Author	Message
Anonymous	Posted: 29 Aug 2006 07:51 pm    Post subject: SLP today hello, this is my first post. i've been paying attention to the SLP and deleonism for a few years now, and take The People and like it. i've also read into the history of the SLP, inc. the books by ken ellis and girard & perry, which present a mixed picture indeed. what i'm interested in is less the history than the state of the organization now. the minutes of the last convention sound pretty frank, but still come from official sources. can anyone here, in as non-gossippy a way as possible, speak to that? i'd appreciate it.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 Aug 2006 02:15 pm    Post subject: We don't have many people reading this. I haven't done a good job spreading the word about the existence of this site. Let's keep your question out there, and maybe the people who can answer it will arrive. If you've read the national convention reports, you probably know a lot more about the subject than I do. I was an SLP member in the 1970s.
mikelepore	Posted: 31 Aug 2006 02:17 pm    Post subject: Re: SLP today pete wrote: the minutes of the last convention sound pretty frank What subject were they talking about?
Anonymous	Posted: 31 Aug 2006 06:45 pm    Post subject: the membership numbers and economic situation.
Anonymous	Posted: 31 Aug 2006 06:46 pm    Post subject: sorry, that last post was from me, i just forgot to enter my name
Anonymous	Posted: 31 Aug 2006 06:49 pm    Post subject: BTW thanks for keeping the Discussion Bulletin link on the website. very interesting stuff. i understand mr. girard passed recently.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Sep 2006 08:57 pm    Post subject: Frank Girard died in Feb. 2004 at the age of 77. I created the Discussion Bulletin web site for him because he had been sending me the DB for free for years, and I asked him how I might repay him with labor time vouchers. He began scanning the pages for each issue and emailing them to me to insert HTML. I still have his account password. I now have web hosting capabilities, which I didn't back then, so Frank settled for one of the free accounts with obnoxious banner ads. Someday I'd like to find someone who has the back issues and can OCR them, and the additional pages would be put online advertisement-free.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Sep 2006 09:40 pm    Post subject: Quote: the membership numbers and economic situation. The problem of small membership is a challenge to understand. It seems today that you can come up with any random hypothesis and you'll get a following. Say that the Apollo mission was staged in Hollywood, and you'll get a few thousand members. Say that the earth is flat, and you'll get a few thousand members. So how come organizations that have very thoughtful proposals for a new kind of social system are having so much trouble? Im my humble opinion (uh-oh, here it comes :-) the problem must be in the area of what membership is thought to consist of, the expectations and duties that accompany membership. I don't like seeing excessive requirements. I don't like it what a socialist organization tells a person, in effect, we can see that you agree with the rest of the group on 999 out of 1000 conceptual points, but you think differently about this one point, so you ought to go your own way, and you can start your own group if you wish, but don't mess up "ours." This practice might have seemed to make sense a century ago, when socialists believed that history moves in a track toward an inevitable result, but now it's clear that the practice has to go, now that we can see that social change can be stalled for an extremely long time. It does no good to take pride in remaining pure if it means that socialism has to wait until hell freezes over. I'm not just picking on the SLP. I tell the World Socialist organization the same thing when they reject membership applicants solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. Quoting from the Communist Manifesto: "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement." Dr. Marx, are you rolling over in your grave?
Anonymous	Posted: 03 Sep 2006 08:17 pm    Post subject: Stopped By to Say Hello Hi Mike and Dave, I am at my daughter's house and I thought I get on line to let both of you know I am doing well. I no longer have a computer at home so I won't be able to read any replies. Anyways, it was fun being here but circumstances has brought a lot of change in my life being that I am under the blood of Christ and no longer Pagan. Take Care, John T.
Anonymous	Posted: 14 Sep 2006 12:01 pm    Post subject: John T. (formerly S.G.) Hi John: Just an observation - you were a pagan and now are under the blood of Christ. Sounds pagan to me. But that's me. If your new faith (or evolution of your old faith(s)) brings you comfort, then God bless. We'll still love you for your questions. To Pete and Mike: Of course no real answers but some guesses. The SLP never was a political party despite its name and despite the fact that it once ran candidates. When the candidates of the SLP win that signals the end of capitalism and the end of the political state. Principled but not sustainable over the long run. Analogy alert: Maybe the Chicago White Sox could go a hundred years before winning the World Series, but hell no one way can an organization be sustained over a hundred years without winning a single game. The SLP for the most part would be better described as a fraternal organization. Fraternal organizations flourished at the turn of the 2oth century. It seems that every town in the north east US has at least a half dozen buildings that were once halls of fraternal organizations now defunct. Those organizations fulfilled a need for socialization and connection being met in different ways now - far more individualized. All of those people on cell phones. Who can they be talking to - other people on cell phones with noting better to do but to talk to people on cell phones? Oh well. Like I say it fulfills a need. The SLP existed for many years with the focus and a purpose on distributing literature. How many hundreds of thousands of leaflets did we hand out? Everything else went to pot in the party, but we could always look to leaflet distribution as an area where an effort was being made, but then people got tired of it after twenty years of saying would you like a leaflet? would you like a leaflet? Come the communication revolution and we don't need the party printing press any longer. And of course the party failed to adapt its hierarchical information control model. Imagine, the SLP hasn't even been able to adjust to bring itself to allow a section or the national organization for that matter to have an online discussion group. "Can't control it like we controlled information in the old days therefore we would rather die a principled death." I used to wrack myself over it, at one point suffered a mild case of what used to be called a nervous breakdown over it, bit I have moved on. Now I do, and I think I can speak for you Mike, that you do what you can, in a non-organizational mode. I guess that's it. Yes there is a need for the workers to organize at the means of production but that doesn't mean that we have to organize ourselves into clubs to advocate that. IMHO davesearles
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Sep 2006 08:56 pm    Post subject: Thing I don't understand about the SLP membership is why they get mad when someone like me says that I don't want to join. If I tell them I largely agree but I don't want to join, it seems to me that I'm being less of an obstacle to them, or less of a "part of the problem" to them, than if I had said that I didn't agree at all. And yet the reaction seems to be as though I'm significantly "part of the problem." It's as though the millions of people who disagree completely, or never heard of the party, they're okay, they're our fellow working class members, and hopefully they'll come around eventually, no matter how reactionary they may be currently, but someone like me, I say I agree about 99 percent, but not 100 percent, and as for personality I'm not a joiner anyway, well, then, it seems as though I might have well committed murder. I didn't used to be like that. I remember a time when the party was happy to have a core of sympathizers and semi-sympathizers who would volunteer to help with the work.
The Greenman	Posted: 07 Dec 2006 07:28 pm    Post subject: Guest wrote: Quote: John T. (formerly S.G.) Hi John: Just an observation - you were a pagan and now are under the blood of Christ. Sounds pagan to me. But that's me. If your new faith (or evolution of your old faith(s)) brings you comfort, then God bless. We'll still love you for your questions. I went through a very difficult situation and I reacted by returning to my childhood faith. Kinda text book don't you think? Anyways, Sacred Kings and Scapegoats are pagan beliefs and the very reason Judeism rejected Jesus since human sacrifice is rejected under Jewish Law. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Dec 2006 09:45 pm    Post subject: No matter what your spirituality, "God helps those who help themselves." If we want to build a house, we don't pray for the boards and nails to fly into the air of their own accord, and turn themselves into a house. We realize that we have to move our own bodies in certain ways in order to make the boards and nails also move and thereby become a house. As long as people agree on that, spirituality is entirely personal, and the spirituality of any individual is no one else's business. It's only if someone argues that we don't have to do something for ourselves, but merely sit in meditation and wait for things to move of their own accord, that their spirituality would come into conflict with socially progressive movements. The socialist movement, like the peace and civil liberties movements, must inist that people have to make organized efforts to change the world. There are just a few elements of religion that we must oppose. For example, socialists must oppose the Hindu parable of Arjuna, which says that the soldier who realized that war is foolish, and therefore refused to fight, was himself unwise, because he failed to realize that, since physical existence is merely an illusion, there's nothing really wrong with the slaughter of war. We must also oppose those Islamic customs that mistreat women. Socialists must oppose any religious issuances that imply that tyrants and ruling classes have a natural right to rule the people, such as "The powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1), or the remark of Pope Leo XIII in _Immortalie Dei_, "Inciting to revolution is treason, not only against man, but against God." Socialists must oppose specific elements of specific religions, here and there, but, in general, the proper position of the socialist movement on religion is that religion is a personal matter and no one else's business.
mikelepore	Posted: 08 Dec 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Those socialist groups that argue firmly against religion are themselves in conflict with the scientific method. It is well-known, and explained in every logic textbook, that no claim of nonexistence can ever be proven. It is absurd when some socialists pretend that they can have certainty that a creator-being or the soul or the afterlife don't exist. As for the World Socialist groups, like the Socialist Party of Great Britain, they practice the habit generally of claiming certainty for what are merely their intuitive feeling. Likewise when they claim that, after the socialist revolution, all "greed and laziness" will vanish entirely and forever, so that socialism can make labor voluntary and can distribute goods for free, and production will continue in a stable way, and that this is knowable in advance. They're merely guessing. They have no way to know. What is just an intuitive feeling of some people is being elevated to the status of a basic principle for which they claim certainty. Just as they do it with the money question, they also do it with certain philosophical questions, such as the subject of religion.
davesearles	Posted: 10 Dec 2006 04:19 am    Post subject: They have no way to know. What is just an intuitive feeling of some people is being elevated to the status of a basic principle dave writes: and ain't that a religion? That's what gets me - that they protest so loudly.
The Greenman	Posted: 11 Dec 2006 07:38 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: Those socialist groups that argue firmly against religion are themselves in conflict with the scientific method. It is well-known, and explained in every logic textbook, that no claim of nonexistence can ever be proven. It is absurd when some socialists pretend that they can have certainty that a creator-being or the soul or the afterlife don't exist. I agree with you on this point. I believe that opposing those who know (whatever writings their religion has) has proven counter productive over the many years. Yes, Romans and other of Paul's writings support those in authority and slavery. Some say he wrote this way so that the Roman authorities would not arrest and kill him. However, the slave owner was also made aware that he was a slave and on equal footing with the servant. I believe in ancient times life was not very easy and tribes sought out those who could lead them and keep them all alive. Basically, the idea of serving the god(s) was to appease them in some way since all cultures have the concept of falling short of the gods expectations. This is why sacred kings died and scapegoats carried away sins. John T.
The Greenman	Posted: 12 Dec 2006 04:56 pm    Post subject: Mike...lets take this over to the religious section of the forum being this is the SLP Today thread. By the way, the SLP sounds awful a lot like the DOP and democratic centralism which I oppose. Is this why they don't respond here? John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 15 Dec 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: Mike...lets take this over to the religious section of the forum being this is the SLP Today thread. Okay, but the posts above can't be moved. The software lets me move posts to a newly created topic but not to a pre-existing topic. The Greenman wrote: By the way, the SLP sounds awful a lot like the DOP and democratic centralism which I oppose. Is this why they don't respond here? A few ideas there: 1. I didn't contact every SLP member that I have an email address for and tell them about the existence of this forum. I asked the National Secretary if he would do me a favor and distribute the fact of the existence of this forum. I don't know if my choice was right or wrong. 2. SLP members I have known would rather participate in a venue where no non-members make any claims about the SLP's theory and history. If this were a non-socialist forum, for discussing world history in general or something like that, they would be more likely to participate. But it seems to irritate them that I will entertain a discussion about so-and-so quit the party or got kicked out due to such-and-such a theoretical disagreement or such-and-such a personal grievance, and we students of labor history are interested in the question of whether this individual had a point worth discussing or whether he or she was simply nuts. SLP members I have known view this as airing the dirty laundry, the tabloid dirt. I think the party members are misisng the point. I'm trying to get them to understand that when someone agrees with 99 percent they're more of a friend than a random correspondent who doesn't agree with any of it, and it's unwise to exclusively entertain the random corespondent while excommunicating the friend. The working class will NEVER give the SLP that last one percent of agreement. Even if the working class agreed with nearly all of the SLP's positions and programs, the working class will never, until hell freezes over, sign up to swear that they agree with 100 percent. As long as the party demands that impossible 100 percent agreement with everything, then the party will never get more than the order of magnitude of hundreds of members. Imagine a socialist party that does this: Take a stand on the most recent supreme court decision. Expel all members who disagree with it. Take a stand on how best to interpret the Vietnam War. Expel all members who disagree with it. Take a stand on the suggestion for the independence of Puerto Rico. Expel all members who disagree with it. Take a stand on nuclear power. Expel all members who disagree with it. Et seq. Now, what are you going to have? An "organization" of a couple dozen people who think exactly alike on absolutely everything. Now, this is NOT (exactly) what the SLP does, but what actually happens is that anyone who disagrees with any party resolution or party newspaper editorial, no matter how minor, is expected not to mention it publicly. If they mention it publicly, they are subjected to the totally irrelvant charge that they fail to accept the general principle that "a revolutionary movement requires self-imposed discipline"! The party's literature and web site says party membership is open to anyone of good character who agrees with the basic principles. Bullshit. When you join, then it comes out that, while you agree with 999 of the "basic principles", you think differently about, say, one of them. You say so. Having said so, you are not a person of "good character". You are first given a chance to quit, or to quit indirectly by being dropped from the rolls for nonpayment of dues. But you don't take them up on it -- you pay your dues. Then watch how fast it escalates, and you get accused of something specific. So specific as "conduct unbecoming a party member", a phrase I heard used at one party meeting. The Greenman wrote: sounds awful a lot like the DOP and democratic centralism Democratic centralism, yes, but DOP, no. The concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat intends to put a party in charge of SOCIETY. The SLP doesn't want to impose this dopey concept of "discipline" on society, only on its own members who have voluntarily signed up to submit to it. The problem is that only one one-millionth of the population will ever sign up to submit to it. Unless the party changes this, the working class will never join the organization. The hope that the bulk of the working class will volunteer to join under such cirumstances is thoroughly absurd. A DOP is also based on top-down leadership. I am not one of those critics of the SLP who accuse it of having a top-down leadership. The national secretary and all of the regional delegates to the national executive committee are elected annually by the whole membership. This isn't a leadership problem, for if it were then it would be fixed within any one year. This is a problem with the whole membership having a counterproductive notion of what "the voluntary discipline of a revolutionary organization" is supposed to consist of. The membership consistently votes annually to continue this tradition. But, see, now that I have written the above, SLP members will feel that they are not free to post here. I'm merely the National Inquirer focusing only on the dirt. Well, guess what -- I haven't signed any self-imposed "discipline" contract. I can say anything I god-damned please. And this is exactly what the working class as a whole will always say, forever and ever.
davesearles	Posted: 16 Dec 2006 11:58 am    Post subject: Is there ANY presence on the web whatsoever of the SLP or its members except for the slp website? Do their members get out on the street corners of the internet (there I made an analogy) to spead the idea of SIU? I don't see it, do you? What is the pupose of membership in the SLP to vote for national officers once in a while? They didn't learn a thing from Nat Pressman. He would have gone nuts to have the internet. dave p.s. for you John, Nat Pressman was the SLP sparkplug in the Hudson Valley for about 40 years. His m.o. was to write letters to the editor of Newspapers all over the country about the SLP. He did this even when he was in the army during WWII. He would have published perhaps 400 letters in various newspapers during the course of a year. You litterally could say the name Nate Pressman anywhere in the country and quite often someone would say, hey isn't he the socialist guy in the newspaper? He died in 1993. Because of his letters when he died his funeral was on the front page of the Middletown Record (a full front page picture) and his death was on the newswires and reported in too many papers and radio stations to keep track of.
davesearles	Posted: 16 Dec 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: While Nat was in physical decline I wrote to the SLP twice asking it to consider reinstating his membership - never even the courtesy of a response. Why should they have responded, after all they are a revolutinary political party. Horseshit.
The Greenman	Posted: 16 Dec 2006 04:55 pm    Post subject: At any rate, having democratic centralism is counter productive since workers will not always agree on everything. If we always agreed 100 percent on everything we cease being human. Mike wrote: Quote: The party's literature and web site says party membership is open to anyone of good character who agrees with the basic principles. Bullshit. When you join, then it comes out that, while you agree with 999 of the "basic principles", you think differently about, say, one of them. You say so. Having said so, you are not a person of "good character". You are first given a chance to quit, or to quit indirectly by being dropped from the rolls for nonpayment of dues. But you don't take them up on it -- you pay your dues. Then watch how fast it escalates, and you get accused of something specific. So specific as "conduct unbecoming a party member", a phrase I heard used at one party meeting. No wonder people leave. The SLP has adopted Lenninist atributes. There is no free flow of thought. To do so you get booted. That is a shame but perhaps one day they just might get the idea that they are totalitarian when it comes to open discussion. Gotta go. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Dec 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: This also bugs me: Article entitled "SLP PROGRAM" THE PEOPLE, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2006 "The IWW is a special case. It claims to have revolutionary aims, but rejects the political action needed to educate the working class and the ballot as the means of giving expression to their mandate. It is "anarcho-syndicalist," and the SLP rejects it for the same reasons that Marx and Engels rejected the anarchists who sought to commandeer the First International in the 19th century. For those same reasons, the SLP prohibits its members from being members of the IWW." The truth is: The IWW says that political party affiliation is a personal choice. It would be fine with the IWW even if its entire membership were to join the SLP, but they would have to decide to do so as individuals. There are often anarchist comments in IWW literature, but the IWW says that all comments in IWW literature express the personal viewpoint of the respective author unless indicated otherwise. It's the SLP that says that all comments in SLP literature are official organizational positions unless indicated otherwise. Were it not for the SLP abandoning the IWW in 1908, it might have been the case subsequently that SLP-minded workers might have constituted a majority in the IWW. The SLP personnel were outvoted on something in 1908 and then they all quit, not waiting to see if might have flipped again in the SLP's favor in perhaps 1909 or 1910 or 1911.
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Dec 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Then there were the very few times that The People mentioned the New Union Party or its newspaper. The May 1996 issue: The People made a reference to "the anarchist monthly, the New Unionist." FACT: the NUP's program is identical to the SLP's program. The only difference is the NUP's decision to use euphemistic terms, particularly "working democracy" instead of "socialism." The March 11, 1995 issue: The People accused the NUP of plagiarism because of the similarity of an article. FACT: The reason for the similarity is that the author submitted his article to both newspapers.
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Dec 2006 11:03 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Is there ANY presence on the web whatsoever of the SLP or its members except for the slp website? Over the years I have seen three SLP members in the newsgroup soc.politics.marxism . That's all I know of.
mikelepore	Posted: 17 Dec 2006 11:20 am    Post subject: John, in case you didn't know, the Nathan Pressman of whom Dave is speaking was an SLP member who got expelled because, while running for mayor of his village, he wrote a comment in a campaign leaflet that it would be a good idea for the municipal government to run the electric power utility. The SLP doesn't support either local or national government takeovers of industries. No warnings -- no letter to Pressman telling him to publicly retract his misstatement of the party's program. An incredibly ambitious member for over forty years, then one mistake and you're out.
davesearles	Posted: 17 Dec 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: and as one of the authors of the leaflet there were no errors. It was new ground. The thing the SLP never did figure out was that if it ran in a small venue and god forbid got elected, then what would you do - sorry boys and girls I have to await instructions from my national office? The leaflet clearly sad that these things were not socialism but that they could get workers going ion the direction of thinking about how works being in change of things and operating with the workers in mind could overcome some practical problems and might lead to further action. At no point did we at all suggest that socialism could be inched up on bit at a time. NOT ONE member outside of the national office to whome the leaflet was showed to thought that there was anything wrong with the leaflet. dave
mikelepore	Posted: 18 Dec 2006 03:08 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: and god forbid got elected, then what would you do You're supposed to use the elected office merely as a podium for making speeches about the whole shebang program! Reread the pamphlet on "Berger's Hit and Misses"! When I was in high school, you may remember, Walter Steinhilber came to speak to us. You're probably the one who arranged it. I asked him, "I see you shown on this leaflet as running for comptroller of New York City... what would you do if you were elected?" He replied to me, "Nothing! I understand that a comptroller has something to do with money? I can't even count the change in my pocket! What would I do? Nothing!"
The Greenman	Posted: 19 Dec 2006 06:02 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: A DOP is also based on top-down leadership. I am not one of those critics of the SLP who accuse it of having a top-down leadership. The national secretary and all of the regional delegates to the national executive committee are elected annually by the whole membership. This isn't a leadership problem, for if it were then it would be fixed within any one year. This is a problem with the whole membership having a counterproductive notion of what "the voluntary discipline of a revolutionary organization" is supposed to consist of. The membership consistently votes annually to continue this tradition. DOP is a reflection of what the military does. Top down leadership of the party over all aspects of social life. It really throws democracy out the window whether it is open or shut. If the SLP membership has the notion of voluntary disipline then I have to ask why would they feel that they have to follow a Leninist concept which is based on what militaries do which means it is no longer something voluntary. I would not even subject myself under such a criteria seeing that any sort of independent thought or acton would be strictly curtailed by the membership. Mike also wrote: Quote: John, in case you didn't know, the Nathan Pressman of whom Dave is speaking was an SLP member who got expelled because, while running for mayor of his village, he wrote a comment in a campaign leaflet that it would be a good idea for the municipal government to run the electric power utility. The SLP doesn't support either local or national government takeovers of industries. No warnings -- no letter to Pressman telling him to publicly retract his misstatement of the party's program. An incredibly ambitious member for over forty years, then one mistake and you're out. Not a bad idea since Muny Light in Cleveland was once run by the city and the services were 30 percent lower than the Illuminating Company. The capitalist used their power to close the plant through the banks. Dennis Kurchinich (spelling) fought to keep it under the management of the city. It too bad about Nate Pressman. I have to wonder why the SLP does not like, at least, local government taking over industries? But politics being the glue that holds capitalist government together why can't we use the same glue for the working class? John T.
davesearles	Posted: 11 Mar 2007 02:18 pm    Post subject: The article below appeared in the latest issue of People from a resolution by the party 80 years ago and is reprinted in the most recent people at http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/mar_apr_07TP.pdf This simply blows me away - that sometime between 1927 and obviously prior to the 1960s, the slp distanced itself from the day to day struggles for humanity. But now they seem to have corrected that. For example this latest issue of the People has an article about Elizabeth Jennings, a black woman thrown off of a bus or trolley back in 1854 in NYC . Not too long ago (in my own time refernce anyway) this kind of article would not have appeared in the People, that blacks fighting for equal rights was an insufficient struggle to applaud or encourage if they weren't fighting at the same time to specifically to build the SIU. I specifically recall that back when the ERA amendment was making the rounds, that NY state proposed an ERA amendment to its own constitution. The NY State Convention of the SLP back in 74, perhaps, would not encourage its passage becuase it was REFORMIST Maybe, just maybe things are now looking up over there. But looking up and moving up are two different things. Resolution on Sacco-Vanzetti Case Socialist Labor Party National Executive Sub-Committee Demands Pardon and Thorough Investigation (Weekly People, April 23, 1927) WHEREAS, Sacco and Vanzetti have for six years been incarcerated in a Massachusetts prison for alleged murder and are now under a sentence of death, the execution to take place during the week of July 10, 1927; and WHEREAS, Grave doubts exist as to the guilt of these two men; and WHEREAS, The conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti took place under circumstances that clearly point to the fact that they were victims of the anti-Red mania fostered by the politicians in control of state and federal governments during the years of the war, and the years immediately following it; and WHEREAS, The antiquated judicial machinery in the State of Massachusetts makes it impossible for Sacco and Vanzetti to secure a proper review of the evidence used to convict them, and a careful consideration of such new evidence as has since been brought to light; be it therefore RESOLVED, That we demand of the Governor of Massachusetts, the Honorable Alvin T. Fuller, that he exercise his power to pardon Sacco and Vanzetti, thus opening the way to a thorough investigation of all the circumstances, testimonyand evidence related to this case (even though that investigation may lead to the very doors of the Department of Justice at Washington) to the end that the guilt or innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti may be definitely established through a fair, unbiased and thorough trial; and be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon all subdivisions of the Socialist Labor Party, and upon all other groups of workers, to protest emphatically against this proposed judicial murder, bearing in mind that Sacco and Vanzetti have become symbolized as victims of capitalist class rule, and being further mindful that an injury to one worker is the concern of all the workers. Adopted by the National Executive Committee Sub-Committee, Socialist Labor Party, in regular session held Thursday, April 14, 1927. AUGUST GILLHAUS. Chairman of Session. PAUL HERZEL. Recording Secretary. ARNOLD PETERSEN. National Secretary.
davesearles	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 12:26 pm    Post subject: It has now been 6 months since there has been an issue of the People.
allhailtuna	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 01:30 pm    Post subject: Well, as I see it, the main enemy of socialism these days is the capitalist media. Crud, I've seen videos of SLP members being on television ages ago due to the whatchamacallit act that required alternative viewpoints and such, but that doesn't happen any more, and hardly anybody is even going to know what socialism is. Generally, the only way in which we can get our voices heard now is by uniting together to oppose capitalism. Of course, getting everyone into one party would be a horrible idea, but if all of the socialist parties (including the socialists that happen to be in the SWP, SPUSA and CPUSA), as well as sane anarchists (I continue to hold that anarcho-capitalists are bonkers), could unite to put out, say, a newsletter (around the length of 'The People' probably), it would probably come out daily or weekly, and with all of us united, we'd be able to get our voices heard. Of course, us socialists are not superior to the non-socialist workers, and thus, rather than trying to pull them along like sheep, we'd have to make sure that the newspaper, let's say, 'taught the debate' (some idiot stole that for the creationists. Scum), presenting the alternate viewpoints in an unbiased fashion approved by all. Perhaps put in some written debates, comics, etc. We'd probably only have to exclude Stalinists and Maoists, as well as capitalists, though we could have public debates with them and such. If we still have somebody as ruthless as De Leon, they have no chance of coming out alive. We could perhaps organize an event that takes place twice a year in which all of us leftists just gathered and had a fun time, whereas now we're so segregated that it's hard to believe that there are many of us, leading to large amounts of defeatism. While discussion with people we work with, etc, would still have an important place, it's not enough to start anything close to a revolution. Of course, we would still have separate parties, which workers would join based on ideologies. However, we'd just have to be more open, as you can't have a revolution without any socialists (when I say 'socialists' here, I also include 'libertarian socialists'), and perhaps we'd just have to decide democratically how to run the place after revolution, though I doubt that the workers would be incredibly split in terms of ideology. Crud, 'The People' is out of funds, and hardly anybody knows what socialism is, nor do they have anywhere to discuss it, for example, how to give people an incentive to work, a major issue people have with socialism, though many socialists advocate labour credits, etc, and others advocate the community putting pressure on you, or something. Quote: Dennis Kurchinich Dennis Kucinich. I used to support the guy back in my Dem days.
davesearles	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 02:09 pm    Post subject: at - welcome to the forum. Myself, I'm an anti-social socialist and getting together with folks doesn''t do anything for me. To me the only idea that I dwell on (probably due to intellectual limititations) is collective control of the means of production by the workers. As you point out there are thise who ay believe that socialism is where noone has to do anywork and they still get to share in the bounty produced by the workers. They (such as the SP of GB and affiliated parties) can believe that all they want) when people ask me I, like Marx believe that a system of labor credits would be a good idea. Did the SLP run out of $$ to put out the People or simply run out of practical ideas? ds
allhailtuna	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 02:57 pm    Post subject: Money, last I heard. There's a presidential election, an economic recession, etc. I'm sure they'd have enough material to work with. I'm not especially social myself, though mainly because I dislike small talk. I wouldn't mind an interesting conversation, but who does that any more? I'm not sure whether I would go, but, as it is, most humans are extroverted, and thus presumably most workers, so why not let them have some fun? Of course, there would still be speeches and stuff, as well as the opportunity to buy stuff (books, shirts, flags? Whatever possible, I guess. As long as it's awesome. And doesn't have Che on it. Everything has Che on it) to contibute to the newspaper, so it would probably be worth going to. I'm personally not in the US, rather Singapore, but I'd say there's a far higher chance of stuff like this happening in the US than in here. And yes, CPGB are part of the WSM. Though they are preferable to the 'everybody would be happy and share and the community would punish crime (and if you're speeding, I'll beat you up)' anarchists. Certainly, the Articles on their website are generally quite well done, until they decide to expose their utopian tendencies.
mikelepore	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 05:38 pm    Post subject: Hi, allhailtuna. Yes, to teach the debate is exactly what is needed. I hope you will collaborate with us as we explore the subject. Misleading information dominates online. For example, revleft.com has a beginners' dictionary that claims that "reformism" means political or legal procedures. That file is set up as a forum topic that has been closed to further posting, as though they want their error to be the final word on the subject.
allhailtuna	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 06:17 pm    Post subject: Yes, but what do you see whenever you hear of 'revolution' in the media? Fighting. Does it not then stand to reason that, when hearing the term 'reformism', as the oppposite or revolutionism, one may then suspect that it must mean peaceful revolution. Of course, seeing as this is revleft, it does seem a bit suspicious. Also harmful, since it's one of the most popular commie forums around. By the way, this site has been pretty helpful, and reading the discussions was great too. Crud, they hardly had any analogies in them. So, how much would you think would be a large enough majority for socialism to be implemented properly? For example, if the SLP were to get 51% of the vote, could they really implement socialism? I'd probably just leave it up to democratic vote among the party, but as for what I would vote, I have no idea. Any thoughts on that? Also, the SLP hardly seem to deal with this, or maybe I haven't seen the article.
mikelepore	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 07:09 pm    Post subject: I think 51 percent would be fine except for the problem that various demographics change at different rates, so a more likely outcome is 70 percent in Michigan, 30 percent in Oklahoma, 60 percent in Vermont, etc. It's not exactly clear what the SLP wants to do with a political victory, but several users of this forum think that socialism requires a constitutional amendment, which would mean majorities in many locations, not just a majority generally. How about at least 51 percent support in more than 75 percent of the congressional districts? I think that would be fine. I also think the SLP isn't set up right to get working class support. The SLP considers too many minor details to be "the fundamentals", so if you agree with 999 out of 1000 party statements on various issues, and disgaree with just one of them, you're not allowed to be a member of the party, and instead you're told that you're part of the enemy ranks that must be defeated. The working class will never support a party that makes membership so difficult by requiring unanimous thought, and simultaneously expresses hostility to non-members. (Of course I'm criticizing the SLP because I want them to _succeed_. But I don't see much recognition of the fact that soliciting plenty of criticism from others is the doorway to improvement.)
allhailtuna	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 07:29 pm    Post subject: Can you give some examples of these minor issues? I'm fine with keeping membership to people who believe in the basic principles (SIU, not reformist (that is, somebody who believes that reforms are the way to socialism), not in favour of vanguard parties, etc), but I'm not entirely sure what else would be punishable.
davesearles	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 08:10 pm    Post subject: What they have done is to take a position on something and you can get away with not saying anything, but if you suggest your own idea look out. They will tell you that before you can publish anything you have to get the National Office's approval which they only give if you are in 110% agreement with them. Here is an example - years ago a friend of mine Nat Pressman ran for mayor of a small village. He had run before but only got small numbers of votes. Well don't you know it the two political parties Republicans and Democrats nominated the same person, a real horses ass that only a few people liked. All of a sudden there was a real possibity that Nat, who a lot of people liked, could win the race. (What the hell would we do then?) So Nat came up with a leaflet that he thought addressed some pretty basic party stuff, only worded differently than the Party's usual fare. (Of coure I was part of the writing of the leaflet.) There wasn't time to get the approval of the National Office so Nat put the leaflet out on hs own. Nat had been in the Party for over 51 years and they expelled him without so much as a hearing. Then at the next national convention my brother who was a delegate tried to get the convention to take a look at the matter. He couldn't even get a second for his motion to look into the mater - (and many "friends" of Nat were delegates.) others have seen this repeatedly, but here is the text of the leaflet that got Nat thrown out: FOR THE MAJORITY: THE PLATFORM OF A SOCIALIST IN ELLENVILLE by Nathan Pressman Local politics is dominated by a minority. It dominates in this community and dominates in all communities. Every political body and institution in this country from the national to the local level is under its control. While it cannot be identified in the usual terms, as a racial or ethnic minority, it is a minority nonetheless. It is, in fact, the capitalist class minority, The people I am referring to are the representatives of this class in the bourgeois political state. What lies in this political control is economic exploitation. By this I mean that the means of production, and therefore the livelihood of the vast majority of the population, is owned and controlled by this capitalist minority. "He who owns the means whereby I live owns me." The present boom on Wall Street, contrasted with the 15 million and more workers who are without jobs, is but one example of the different interests between this capitalist minority and the vast working class majority. At the local level there exists a group of small capitalists that virtually dominate the politics of this area. As an example, when Mayor Krieger announced his appointments to the local utility board, among those names were the president of the Bio-Energy Corporation, the vice-president of Marvin Millworks, Incorporated, the vice-president of General Sportswear, Incorporated, and a certified public accountant. Not a single member of the working class. Not a single Black, Latin, or woman. All either members of, or beholden to, this group of small capitalists. At the same time largest capitalists seek to control local politics in their own interests. The municipal power fight provides a case in point. Here we had village officials in league with many local petty bourgeois attempting to escape the tyranny of a monopoly capitalist utility company. This proposal probably would have resulted in savings to the business community, the municipal government, as well as the local residents. But Central Hudson barred no expense, spending somewhere near $100,000 to defeat the issue. While capitalists, large and small, from time to time may have their differences, in the main their objectives are identical, to secure and maintain the system of exploitation that is capitalism. As a socialist, I advocate the elimination of capitalism. I advocate a cooperative, industrial society where the democratic councils of organized workers will become the basis of a planned, rational economy and society. It would be a society where human beings could coexist without the mad need for war, imperialism, or economic rivalry. The industries would produce for human need instead of for capitalist greed. The society that I envision will not be brought about simply by electing me mayor. It cannot exist as long as we are within the confines of bourgeois society. Ellenville is part of the capitalist world. It is a branch of the political state. As such, workers cannot expect that it can be transformed from an instrument of class rule into the workers' councils that they must form. These councils must spring from unions of workers. Our power as workers lies in the industries, all industries. We have power because we produce the wealth of this society, and it is as producers that we must organize. The purpose of my campaign is to use the political process to agitate for socialism and to help advance the overall struggle of working people. This campaign is an opportunity for the workers of Ellenville to broadcast to all workers their desire to end class oppression, and their determination to build a new social order. If the workers decide to do this, and elect me, there are several things that I would try to do with Ellenville to give people an idea of how socialist society would be organized and how it could improve the quality of their lives. 1) I will call for an organization of all the workers of Ellenville -- employed, unemployed, disabled, and retired -- to discuss their common grievances, to serve as a conduit of information among the workers of the various shops, and to plan strategies for unionization and control of the industries and government by the workers themselves. 2) In an industrial society, the only real democracy is workers' democracy. To illustrate this idea, the village manager shall be elected by the village employees and serve at their pleasure. The village manager is in effect the supervisor of the village's employees. It stands to reason then that the workers are the most qualified to judge who their manager should be. 3) The municipal power question should be submitted to the people for a vote. I feel that the issue was defeated because the working class majority of Ellenville was not made to feel that they should have any stake in the operation of the utility once it was an established fact. I therefore propose that any future utility board that I appoint would include a majority a working people and minority representatives. The proposed municipal takeover of the electric business here is in apparent contradiction with the village board's "give-away" of our wind power on the ridge. While hydropower, if it had been made available, could have cut our electric rates in half, wind power developed by a municipal authority would entirely eliminate our dependence on outside agencies for electric power. I therefore propose to do what I can to void the fifty year lease given to Genro, and investigate alternatives to the development of our wind power by outside interests. Finally on this topic, I would ask the village board to enact an ordinance requiring full financial disclosure by corporations trying to influence a municipal vote. 4) I intend to raise for discussion another energy related idea, a municipal heating system. Such a system could produce heat at a central location in the village and pipe it to the residences and businesses at less cost than they now spend. The advantages of this include the possibility that from one central location heat could be produced cleanly and more efficiently than individuals presently can, and a single fuel in large quantities can be purchased more inexpensively. 5) I will propose that a people's commission be formed to save the Minnewaska property from the Marriott Corporation. This commission should include representatives of labor, environmental, business, local government, and all other interested groups and individuals. Among the alternatives I would propose for the site are its possible use as a union/environmental conference and seminar center and/or a public recreational area. My most important job as mayor will be the promotion of the ideas of socialists and socialism. In this world today it is a question of survival. Capitalism has shown that even the probability of the extinction of the human race will not sway it from its course. A new social order is required now! It is up to you.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 08:56 pm    Post subject: Quote: Of course, getting everyone into one party would be a horrible idea, but if all of the socialist parties (including the socialists that happen to be in the SWP, SPUSA and CPUSA), as well as sane anarchists (I continue to hold that anarcho-capitalists are bonkers), could unite to put out, say, a newsletter allhailtuna, your newspaper suggestion is a bit out of date, considering the Internet. Also, it would NOT be a horrible idea for left unity to occur on a singular-party basis, considering these basic principles: Basic Principles: A Commentary Basic Principles: A Proposal
davesearles	Posted: 29 Sep 2008 09:43 pm    Post subject: Well people use the term newspaper in various way - for example I read the New York Times newspaper online. And the question of having more numerous but diverse organizations as opposed to more homogenous and concentrated groups is always a toss up. Anyone familiar with American culture at all probably knows who Groucho Marx was. He had a humourous saying that he would not join a club that would have him as a member. Me, I wouldn't think of joining an organization that would have say, someone as a member who thought that it would be a good thing to kill people for psychological reasons. A main question is also, does the organization boost effectiveness? If not don't bother. But that's me.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Sep 2008 04:49 am    Post subject: Examples of what I call minor details? Officially, any viewpoint that appears in a formal resolution, but, in practice, any sentence at all that has appeared in the party's literature. For example, in 1978 the SLP took a position condemning a Supreme Court ruling that the University of California had discriminated against a student because he was white. I happen to agree with the court decision, so, if I were a member of the the party, I would have exactly three choices: lie about my opinion, resign, or get kicked out. Likewise, you have to agree with the party's position on nuclear energy, a particular interpretation of the situation in Nicaragua, the independence movement in Puerto Rico, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. etc. In each case, either your agree, or you disagree but pretend that you agree, or you resign, or you get kicked out. This tendency to expect unanimity goes back to the beginnings. There is an old SLP pamphlet, a transcript from a Petersen address, in which he describes with outrage a party member who had said out loud that he agreed with the hypothesis by the 19th century economist Jevons that the prices of commodities are determined by marginal utility. Petersen continued, outraged, calling upon the audience to note well, the individual was "still a member of the party at the time!!!" The party's membership application package says that membership is "open" to any people who have "good character" and are in "basic agreement." Apparently, the meaning of "basic" has a thousand subclauses to it.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Sep 2008 05:07 am    Post subject: As for a publication, I see no reason at all why, all these years, socialists (or, at least, classconscious workers who are fair about mentioning socialism) -- couldn't have published an equivalent of Time and Newsweek magazine, including the science columns, the movie reviews, etc. Make it interesting enough and people would read it instead of Time and Newsweek. Just add the working class education even while the other content is just plain interesting. And now that the internet allows anyone with about forty dollars a month to broadcast a radio or TV station online, the opportunities are unlimited. The media monopoly is no longer an excuse. In mass media, creative ideas are now more powerful than investment capital. But if the SLP can't even continue putting out even the electronic version of its newspaper -- cost of production: ZERO -- I guess the creative imagination isn't there.
allhailtuna	Posted: 30 Sep 2008 08:20 am    Post subject: It's a pity we don't still have Einstein around, he probably wouldn't mind contributing a little. :( Also, kicking people out for their views on abortion? I'm for it, but still, it's hardly relevant enough to socialism to chuck people out over it. It's a pity that the only other socialist party in the US currently seems to be the WSM's party, though they also seem to have something of an anarcho-utopian leaning occasionally. Well, at least, those are the only socialist parties that aren't reformist. Sure, there are some non-reformists in SPUSA, but their platform looks like they gathered a few socialists, reformists, and Democrats together and told them to write a few policies each, then chucked all of their policies together. :roll: Also, a campaign in which socialists got together and decided to write-in Karl Marx in the Presidential elections would be awesome. Well, until we're ready to mount a serious challenge. And yes, the fact that they aren't putting out electronic versions of their paper does seem somewhat strange. Also, Debs was awesome. Of course, he did support the bolshies at the time, but I don't understand why so many people condemn US socialists for being excited over the October Revolution. Since they were far away, all they knew was generally going to be propaganda from the US press, generally showing that the US capitalists were scared of them. I'm sure at the time I would have felt at least slightly encouraged.
mikelepore	Posted: 30 Sep 2008 07:13 pm    Post subject: Within the past few years I became more alienated form the WSM as I came to believe that "free access to all that is produced" is a catastrophic policy, and that socialism is workable only if people are paid by the hour and spend it for goods. I'm more hardcore than the SLP on this subject. The SLP, with some vagueness, supports a temporary phase using "labor vouchers" as the currency. I have reached the point where I consider such a voucher system to be practically synonymous with socialism, neither vague nor temporary, as production would stop without it. But don't hesitate to argue with me if you think I'm wrong. I realize I'm out on the fringe here, even among De Leonists. The WSM misunderstanding about industrial unionism, and their unwillingness to correct their misunderstanding, also bugs me. Society can't wait until social ownership is decleared before the workers begin to address the question of what department structure and mode of representation and management shall industry have. Do that and there will be starvation while production is stopped. The new management network has to be completely formed long before social ownership is declared. The SLP is completely right about this point. What you say about the SP platform, example http://votebrianmoore.com/issues.htm , yes, it looks like someone went "hey, what seems to sound kinda radical?" and then scotch taped all the fragments together.
allhailtuna	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 07:53 am    Post subject: It's not really synonymous, you could have socialism without LTVs. The issue is whether that would actually work. Also, did De Leon ever advocate a two-stage system? I haven't seen it, but apparently the SLP seems to think it would be a good idea for some reason. I'd agree with Marx here, free access only works when work has become 'life's prime want' (I view his 'from each... to each' statement as more of a rejection of utopian socialism). Good luck with that, guys. Also, I've always wondered about the 'nosey neighbors' argument for 'free acess'. "Hey, dude, I'm doing a job which I enjoy, but you're not working in your dangerous/boring/disgusting job? You suck, we ain't givin' you nothin'." At least in the LTV system, dangerous jobs, along with jobs with less people willing and able to do them, would presumably be given more recompense.
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Such arguments (labor credits or not) is why I don't really advocate "socialism" anymore becuase you always have to start out what people mean by socialism and everyone has a differnt take on it. I advocate "collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution (the industrial mop)" or words to that effect. if the workers control the industrail mop, that means (at least to me) that they are in control of the why and the "why for" and the "for whom" of production - to me that is not free access by any means.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 01:26 pm    Post subject: De Leon suggested individual pay according to how many hours are put in and also how much effort the work requires, with the matter of how much effort the work requires being estimated by how many people apply to take each job during the initial iterations when the pay offered is more equal. Move the pay level up or down until the number of people applying for the work equals the number of people needed, then the pay level would represent how hard the work is. In the pamphlet "Fifteen Questions About Socialism", question 3, he wrote: Quote: Given the instance of 200 conductors and 200 motormen being needed, the supply of conductors, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for conductors' function, and the supply of motormen, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for motormen's function, will be an exact index of the amount of tissue expended in each function. Temperamental and other exceptional causes being left aside, it will be found that the preference will be generally given by the applicants to the pleasanter, or easier, function, that is, to the function that consumes less tissue. Say that, in the instance under consideration, 400 workers apply for the function of conductor, while only 50 apply for the function of motorman, it would follow that 1 hour of a motorman's function consumes as much tissue as do 8 hours of a conductor's. The rate of tissue consumption being the index of the contribution to the social store, and the rate of contribution to the social store being the index for the rate of compensation, the motorman's 1 hour would receive a compensation equal to the conductor's 8 hours. The huge advantage of leisure that the motorman's function would thus be found to enjoy, and the conductor's function to be deprived of, would have the effect of counterbalancing the discrepancy in the consumption of tissue. A deflection of applicants from the conductors' to the motormen's function would set in. The effect of this effect would be the equilibration of the relative hours of the two. The action and re-action upon one another of these effects and counter-effects will ultimately and unerringly adjust the number of hours of the motorman's function which, all told, would be equivalent to the number of hours of the conductor's function. If, say, in the final adjustment 2 hours of the motorman's function are equal to 4 of the conductor's, then the voucher for labor performed, -- that is, for contribution made to the social store, -- paid out to the motorman for 2 hours' work will enable him to draw from the social store as much wealth as the voucher paid out to the conductor for 4 hours' work; and the voucher paid out to either will enable them to draw from the social store as much of the wealth produced by the other workers as they, motormen and conductors, respectively, contributed to the same store. Interesting thing, he's preserving the consideration of supply and demand in the setting of pay levels; still, it's not a wage system because the workers are all full partners in the co-ownership. You said, did De Leon advocate a two-stage system. I don't know of any place where he spoke of what Marx called the "higher phase." I see no mention of it. (If Marx had been sober he wouldn't have mentioned it either :o) The WSM idea that you change economic systems and then work will somehow become "fun", where you can go on a luxurious vacation for free and not even lose income for taking that the time off work, and yet, the thing you really want to do is get back to the warm glow of the steel mill, is, frankly, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. A plan for socialism has to be workable, otherwise the reader will realize it and won't become a socialist in the first place. If you define socialism in an unworkable way, you create more conservatives.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 01:52 pm    Post subject: For the record, and speaking only for myself, I do NOT limit my main goal to, or define its central feature as, "worker control of the means of production." I believe that the main thing wrong with capitalism is that various workplaces are financially separate companies that have to keep their income and outgo in balance, paying their people and buying their materials out of the revenues they take in from selling products. This localized income-outgo pressure causes the management to neglect health and safety guidelines for the product and for the workshop, pollute the environment, waste natural resources on advertising to persuade consumers to switch brands back and forth, misrepresent the products with dishonest advertising and labeling, discriminate against some population groups with lower than average pay, bribe the mayor and senator for exclusive advantages, hide valuable inventions and research data in the name of securing trade secrets, conceal the facts when they discover that they've made a mistake, build planned obsolescence into the products, etc., etc. The main advantages of socialism will arise because the whole society will pay for all the resources used by the workshop, and therefore the whole society can dictate the kinds of products and owns the products.
allhailtuna	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 02:08 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: Interesting thing, he's preserving the consideration of supply and demand in the setting of pay levels; We don't need any elements of supply and demand in socialism! In socialism, nothing will ever become scarce!
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 02:17 pm    Post subject: ml: Quote: I believe that the main thing wrong with capitalism is that various workplaces are financially separate companies that have to keep their income and outgo in balance, paying their people and buying their materials out of the revenues they take in from selling products. ds: But yet perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in the US work for themselves. It's not for everyone, but in and of itself there isn't a thing wrong with that arrangement that wouldn't be counterbalanced by some problem created in working for a larger concern, or couldn't be ameliorated sufficiently through adequate state regulation.
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 02:28 pm    Post subject: aht: Quote: We don't need any elements of supply and demand in socialism! In socialism, nothing will ever become scarce!" ds: wages" or not, it's still bidding for a job. Anyone familar as to how work slots are filled in many workplaces, union or not, knows the concept of bidding for a job. And sure it is supply and demand. If there is one crane at a work site you only need one qualifed person to operate it. But not everyone likes to have the respsonsibity of operating it so that person can bid on a job where s/he can, for instance, walk around all day or part of a day. Even in a totally coperative society there would be all kinds of give and take based upon, yes, supply of workers, and demand (job slots) for those workers. This bidding doesn't have to be in an absolute range - the union can set acceptable range limits for bidding, and if that doesn't work then systems ofseniority or choice by lot can be set up.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 06:14 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: ameliorated sufficiently through adequate state regulation. You would preserve the material motives for people to do anti-social things, and then have regulations to tell them not to. It would be better not to have the material motives which make them want to, and then you don't have to tell them not to. o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o "For a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Matthew 12:33-35)
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 06:44 pm    Post subject: ds: ameliorated sufficiently through adequate state regulation. ml: You would preserve the material motives for people to do anti-social things, and then have regulations to tell them not to. It would be better not to have the material motives which make them want to, and then you don't have to tell them not to. ds: Why won't the industrial co-op be subject to those same forces?
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 06:58 pm    Post subject: ml: Quote: "For a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Matthew 12:33-35) ds: Holy metaphors Batman!! A tree - A snake - Good treasure and bad treasure in the heart.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 07:25 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Why won't the industrial co-op be subject to those same forces? I'm refering to inducements that arise when the owner of a business has the cost of production as a personal burden. The guy who gets to decide whether to add a new safety mechanism to the line, or a new reecycing method, etc., is the same guy who, if he adds it, would have to pay for it. He can only make an objective decision if he's told: determine scientifically whether it's needed, and then, if you decide that it needs to be added, the greater society will supply everything, it won't come out of your pocket. This is the same reason why you don't stop at Big Al's Tire Shop and ask them whether they think your old tires need to be replaced. Of course they think so, because they sell tires. They get paid to say yes. This is the same reason why, if you want to know whether John Gotti was guilty, the last person you'd expect to get a reliable answer from is his own lawyer, who's paid to give a particular answer to that question. This is how capitalism runs every industry. Who's the worst possible set of people to be in charge of making decisions that affect public safety and convenience? Answer that and this is precisely who is given the power to make those decision. The Alaska oil spill in 1989 - whose decision was it whether or not to use the more expensive double-hull ships? The people who would have to pay the difference in cost. Who's decision is it to decide whether or not we shall get electric cars? The people whose life savings is already invested in gasoline-burning cars. The owners of the car companies flatly refused to install seatbelts in cars until Congress finally said it would be a felony to sell a car without them, only then they were willing to do the right thing. This is the pattern of capitalism. In general, you could just ask: what's the worst way you can imagine to make a decision? Okay, then that's how we'll do it.
The Greenman	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 07:41 pm    Post subject: Dave wrote: Quote: Me, I wouldn't think of joining an organization that would have say, someone as a member who thought that it would be a good thing to kill people for psychological reasons. Not to change the subject--so please don't mind what I write here. I believe the idea of race is a social construct. If certain groups come out with violent messages of threats against individuals because of precieved race difference we label them as racist. now this gets a little tricky, capitalism is also a social construct because we have by accident of birth those who are rich and those who are poor. We know the difference exists between the haves and have nots. To communicate violent messages of threats against capitalists then I have to ask is what is the difference between the haters of race and the haters of class? Both seek to do harm.
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 07:46 pm    Post subject: ml: This is the same reason why you don't stop at Big Al's Tire Shop and ask them whether they think your old tires need to be replaced. Of course they think so, because they sell tires. They get paid to say yes. ds: And with the industrail co-op couldn't the response just as likely be: "you don't need tires becuase the industrial co-op has certified your tires for at least another 15,000 miles, despite that they have no tread"?
davesearles	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 07:52 pm    Post subject: jt: Quote: To communicate violent messages of threats against capitalists then I have to ask is what is the difference between the haters of race and the haters of class? Both seek to do harm. ds: Not only that John, I suspect and I accuse anyone who on socialist lists advocates killing people for "psychological effect" as being a police agent.
The Greenman	Posted: 01 Oct 2008 11:54 pm    Post subject: The idea of "pyshological effect" is just another term to "strike terror" within the population which police states often do. People don't envy those systems whatsoever. I have not been here often but I am sort of on line right now. I have gotten this far in setting up this machine I custom built. Dave, I agree that socialism is not defined because everyone has a different take on what it is. I cannot understand how people can write and say that this or that will exist in socialism as if it was already neatly packaged in a box. We cannot say what super structures would exist or not exist. People would decide "what will be what" after the changing of the material economic conditions.
davesearles	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 12:49 am    Post subject: jt: after the changing of the material economic conditions. ds: but they have changed already. jt: We cannot say what super structures would exist or not exist. ds: but you point out in your every post what the main aspect should be about. "One class owns the industries and does not operate them... Another class operates them but does not own them."
Jacob Richter	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 01:19 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: De Leon suggested individual pay according to how many hours are put in and also how much effort the work requires, with the matter of how much effort the work requires being estimated by how many people apply to take each job during the initial iterations when the pay offered is more equal. Move the pay level up or down until the number of people applying for the work equals the number of people needed, then the pay level would represent how hard the work is. You might want to read (or re-read) Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism. It's online for free. Cockshott is of the opinion that the labour-credits-per-hour compensation should be roughly the same regardless of job (especially where teamwork is involved, such as in certain office jobs). I for one have QUALIFIED reservations, but such reservations do not separate the need for people like himself and people like myself to work together. Pity, if you only explored the question of participatory democracy more, you would make a fine social-proletocrat. :(
Jacob Richter	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 01:22 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: jt: Quote: To communicate violent messages of threats against capitalists then I have to ask is what is the difference between the haters of race and the haters of class? Both seek to do harm. ds: Not only that John, I suspect and I accuse anyone who on socialist lists advocates killing people for "psychological effect" as being a police agent. Wow - you've really stooped to a new low here, Dave! :shock:
davesearles	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 01:54 am    Post subject: ds: I suspect and I accuse anyone who on socialist lists advocates killing people for "psychological effect" as being a police agent. jr: Wow - you've really stooped to a new low here, Dave! ds: High or low I stand by what I wrote.
The Greenman	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 01:59 am    Post subject: Quote: jt: after the changing of the material economic conditions. ds: but they have changed already. jt: We cannot say what super structures would exist or not exist. ds: but you point out in your every post what the main aspect should be about. "One class owns the industries and does not operate them... Another class operates them but does not own them." Material conditions always change and continually will change over the months and years ahead. I was trying to say is that when workers do own and control the MOP that economic conditions would be different than under capitalism. As to other super structures...who can say what will exist or not. I remember you writing that the future "society" would make those decisions as to what their social norms would be. What social constructs would exist is an unknown factor but I am sure it won't come out of a box of what people think these days of what socialism would be. Is public ownership really socialist? It's a form of cooperation but who can say what the rules of engagement would be within that frame work. I have to take my leave from the forum and I am not sure when I will pop back in. I have other projects which involes a lot of other people I meet with now and then as a group. None are socialist but at least I am getting out and socializing.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Oct 2008 05:29 am    Post subject: Jacob Richter wrote: Cockshott is of the opinion that the labour-credits-per-hour compensation should be roughly the same regardless of job (especially where teamwork is involved, such as in certain office jobs) I think so too, comparing office worker with office worker. However, comparing office worker with coal miner, etc., there might now be a difference in strenuosity, such that seventy minutes of work for the office worker might be the same personal sacrifice as sixty minutes of work for the coal miner. It seems to me that sacrifice is the real contribution that workers need to be paid for. The sacrifice of being at work instead of at leisure for x hours, and then the strenuosity appears to be a multiplied coefficient. That's units of time multiplied by some dimensionless ratio, which is units of time again.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 05:24 am    Post subject: ^^^ Doesn't that contradict recent statements on RevLeft (re. doctors and some manual worker occupations)? Anyway, why don't you consider the SP-USA? http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/
mikelepore	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 06:30 am    Post subject: Yesterday I went back to revleft to rephrase myself. As for the SPUSA, I'm repulsed by their cut-and-paste accumulation approach to developing what they think is a "program." A ban on genetically engineered crops? Encapsulation of nuclear fuel rods? They're all over the place. Nothing could be more harmful than all this scattering of attention. If you want to disperse people's thoughts all over the place, why not just advise them to watch pornographic movies? Here's a real winner in the SPUSA program: don't dispose of garbage in landfills, but don't use incinerators either. Isn't that a great idea? How about ideas that contradict one another? How would we make "unconditional disarmament by the United States" and "the right of soldiers to form unions" compatable with one another? I guess we would have soldiers but they wouldn't use weapons. Perhaps the soldiers could all play musical instruments?
davesearles	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 12:34 pm    Post subject: Sousa brigades!
Jacob Richter	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 02:05 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: Yesterday I went back to revleft to rephrase myself. As for the SPUSA, I'm repulsed by their cut-and-paste accumulation approach to developing what they think is a "program." A ban on genetically engineered crops? Encapsulation of nuclear fuel rods? They're all over the place. Nothing could be more harmful than all this scattering of attention. If you want to disperse people's thoughts all over the place, why not just advise them to watch pornographic movies? Here's a real winner in the SPUSA program: don't dispose of garbage in landfills, but don't use incinerators either. Isn't that a great idea? How about ideas that contradict one another? How would we make "unconditional disarmament by the United States" and "the right of soldiers to form unions" compatible with one another? I guess we would have soldiers but they wouldn't use weapons. Perhaps the soldiers could all play musical instruments? My primary problem with their platform is that it is TOO LONG. Note to Dave: I'm for "ultimate programs, minor programs, subprograms, up down and sideways demands," but Chapter 1 (OF PROGRAMS AND PRESENTATION) of my current work will address conciseness vs. overly lengthy documents, agreement vs. "acceptance," etc. Quote: A ban on genetically engineered crops? Encapsulation of nuclear fuel rods? Those aren't reform-enabling reforms, unfortunately. On the other hand, they're in the same league as funding the Hubble space telescope. Quote: How would we make "unconditional disarmament by the United States" and "the right of soldiers to form unions" compatible with one another? I think the SPUSA is referring specifically to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
davesearles	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 02:28 pm    Post subject: jr: My primary problem with their platform is that it is TOO LONG. Note to Dave: I'm for "ultimate programs, minor programs, subprograms, up down and sideways demands," but Chapter 1 (OF PROGRAMS AND PRESENTATION) of my current work will address conciseness vs. overly lengthy documents, agreement vs. "acceptance," etc. ds: The working class will be elated.
mikelepore	Posted: 10 Oct 2008 04:30 pm    Post subject: Here's a nonsocialist reform that I would support. This is the Lepore world peace proposition. As many of the 200+ countries in the world as can be persuaded to participate shall immediately merge into a world government. To gradually phase out the principle of sovereignty, for at least 200 years after ratification, every one of the countries shall be completely self-governing regarding political and economic systems, with only one exception: no country shall be permitted to have a military force. Military installations shall exist in many if not all countries, but they shall be completely controlled by the world community, and their purpose shall be to defend the world community against countries or organizations that have not joined the community, and to suppress any attempts by a member country to establish a military force.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 11 Oct 2008 05:04 am    Post subject: ^^^ Now THAT's something! This would actually make the historic minimum demand for the replacement (as opposed to "complementing" in a "Dual Power" sense) of standing armies by peoples' militias practical from a worker-class point of view. [The absurdity of it being raised by, alas, Marx, Kautsky, and Lenin is that, if any bourgeois nation-state dismantles its army and the country's proles take power shortly afterwards, who's gonna have the tech and training expertise to repel attacks by the foreign bourgeoisie?]
davesearles	Posted: 11 Oct 2008 01:14 pm    Post subject: ml Quote: Here's a nonsocialist reform that I would support. This is the Lepore world peace proposition. As many of the 200+ countries in the world as can be persuaded to participate shall immediately merge into a world government. To gradually phase out the principle of sovereignty, for at least 200 years after ratification, every one of the countries shall be completely self-governing regarding political and economic systems, with only one exception: no country shall be permitted to have a military force. Military installations shall exist in many if not all countries, but they shall be completely controlled by the world community, and their purpose shall be to defend the world community against countries or organizations that have not joined the community, and to suppress any attempts by a member country to establish a military force. jr Quote: Now THAT's something! This would actually make the historic minimum demand for the replacement (as opposed to "complementing" in a "Dual Power" sense) of standing armies by peoples' militias practical from a worker-class point of view. ds: A non-socialist reform that I would support would be that the workers collectively control the industrial means of production and distrbution.
mikelepore	Posted: 12 Oct 2008 02:45 am    Post subject: Without establishing a world government soon, I don't think our species will have has much time left to live. It's nuclear weapons that make all the difference. No amount of gunpowder threatens the species itself, but nuclear weapons do. And it's not only our species. If you were to put ten chimpanzees in a cage where any one of them could push a button that would blow up all of ten of them, I believe that button would eventually get pushed, because they would threaten each other about pushing it, until their fingers were a millimeter from the button, and then someone's finger would have a twitch. It is a serious consideration among astronomers that the reason SETI hasn't detected any signals from space is because of the term in the Drake equation that represents the length of time from when a civilization invents the radio until that civilization destroys itself.
davesearles	Posted: 12 Oct 2008 07:06 pm    Post subject: But perhaps the real reason is that they have figured out how to peacfully resolve their social problems and they spend their days fucking and smoking pot. Beam me up!
davesearles	Posted: 24 Oct 2008 01:34 pm    Post subject: A couple of days ago I sent a email invite to participate in this forum to the email addresses listed in the slp.org directory page. (There are only about 6 email addresses listed. Two email addresses bounced. Burns of Cleveland and Hecht of Minnesota. Things seem to be shutting down completely.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 24 Oct 2008 02:14 pm    Post subject: That isn't good. :(
davesearles	Posted: 24 Oct 2008 05:27 pm    Post subject: That what does not adapt dies. They made their own decision on that.
mikelepore	Posted: 24 Oct 2008 07:51 pm    Post subject: So how many people do we have in the world who want worker administration, political and industrial organization as we define it, and a non-reformist program? Just limiting it those absolute essentials, and dropping all that crap about the law of value and historical materialism, etc. Just those mimimum essentials. How many people do we have? Perhaps a hundred people in the world? Let's see, a hundred people, what can we do with that? That's enough to make 25 independent organizations with 3 members each, plus another 25 people who are unattached. Also, if ten percent of those 100 have internet accounts and are willing to talk to strangers, then an estimated 10 representatives will be online here and there. Yeah, we're in real good shape. This is so fine.
davesearles	Posted: 24 Oct 2008 08:12 pm    Post subject: Be that as it may - in the last year and a half we have made tremendous progress toward being able to present a much more viable idea of how collective worker control of the industrial mop can be implemented, how a binary economic system is viable, how we don't have to cut lose from political government in order to have siu govt. of the industries. That my friend is a whole lot. How many sections would the SLP have had to expel in order to make progress like that?
Jacob Richter	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 01:39 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: So how many people do we have in the world who want worker administration, political and industrial organization as we define it, and a non-reformist program? Just limiting it those absolute essentials, and dropping all that crap about the law of value and historical materialism, etc. Just those mimimum essentials. How many people do we have? Perhaps a hundred people in the world? Let's see, a hundred people, what can we do with that? That's enough to make 25 independent organizations with 3 members each, plus another 25 people who are unattached. Also, if ten percent of those 100 have internet accounts and are willing to talk to strangers, then an estimated 10 representatives will be online here and there. Yeah, we're in real good shape. This is so fine. Workers are disillusioned with parliamentarism. :)
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 04:09 am    Post subject: I'm disillusioned with antidisestablishmentarianism.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 04:53 am    Post subject: ^^^ I think antiestablishmentarianism was the point of Marx's work from The Civil War in France onwards. ;) BTW, I asked you a RevLeft question on economic calculation. ;)
davesearles	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 08:44 am    Post subject: the acolyte of the cult of Ulyanov wrote: Workers are disillusioned with parliamentarism. caveman: How could you ever know that if you can't define it?
allhailtuna	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 02:03 pm    Post subject: Jacob Richter wrote: Workers are disillusioned with parliamentarism. :) What.
The Greenman	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 06:40 pm    Post subject: Quote: Workers are disillusioned with parliamentarism. That's just an opinion.
davesearles	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 07:28 pm    Post subject: Yes John, but it's a term that the acolyte of the cult of Ulyanov uses all of the time - but he has no definition for it. It's just some fancy sounding word - and that's good enough for him.
mikelepore	Posted: 25 Oct 2008 08:26 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: How could you ever know that if you can't define it? It's funny, I knew that you were going to post that, so I just let you do it instead of me, because I had to go somewhere.* But as out-in-the-open as the subject now is, Jacob still doesn't show a sign of dissonance, like: "Oh, dear, I have used my specialized term** so many times without defining it, ignoring all request for a definition. No one knows what I'm talking about. Oh, dear!" Wouldn't that seem to both any writer? Footnotes: * to my daughter's hockey game. ** "parliamentarism"
Jacob Richter	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 12:37 am    Post subject: Very well. Parliamentarism is a particular form of representative democracy that assumes that the nation-state is class-neutral (this was Kautsky's mistaken stance on the state, too), when in fact it is bourgeois to the core: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm Quote: But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France. During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control — that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes — became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism. After every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief. The Revolution of 1830, resulting in the transfer of government from the landlords to the capitalists, transferred it from the more remote to the more direct antagonists of the working men. The bourgeois republicans, who, in the name of the February Revolution, took the state power, used it for the June [1848] massacres, in order to convince the working class that "social" republic means the republic entrusting their social subjection, and in order to convince the royalist bulk of the bourgeois and landlord class that they might safely leave the cares and emoluments of government to the bourgeois "republicans". Contrast this with the various forms of participatory democracy, which sweeps aside this parliamentary facade.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 04:41 am    Post subject: Is a gun neutral? Suppose a rapist is holding a gun to a woman's head and proceeds to push her into the subservient position. But now suppose that she has studied combat, she takes the gun away from him, and now she is holding it to his head. What has just happened? Isn't the gun the same sample of matter that it always was? I have yet to hear one good reason why the working class, if it wanted to, couldn't overwhelm the political process so that the official law of the land becomes Marxism or any other revolutionary plan. Karl Marx wrote: "The working class cannot simply take hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." Bullshit, Dr. Marx. You have no basis for that assertion. Furthermore, Marx's claim to have discovered his great truth by pondering the Paris Commune was a grossly unscientific pretense anyway. If something has happened before a hundred times, and with different kinds of varations to highlight the effects of variables, a social scientist may draw some conclusions from the experience, with luck, and there will still be some uncertainty surrounding the conclusions. But a unique event, with a sample size of 1? No reliable conclusions may be drawn.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 05:01 am    Post subject: The fact that the state originated in ancient times coincident with the rise of classes and monarchy is another pseudo-scientific connection from Marx. A lot of things originated at that time. Nomads formed permanent settlements. The denser population rose so much that collecting fruit and hunting animals could no longer feed everyone. They perfected the art of planting seeds at certain times of the year, and harvesting at certain times, using the constellations as their timekeeper. Tribes fighting over hunting land took prisoners, whom they usually ate, until they realized that it would be more expedient to make slaves of them. To be a purebred descendent of the great city founders was the badge of superiority. Everyone was superstitious about the forces of nature, and superstitious about the role of the leaders as well. The leaders made up rules that they believed would keep the community cohesive, and so you shall honor your ancestors, lynch those who commit adultery, etc. The Romans codified property laws in great detail. Now Marx comes along and offers this analysis: the ancient society invented class division and they also invented the state. But we don't want to have any more class division. Therefore, we don't want to have any more state! Did you catch that? P implies Q, therefore not-P implies not-Q. Look that up in a logic book under the word "inverse." It's incorrect reasoning. "Fido is a dog" implies "Fido has a nose", therefore "Fluffy is not a dog" implies "Fluffy does not have a nose." Right or wrong? It's invalid.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 05:08 am    Post subject: "The state presents itself to us as the first ideological power over man. Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." -- Engels in "Ludwig Feuerbach", 1886 There Engels said it right. The state wasn't created as an organ of the ruling class. It was created as a means to defend the community in general. But then a particular class had the power to manipulate it. The ruled class, wishing to be ruled no longer, will have to deprive the ruling class of the economic mode of its rule, and also deprive the ruling class of its ability to manipulate the state.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 05:50 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: Karl Marx wrote: "The working class cannot simply take hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." Bullshit, Dr. Marx. You have no basis for that assertion. Furthermore, Marx's claim to have discovered his great truth by pondering the Paris Commune was a grossly unscientific pretense anyway. If something has happened before a hundred times, and with different kinds of varations to highlight the effects of variables, a social scientist may draw some conclusions from the experience, with luck, and there will still be some uncertainty surrounding the conclusions. But a unique event, with a sample size of 1? No reliable conclusions may be drawn. Example #2: the Weimar Republic under the turncoat "Social-Democratic" Party Example #3: Allende and Pinochet Example #4: Chavez Quote: Now Marx comes along and offers this analysis: the ancient society invented class division and they also invented the state. But we don't want to have any more class division. Therefore, we don't want to have any more state! Did you catch that? P implies Q, therefore not-P implies not-Q. Look that up in a logic book under the word "inverse." It's incorrect reasoning. Not quite. The ancient formation of class division NECESSITATED the invention of the state to protect the interests of the minority ruling class. We don't want to have any more class division, but we must SMASH the bourgeois state apparatus in order to achieve our goal. Along the way, the workers' "state" will emerge only insofar as to suppress any non-proletarian classes until the classless society, PARTICULARLY the coordinators and petit-bourgeoisie.
davesearles	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 11:14 am    Post subject: caveman: Quote: the acolyte of the cult of Ulyanov wrote: Workers are disillusioned with parliamentarism. caveman: How could you ever know that if you can't define it? Acolyte of the Cult of Ulyanov: Quote: Very well. Parliamentarism is a particular form of representative democracy that assumes that the nation-state is class-neutral (this was Kautsky's mistaken stance on the state, too), when in fact it is bourgeois to the core.... Contrast this with the various forms of participatory democracy, which sweeps aside this parliamentary facade. caveman: Acolyte, I look at the form of what you give as your definition. It is too logically sloppy to serve as a defintion. First you state that Parliamentarism is a specific form of representaive democracy - but then you state that this specific form of representative democracy contrasts with participatory democracy IN GENERAL (the various forms of participatory democracy) Contrasting a specific form of one thing to the general form of another gives no infomation at all concerning the specific form of the first thing. e.g. Humans are a specific form of the general form mammals. Mammals contrast with reptiles. To say that human mammals contrast with reptiles only gives us information concerning the general mammilan qualities of humans and nothing of the specifics of humans compared to other mammals. Second, "Parliamentarism is a particular form of representative democracy that assumes that the nation-state is class-neutral" In other words the particular form of represntative democracy known as "parliametarism", the FORM assumes that the nation-state is class-neutral - that would imply then that there can be a form of representative democracy that does not assume the nation-state to be class neutral. this leads to the question of non-assumption concerning class-neutrality. For example, what if there is no assumption but a deliberate conclusion that while at a particular time the nation state is NOT class neutral, but that the representive democracy may be utilized to have the nation-state recognize the workers' right to abolish the class system? According to you (the Acolyte) that WOULD NOT be parliamentarist because it did not assume the nation-state to be class-neutral. Instead of the acolyte I should refer to you as Micky Mouse the sorcerer's (Ulyanov's) apprentice trying to use his master's tools without either knowledge or discretion.
mikelepore	Posted: 26 Oct 2008 06:02 pm    Post subject: Jacob, if I want the state to do something (and not now, of course, but one day when the majority will be class conscious, and this will change the character of the state), you warn me that the state isn't class-neutral. But then you also want and expect the state to do certain things. You want and expect it the state to enforce your list of proposed reforms which will claw away at the capitalists. Why aren't you poking yourself and saying hey Jake the state isn't class-neutral? *** "Smash the state" -- that takes me way back. I haven't heard that since about 1970. This would make a good Yippie lapel button: "Smash the state and pass a 32-hour workweek law!"
allhailtuna	Posted: 27 Oct 2008 02:09 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: "The working class cannot simply take hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." I've never been quite clear on what this meant, exactly. It doesn't seem like an argument against Parliamentarism (...), though.
The Greenman	Posted: 27 Oct 2008 03:06 pm    Post subject: