism includes "reliance upon the ballot box." The word "reliance" implies making the outcome dependent on another factor when it didn't really have to be dependent on it. It implies that the situation will now be worse if we don't get the factor we have begun to rely on. In my own view, the political side of the program is, instead of a "reliance", an aspect which may or may not do various kinds of good, it doesn't cost anything to include it, and there's nothing to lose by including it, it doesn't increase any risks, so why not? For example, some people are apprehensive that a repressive era in capitalism could cause socialists to be arrested as "subversives." Using political organization will allow us to do whatever we can to minimize the risk and frequency of such repression. Some people are apprehensive that a social revolution will feature violence. By having a political organization we can do whatever we can do, to try to minimize the risk and intensity of any such violence. There is possibly much to gain. There is certainly nothing to lose. Personal opinion, Mike Lepore
davesearles	Posted: 25 Feb 2005 08:38 pm    Post subject: This is in response to Mike’s post in this category in October about the electoral college. The electoral college is of some interest if only because it’s the method by which one of the longest running democracies manages to elect the chief executive. Of course we advocate the abolition of the state – including abolition of “political” government. But the “federal” U.S. government was never to be a government of the people rather than states (despite the opening words of the preamble.) The constitution was written by delegates chosen by state legislatures (who weren’t even chosen to write a new constitution rather than propose changes to the existing articles of confederation). The constitution became effective upon ratification of any 9 of the 13 states. The electoral college system was just one of the results of the “great compromise” in the tug of war between the small and large states. Three fourths of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. The president and vice president cannot be elected from the same state, and the big one – each state has two senators (originally elected by the state legislatures) This part of the constitution cannot even be amended away. “Provided … no State without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.” From Article 5 – the amendment article. State representation in the Senate affects not only legislation but ratifications of judicial and lower executive appointments as well – extending the effect of the compromise even further. At least two people whose opinions I value disagree with this – but I don’t loose sleep over the “undemocratic” nature of the electoral college. Assuming that the current republic has to have some governmental set up – the electoral college seems a good way to choose the chief executive. It ensures that the political base of the chief executive be geographically wide spread. Given the example of the civil war, a wide spread geographic base for the chief executive seems like a good thing. e.g. The “national" parties splitting up into northern and southern constituencies for the 1860 presidential election was prelude to the split in the national government itself not soon after. However the electoral college is probably responsible if only to a small degree for voter non-participation in the “no contest” states. For example here in Vermont there was absolutely no expectation that Bush could have won here – consequently neither Republicans or Democrats visited the state to any significant degree. I would like to see some numbers on turnout in contested vs. non-contested states – there is bound to be some difference but not a whole heck of a lot. Most people who vote for president, I believe, view voting for president as a moral obligation. In the 9 presidential campaigns that I have voted in – I don’t think the candidate that I voted for, ever got his or her votes even counted – but I still vote. A constitutional amendment to dismantle one of the structures erected by the great compromise just doesn’t seem to be something that is going to catch fire – especially when the whole thing can be permanently halted by just 12 states – and the states with the smallest populations will have the most interest in keeping the college. The combined populations of the 12 smallest states is about 15 million balanced against the population of the rest of the states – about 275 million. In all actuality – we are far more likely to attain the SIU long before the 275 million larger state residents convince the state legislators of the 15 million rsidents of the smaller states that they should give up their disproportional clout in the election of the chief executive. It just ain’t never ever ever going to happen. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 25 Feb 2005 08:42 pm    Post subject: I'm sorry - in the above post I should have said "soon after" instead of "not soon after" regarding the coming of the civil war. Dave
davesearles	Posted: 25 Feb 2005 10:34 pm    Post subject: This is prompted by Mike’s post regarding the Deleon quote from “As to Politics”. "Watch the capitalist closely, and see whether the social question is exclusively an economic one, or whether the political wing is not a very necessary one. The capitalist rules in the shop. Is he satisfied with that? Watch him at election time, it is then he works; he has also another workshop, not an economic one - the legislatures and capitols in the nation. He buzzes around them and accomplishes political results. He gets the laws passed that will protect his economic class interests, and he pulls the wires when these interests are in danger, bringing down the strong arm of political power over the heads of the striking workingmen, who have the notion that the wages or social question is only an economic question. Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both." http://www.etext.org/Politics/Essays/DeLeon/as.to.politics DeLeon in that series also wrote: The value of the "ballot" as a constructive force is zero; the value of "political agitation" is immeasurable. Also: The "filling of the bucket" must be done by the million-masses. The agitation for force only clips the wings of the agitation for the "filling of the bucket". The inevitable result is that the agitation has to degenerate into "conspiracy"; conspiracy can be conducted in circumscribed localities only, such localities exclude the masses - and the wheels of time are turned back. _The bringing together of the physical force organization becomes impossible_. Political agitation equips the revolution with a weapon that is indispensable. Political agitation enables the revolution to be preached in the open, and thereby enables the revolution to be brought before the million-masses - _without which there can be no "bucket" fashioned to do the "filling"_. But then DeLeon writes: “Of course, "political agitation" implies the setting up of a political ticket, and that, in turn, implies the ‘ballot’.” Dave states: In the year 2005 it seems the axiomatic coupling of “political agitation” with the ballot is not so obvious as it may have been in 1908. I’m with you 100% for political agitation. AT THIS POINT IN TIME – and probably for the last 70 years – there have been insufficient numbers to mount any type of credible ballot initiative – there is little to prompt anyone to try to get on the ballot. Of course there could also be a Nate Pressman type – who single mindedly got on the ballot in election after election in the Village of Ellenville, NY and who without mincing any revolutionary zeal or rhetoric got something like 30% of the vote for mayor one year. But a Nate Pressman comes along not too often in our lifetimes. But this situation as DeLeon suggests in as to politics ought to be constantly subjected to reevaluation. “The subject matter of the discussion, besides being of deep interest, is timely. True to the Marxian observation that, contrary to the law of bourgeois revolutions, the law, obedient to which the revolutionary movement of the proletariat acts, is to "criticize itself constantly;” But political agitation – I’m right with you all the way. You don’t have to run for office to politically undermine the capitalist state by openly showing the contradictions of capitalism and showing people a way out. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Feb 2005 04:16 pm    Post subject: I deviate from De Leon's viewpoint that > The value of the "ballot" as a constructive force is zero; the > value of "political agitation" is immeasurable. In my view, the main reason the ballot is needed is because (in the U.S., at least) the commander of the armed forces is a publicly elected office. I think it could mean saving millions of lives.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Feb 2005 04:17 pm    Post subject: In all, I count about six different reasons for political organization that are cited in SLP literature. These reasons are independent, in that a person could argue for or against each of these reasons, regardless of their opinion about all of the other reasons. Each of the reasons for using the ballot can be weighed as valid or invalid without reference to whether each of the other reasons is weighed as valid or invalid. Various SLP writers or authors would proclaim that one or the other of the reasons is the principal reason, and they wouldn't even necessarily be consistent with what the same person said earlier. De Leon shifted a lot on what he was describing as the main reason, even changing his argument from paragraph to paragraph. For example, the "it's more civilized" reason, the "secrecy implies death" reason, and the "fill the bucket" reason are entirely separate reasons. De Leon and the SLP as a whole seems not to have noticed that these points are logically independent, otherwise they probably would have said so somewhere, and instead of refering to "the principle of the ballot", someone occasionally would have said something like "the six principles of the ballot".
davesearles	Posted: 27 Feb 2005 03:08 am    Post subject: And then one could reason backwards that because ballot efforts require political parties and because political parties as we have seen have been so repressive that it's not worth setting up a political party to mount a ballot effort. To me, a socialist political party necessarily takes on aspects of the state. I'm not saying that people in a party shouldn't stay in it, or that people shouldn't join one - but not me babe. I can tell more people about socialism without having to waste time and energy trying to mount a ballot effort - even if we had the means to mount a creditiable. Dave
mikelepore	Posted: 27 Feb 2005 06:51 am    Post subject: > I can tell more people about socialism without having to > waste time and energy trying to mount a ballot effort True, but -- later -- can the workers take control of the industries without a ballot effort? In recent years I've increasingly tended to think "no." I have a problem understanding the SLP idea that the party gets founded first, and the SIU much later. I prefer the idea that the SIU gets founded first, and the party much later.
davesearles	Posted: 27 Feb 2005 07:03 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: De Leon shifted a lot on what he was describing as the main reason, even changing his argument from paragraph to paragraph. For example, the "it's more civilized" reason, the "secrecy implies death" reason, and the "fill the bucket" reason are entirely separate reasons. De Leon and the SLP as a whole seems not to have noticed that these points are logically independent, otherwise they probably would have said so somewhere, and instead of refering to "the principle of the ballot", someone occasionally would have said something like "the six principles of the ballot". Dave replies - I don't see "principle of the ballot box" as a necessary SLP or Deleon idea. As I pointed out above - Deleon specifically wrote on this topic that it's constantly open to reevaluation. I assume that means based upon the conditons of the day. Mike wrote:(first quoting Dave) > I can tell more people about socialism without having to > waste time and energy trying to mount a ballot effort True, but -- later -- can the workers take control of the industries without a ballot effort? In recent years I've increasingly tended to think "no." Dave replies: Ask me when we get there how we got there. The way ideas explode in today's world - I think it's just going to happen far quicker than ballots can be printed. (We still use papaer ballots here anyway.) If a thousand workers in each state want to mount a ballot effort - hey let's go. I don't care how it happens. Dave
The Greenman	Posted: 19 Jul 2007 03:22 pm    Post subject: Quote: De Leon quote:Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both Mike quote: Quote: I have a problem understanding the SLP idea that the party gets founded first, and the SIU much later. I prefer the idea that the SIU gets founded first, and the party much later. I understand this now. Get the SIU ball rolling and then form the political party later. The SIU concept has to be realized by the majority of workers and non-workers as well and after SIU is accepted, then a political party would then be formed because of the numbers. The party itself would have to be in in line with the present form of government. Talk of overthrowing it is a big turn off to a lot of people. I agree with the amendment to hand all economic power to the SIU. This alone would reduce the size of political government and eliminate the power of the capitalist. Would the political party be a new party or an existing party? Time will tell.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 04:16 am    Post subject: For some reason the SLP has always said that the political party has to do all the educational work. I have never understood that. What a party fundamantally exists for, namely, to contest for elected office, doesn't automatically say to me that it's the chief maker of educational speeches and literature. In As To Politics, De Leon keeps asking the non-politicals, the IWWs, "How are you going to recruit your numbers?", and the IWWs keep asking him, "Why cross the river just to fill the bucket on the other side?" (I love tormenting Dave with metaphors -- this means, of course: an industrial organization can also make speeches and literature, so if that were the main reason for the party then it would be unnecessary). The two sides of the debate talk past each other without effective communication. De Leon failed to deconstruct his own position logically, that is, I can count at least six and maybe seven different reasons that he gives for having a political movement, of which this one, to conduct the education about capitalism versus socialism, I believe to be the weakest reason in the list. If De Leon's right, the party has to be organized very early, but I'm not convinced.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 04:34 am    Post subject: In theory (my theory :o), BOTH the political and industrial organization could be last-minute acts, if it were really true that the working class had some other auspices to meet and learn and discuss, the way the 1960s black civil rights movement in Birmingham, Alabama had its meetings in the 16st Street Baptist Church. If there were any other place or opportunity for the fledgling socialist movement to meet and learn and plan, that could go on for as many years as it takes to recruit the numbers, and then the actual organizations, a political one to seize political offices, and an industrial one to take and operate the facilities, might be formed quickly at the last minute. I just don't know if this is realistic considering the way "real people" are. There are a lot of things we could do but don't. Maybe its better to form the organizations just to have the spark. Sometimes I think they should have kept the early WIIU no matter how small, just because it being there and having a post office box provides a continuous point of reference. Why not start the organizations early? The cost of starting an organization is trivial because the cost only rises as the membership itself rises.
The Greenman	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 04:58 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Sometimes I think they should have kept the early WIIU no matter how small, just because it being there and having a post office box provides a continuous point of reference. Yeah, that is very true. The WIIU should have continued to exist. It would have been the reference point of the SIU. On the other hand, on the subject of the political, I have thought about what I wrote in an earlier post concerning a new political party. I beginning to think that since Americans only vote mostly for the two parties that the SIU candidate should run as a Democrat or, perhaps, a Republican. I write this because Third Party's don't get very many votes. Then again if the supporters of SIU becomes a nation phenomena then perhaps a New Party would get the votes.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 01:48 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: beginning to think that since Americans only vote mostly for the two parties that the SIU candidate should run as a Democrat or, perhaps, a Republican. I find it hard to draw any lessons from anything people do today and say this is something we would find if socialist education were advanced. People today can't even imagine any alternate ways to live. Today people's big dream of a radical new future seems to go as far as having electric automobiles, and technical concepts like this. If people ever get to the point of thinking about wholey new ways to run human society, new inds of democratic institutions, voter patterns could respond dramatically. For all I know, the Dem and Rep parties might skrink to insignificance. We might even find more than the customary fifty percent of the eligible voters going out to vote.
The Greenman	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 03:20 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: I find it hard to draw any lessons from anything people do today and say this is something we would find if socialist education were advanced. People today can't even imagine any alternate ways to live. Today people's big dream of a radical new future seems to go as far as having electric automobiles, and technical concepts like this. If people ever get to the point of thinking about wholly new ways to run human society, new kinds of democratic institutions, voter patterns could respond dramatically. For all I know, the Dem and Rep parties might shrink to insignificance. We might even find more than the customary fifty percent of the eligible voters going out to vote. Oh I agree that the majority of Americans can't get past of their dreams of wealth and technical gadgetry in their possession. I was thinking running Dems or Reps would get attention not so much of getting anyone in office. The idea is to educate before we can have an American Socialist Labor Party who would run candidates on the platform to end capitalism and to hand over the means of production, in common ownership, to the workers of the SIU. The present form of government would be reduced to Law, law enforcement and courts.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Jul 2007 04:49 pm    Post subject: Anything that generates attention and publicity, as long as the behavior is moral and the words tell the truth, may be a good idea. For a good social cause to be unheard of and forgotten is just about the worst condition it can be in. (I expect the SLP would disagree with me about that!)
The Greenman	Posted: 21 Jul 2007 04:46 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Anything that generates attention and publicity, as long as the behavior is moral and the words tell the truth, may be a good idea. For a good social cause to be unheard of and forgotten is just about the worst condition it can be in. (I expect the SLP would disagree with me about that!) Aside from the SLP I do think that attention and publicity would be good--especially these days. I do make comments at times at work to get a response, actually new work place, and I still find (no matter where I am at) that the concept of workers owning the means of production is still considered Communism Soviet style. It is going to take a long time for workers to accept socialism and the organization that makes public ownership possible.
The Greenman	Posted: 21 Jul 2007 04:47 am    Post subject: OOPS--Double Post :oops:
The Greenman	Posted: 24 Jul 2007 08:04 pm    Post subject: Thank you for adding The Industrial Form of Government I was wondering if Dave was right about law, law enforcement, lawyers and courts would being in the Department of Public Service? You know, more under worker management. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Jul 2007 02:27 am    Post subject: Oh, you mean the classless society must have lawyers? Bhehhhh.... Is it really necessary? It took me, well, from 1968 to 2006, and that's a long rumination, to finally admit that the a classless society must have police. Now I have to face the worst of the worst, and admit that it would also need lawyers? Isn't the need for lawyers produced by having an adversarial justice system? Adversarial: one side being as sneaky as possible to argue that you're guilty, and the other side being as sneaky as possible to argue that you're innocent. Is an adversarial system good for anything? I notice that we don't use an adversarial system in scientific investigations. We don't test a scientific question by having partisans assume opposite biases. We don't try to determine whether there's microscopic life on Mars by having a clash between two guys, one of whom would use any available trick to make the answer seem to be "yes", and another guy who would use any available trick to make the answer seem to be "no". Does a criminal justice system need such a method?
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Jul 2007 02:55 am    Post subject: As for whether these guys should be considered part of a public service industry, I'll say yes in two senses: (1) they need resources -- buildings, equipment, etc. -- and socially owned industry will supply this; (2) they will need personal incomes, and the standard work compensation system will supply this. But as for worker self-management, not really. Some, but generally no. The police can't choose their own procedures. The democratic society has to choose the procedures for the police. The police can manage their own jobs in a purely technical matter, like whether to use windows computers or linux computers. But when it comes to the content, the policies to be followed, a democratic society has to choose.
The Greenman	Posted: 25 Jul 2007 04:15 am    Post subject: Mike wrote: Oh, you mean the classless society must have lawyers? Bhehhhh.... Is it really necessary? Perhaps society will attain a classless state but we are still going to have people who think themselves better and snobbish. The question is: Are lawyers necessary? Yes, because there will be laws. Mike wrote: It took me, well, from 1968 to 2006, and that's a long rumination, to finally admit that the a classless society must have police. Now I have to face the worst of the worst, and admit that it would also need lawyers? Being employed, sigh, in a detention center, you are going to have people committing crimes that need locked up. You also have people who are pissed off and accuse someone of a crime. Does a criminal justice system need such a method? Unfortunately, classless does not mean perfect and since laws will be written lawyer will interpret them and they will be arguments over rights and liberties. Mike wrote: As for whether these guys should be considered part of a public service industry, I'll say yes in two senses: (1) they need resources -- buildings, equipment, etc. -- and socially owned industry will supply this; (2) they will need personal incomes, and the standard work compensation system will supply this. How many Socialist would actually admit that there would be a need for law? I like how you think. Mike also wrote: But as for worker self-management, not really. Some, but generally no. The police can't choose their own procedures. The democratic society has to choose the procedures for the police. The police can manage their own jobs in a purely technical matter, like whether to use windows computers or linux computers. But when it comes to the content, the policies to be followed, a democratic society has to choose. I agree the police have to manage how they do their jobs because violent offenders will be around I am sure--those decisions made out in the field. Reports and information of suspects are on a computer database. I do agree that society would choose what procedures police use and I am sure the public would also want to protect those law officers from harm as well. Laws would be more uniformed and universal being part of the department of public service. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Jul 2007 05:25 am    Post subject: I still don't see why the need to interpret laws requires lawyers. The laws could be simple. It's the lawyers who make laws complicated so that they will be needed to interpret them. They write the laws in a secret code. Where there must be species of things (simple assault versus aggravated assault), why not just let the jury borrow a little dictionary?
The Greenman	Posted: 25 Jul 2007 12:53 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: I still don't see why the need to interpret laws requires lawyers. The laws could be simple. It's the lawyers who make laws complicated so that they will be needed to interpret them. They write the laws in a secret code. Where there must be species of things (simple assault versus aggravated assault), why not just let the jury borrow a little dictionary? Your right, laws are written in a secret code and they should be very simple to understand. Police is one thing, unfortunately, that will be needed. Its good to question the need for lawyers. Would that include judges? John
The Greenman	Posted: 12 May 2008 01:42 pm    Post subject: Speaking of political government. Would you say that the political government would serve as a check and balance of the economic government of Socialist Industrial Unions and would not these rank and file unions serve as a check and balance over the political government?
mikelepore	Posted: 13 May 2008 04:00 am    Post subject: I would prefer that political government be a higher authority but leave industry alone unless it does something unacceptable, which I guess is similar to the way the Supreme Court leaves the legislature alone until it has to step in and overrule it. I use the example of a case where industry may keeps on doing something that the public considers hazardous, not because they're bad guys but just because they're a different demographic and the issue may be fuzzy, like if 55 percent of the workers vote that a method is safe but 55 percent of the general public votes that the same method is unsafe. I guess that's a form of checks and balances. And I wonder, do we really have balances today between the branches of government? When five members of the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress and the states anytime they want to, where the balance? It looks to me like an honor system -- the Supreme Court, having been appointed dictator-for-life like Julius Caesar, is expected to leave things alone most of the time, but they don't really have to.
davesearles	Posted: 13 May 2008 04:33 am    Post subject: IMHO: If we use the amendment proposal as a model, the current political govt remains as it is. The SIU will not take over any govt. functions per se - the SIU will fill in where private ownership of the industrial means of production used to be. So on the surface the relationship of the political govt will be as it it now but to the SIUs instead of private property. The political govts and not the SIUs will have sovereignty - with the limitation that the unions of workers will always be in control of the means of production via the constitutioanl amendment subject to reasonable oversight by congress and within constitutional limits. That's on the surface. But the above puts another process in place - and that is that the workers will replace the owners of private property in being able to hold elected POLITICAL representaties accountable - also the current relationship of the poltical state being able to curry favor for itself by controlloing government contracts and other purely economic legislation will be all but totally eliminated by the workers being in control of the industrial economy.
The Greenman	Posted: 15 May 2008 10:51 am    Post subject: Thanks for the replies. I made a decision on becoming a member of The Democratic Socialist of America. I was once a member years ago but I find that the discussions made me reconsider the tactics of DSA. Been working a lot lately and looks like it will continue for some time to come.
mikelepore	Posted: 15 May 2008 12:58 pm    Post subject: Good luck with that, John. Now you're prepared to be a teacher wherever you go.
davesearles	Posted: 15 May 2008 01:38 pm    Post subject: JT do me a favor, ask them if they will adopt the proposed labor amendment to the US Constitution. Is there a forum open to non-members to discuss such things: 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.
The Greenman	Posted: 15 May 2008 03:01 pm    Post subject: Already done that Dave with an e-mail to the main office. No reply other than welcome to DSA. However, time permitting since the department manager is loading a lot of work on me lately, I have joined the DSA members yahoo list which the Amendment proposal will be presented to other members. I am just waiting to get approval. I am hoping they are more receptive to the concept since they are political active to strengthen the Democratic Party Left Wing which is represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I have to agree with DSA that workers fear that there would be more to lose than their chains to wage slavery. Capitalist have been very effective with propaganda to make sure their wage slaves don't come to a clear understanding of the democratic nature of socialism. Lets see what I can do to change some views.
The Greenman	Posted: 19 May 2008 01:56 pm    Post subject: Well, I tried to join the Yahoo group but was rejected simply because the moderator chose to ignore my request. Guess they don't like De Leonist.
mikelepore	Posted: 19 May 2008 03:58 pm    Post subject: We can create as many yahoo or myspace identities as we want, and apply for admission to groups under several of them, until one of them eventually gets approved by the moderator. The only problem is remembering which log-in to use with which group. A person needs a huge chart of user names and passwords.
The Greenman	Posted: 20 May 2008 10:20 am    Post subject: Well, I am sort of glad that I did not get the approval. I've worked all of last week and I got last night off for once. Thanks for telling me to resubmit under a different user name.
The Greenman	Posted: 22 May 2008 11:53 am    Post subject: Gee, they must of read what I wrote here. I was asked to verify who I was by e-mail and now I am a member. Let's see what the reactions are to the Amendment Proposal. Since this is a different group from the SP-USA and the largest socialist organization in the U.S. it just might spark some interest. People like Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenriech, and Francis Fox-Piven (one of my favorite sociologist) could take interest. We just have to keep our fingers crossed.
davesearles	Posted: 22 May 2008 06:23 pm    Post subject: Upon that news I went down to my bank and told them I wanted my checking account converted over to labor vouchers. They said no problem but that I would have to give them a graphic of the symbol for labor voucher. I told them I would get back to them.