The Deleonism.org Protocols

Author

Message

Posted: 18 Sep 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: The Deleonism.org Protocols

Mike wrote:

Quote:

Method 2 is to issue a common statement and to require agreement by the parties on the wording to describe both parties' viewpoints.

I like method 2 the best. This would force us to reach a point where, although we continue to disagree, and no one has compromised even a millimeter, I learn how to paraphrase your viewpoint in a way that you think is fair, and you learn know how to paraphrase my viewpoint in a way that I think is fair.

For example, X and Y jointly adopt a statement that says:

Individuals or organizations X and Y issue this joint declaration that the working class should adopt goals or strategies B and C. They give the following reasons for this position. However, the parties also have several matters of debate among themselves. X believes that we should do A,B,C, and Y believes that we should do B,C,D. X believes that A is necessary for the following reasons. X believes that D is unwise for the following reasons. Y believes that D is necessary for the following reasons. Y believes that A is unwise for the following reasons.

The parties come to an agreement that the statement is worded objectively, sign it with both parties' mailing addresses, print and distribute a million copies, and share the cost.

Mike you already made a good start at this:

Quote:

among all people who define the classless society as direct control by workers' associations and not bossism by political appointees, and who also have a dual program for transition (both political and industrial organization) *, how many subspecies do we find? Some envision continuance of of small businesses and some don't. Some envision platforms that contain demands for reforms, and some don't. There's a scale from envision peaceful change to envisioning confrontational change. This is our taxonomy. It seems that we are all under the umbrella of direct workers' democracy and the dual program. Under that, many species that have to find new and creative ways to cooperate.

* In the way I define ourselves, the dual program is essential, it's backbone. Sorry about alienating the World Socialists, who share with me the concept of capturing the state and the rejection of reformism, but who, unlike me, consider workplace organization to be useless and labor credit compensation to be harmful. And sorry about disrespecting the memory of my late friend Frank Girard, who worked so hard for better communication and cooperation among us, but who believed that we part of the same movement as the anti-ballot anarchists.

Set it up as a point by point presentation and we've got protocols that individuals and groups can sign onto.

mikelepore

Posted: 20 Sep 2008 04:47 am Post subject:

Okay, we can start putting something together. But when we release it we don't be calling it "Protocols." Because most people would associate the name with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There is already enough public opinion about us being crackpots.

davesearles

Posted: 20 Sep 2008 06:16 pm Post subject:

kyoto protocols didn't seem too bad -

Jacob Richter

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 03:56 am Post subject:

That's because it was the Kyoto Protocol (in the singular). ;)

My Basic Principles material (plagiarizing from the Communist Manifesto, the Erfurt Program, Kautsky's commentary on the latter, and other works), decried as being merely a "preamble" by Dave, is indeed a good starting point. :)

Quote:

How many subspecies do we find? Some envision continuance of of small businesses and some don't.

In the history of sectarianism on the left, there have been, thankfully, no splits on the basis of this question. :)

Quote:

Some envision platforms that contain demands for reforms, and some don't.

Correction: MOST envision platforms that contain demands for "reforms," and only a tiny few don't. Unfortunately, even my position and Miles' position are at present a minority, since many leftists are tailing the masses in calling for cheap "reforms" and not REAL reforms.

[Just look at the Grantite International "Marxist" Tendency and its "deep entryism" into "social-democratic" parties.]

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 05:25 am Post subject:

Quote:

Some envision continuance of of small businesses and some don't.

In the history of sectarianism on the left, there have been, thankfully, no splits on the basis of this question.

You must not be aware of them. For example, the goal of achieving a certain place for "family farms" and "cooperatives" is part of the Issues statement released by the Socialist Party USA presidential candidate.

Anyway, the left is to broad a field. I don't have enough in common with most of the left even to begin a dialogue with them.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 05:29 am Post subject:

The Kyoto Protocol literally is a protocol. For example, it includes calendar dates for various checkpoints in the reduction of carbon dioxide emission.

Jacob Richter

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 05:55 am Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

That candidate is most likely running on a minimum program, since the maximum program, involving the participation of "the States," can only be implemented through constitutional amendment or through replacing the constitution altogether.

Quote:

Anyway, the left is to broad a field. I don't have enough in common with most of the left even to begin a dialogue with them.

Don't you think you're being sectarian here, unless you're referring to the "broad left" and not the "revolutionary left"? The three Basic Principles that I have outlined are more than sufficient for skipping the stage of dialogue and getting into the thick of things (working together WITHIN the same party organization).

davesearles

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 11:25 am Post subject:

good points to both Jacob and Mike re "protocol".

Jacob you are already off the track - that of your writing which I referred to as preambulatory - was just that, sweeping statements with very little if anything in the way of specificis.

If there are specifics that we all agree on fine - we should state those - but no way I'm going to sign onto anything but these specific statements especially with someone who states that people should be imprisoned or taaken out and shot for psychological reasons. (And you come up with such apparentlly to demonstarte your allegience to the policies of Joe Stalin??)

mike wrote:

Some envision continuance of of small businesses and some don't.

jacob wrote:

In the history of sectarianism on the left, there have been, thankfully, no splits on the basis of this question.

dave writes:

and your point is?

Mike wrote that among those who advocate for a classless society - a workers' democracy, and a dual approach - political and industrial for obtaining/transitioning to that, that there are subspecies.

One subspecies of this approach is to attempt to create political demand for an amendment to the US Constitution which recognizes workers' rights to the industrial means of production upon the organization of the workplaces by the workers into industrial unions.

Another has it that a simple broad victory at the polls of candidates who espouse industrial union control of the industrial workplaces would be sufficient to signal this change.

One subspecies has it that the changeover in the economy will be almost immediate and will immediately have the entire economy, including family farms, coffee shops, beauty salons and barber shops part of the industrial union structure.

Another has it that the if and when changeover to social ownership of the means of production should be determined by the workers at individual workplaces, but that the political state would serve as a protector of workers' interests despite individual workplaces remaining under private ownership.

One subspecies acknowledges the desirability for the existence of the state (a scaled down version of its present form)

Another denies that it should exist at all (libertarian socialists??)

In any event the purpose would be to create a statement to clearly and specifically identify what we do agree on - not to create a statement so broad that it artificially creates a sense of agreement or even acceptance of the various tactics that the various groups and individuals might employ.

As you Jacob have made the importance of very clear with your imprisonment and execution statement - there are people whom I will agree with on certain specific issues - but in no way allow my name to be lumped with theirs when it comes to anything other than those few specifics.

davesearles

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 12:09 pm Post subject:

ml:

Some envision platforms that contain demands for reforms, and some don't.

jr:

Correction: MOST envision platforms that contain demands for "reforms," and only a tiny few don't. Unfortunately, even my position and Miles' position are at present a minority, since many leftists are tailing the masses in calling for cheap "reforms" and not REAL reforms.

ds:

Not really a correction is it? "Some" means more than one, even a "tiny minority".

And from the distinctions without a differnce department: you stating that you advocate "real" reforms as opposed to "cheap" reforms allegedly advocated by some others doesn't seem to change the direction of Mike's statement a bit.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 08:19 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

One subspecies acknowledges the desirability for the existence of the state (a scaled down version of its present form)

I suggest that we say: In contrast to a projection written by Engels, we anticipate the continued existence of "government of persons", and that it will not entirely be "replaced by the administration of things."

I suggest that we do not call the continued form of government "the state". The word "government" is acceptable and accurate.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 08:37 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

One subspecies has it that the changeover in the economy will be almost immediate and will immediately have the entire economy, including family farms, coffee shops, beauty salons and barber shops part of the industrial union structure.

The SLP has practically denied that such a sector exists. When they say that everyone is in one of two classes -- whose who live on wages, and those who live by extracting suprlus value -- they are not acknowledging the existence of perhaps a million small businesses where the owners are the workers and where their incomes are neither wages nor surplus value. If the SLP has said that there is perpectually an economic pressure that tends to squeeze out the third demographic then they would have been correct. I am calling these small businesses the third demographic because I deny the phrase "middle class", as it's not a class, and it's not in the middle of anything. There is no sign that third demographic will become extinct. Many mom'n'pops have been bankrupted by Walmart but that many of them still line both sides of Main Street. The SLP's description of class structure is faulty.

Jacob Richter

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 08:47 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If the SLP has said that there is perpectually an economic pressure that tends to squeeze out the third demographic then they would have been correct.

Actually, they'd be wrong. While there is pressure, the perpetual demand for niche goods and services not provided by the Big Boy$ provides an opening space against the economic pressure.

Quote:

I am calling these small businesses the third demographic because I deny the phrase "middle class", as it's not a class, and it's not in the middle of anything.

Actually, per my CSR Chapter 2 ("Simplification of class relations?"), this "third demographic" is comprised of at least one if not two classes. You are right in terms of them not being in the middle of anything, however. That role is more appropriate for the coordinator class.

mikelepore

Posted: 21 Sep 2008 09:36 pm Post subject:

Jacob Richter wrote:

Don't you think you're being sectarian here, unless you're referring to the "broad left" and not the "revolutionary left"?

Regardless of whether people adopt such names as "marxist" or "socialist" or "left", or whether they wave red flags around, I find in such things alone to be no indication that I'm on the same side as them. A good test probe is their attitude about what De Leonists call statism or bureaucratic state despotism. If people mention "actually existing socialism", or if they offer quotations from or display portraits of mass murderers like Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, or if they say that the dissolution of the USSR was a "setback", or of they think that working class governments have been established although the outcomes might have later been "deformed" or "degenerated", I find a significant probability that I will soon conclude that I'm not on the same side as them. With a sufficient degree of commonality in viewpoint, although we disagree about the details of the goal or program, I will often feel that I'm on the same side as someone. It's a matter of degree -- a feeling about whether I think someone is doing more good than harm, or doing more harm than good. For example, at least half of the "anarchists" at revleft, who think that "authority" and "centralism" are the problems that we are preparing to overthrow, I'm feel that I'm not on the same side as them -- it is my opinion that they are doing more harm than good, they are spraying gasoline on fires that I'm trying to extinguish.

davesearles

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 01:13 am Post subject:

jr:

Quote:

provides an opening space against the economic pressure.

Holy metamortification!!!

davesearles

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 01:17 am Post subject:

jr:

Quote:

("Simplification of class relations?"), this "third demographic" is comprised of at least one if not two classes.

ds:

Simplification you say.

mikelepore

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 02:37 am Post subject:

I don't believe that there is a "coordinator class" (the term popularized by Albert and Hahnel). The corporate management elite are, if their incomes are salaries, members of the working class, and, if their incomes are dividends, members of the capitalist class. Although some of them dwell aorund the 50-50 proportion, that's just one of those situations where a gradient exists without a boundary, like a cloud, which certainly exists, although no boundary between the lesser and greater densities can be identified. It desn't disprove the existence the cloud's gradient; rather it proves it.

----

But the self-employed not-a-wage-worker not-a-capitalist producers, like my friends Tim the plumber and Ed the dishwasher repairman, are significant in the economic system, and yet their role often goes unexplained.

----

But this statement is true:

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie
and Proletariat." -- Communist Manifesto

It's true because Tim the plumber and Ed the dishwasher repairman aren't directly part of either of the two hostile camps. That hostility doesn't necessarily affect them in a certain way. Their only reason to give a damn at all about the wages-profits seesaw is the fact that, the higher the wages that my family gets, the more we will be able to afford to spend on getting our plumbing fixtures repaired.

Jacob Richter

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 03:23 am Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

If people mention "actually existing socialism", or if they offer quotations from or display portraits of mass murderers like Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, or if they say that the dissolution of the USSR was a "setback", or of they think that working class governments have been established although the outcomes might have later been "deformed" or "degenerated", I find a significant probability that I will soon conclude that I'm not on the same side as them.

Although you know my position on social-abolitionism, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, in spite of their misconceptions regarding "socialism," were NOT mass murderers that the bourgeois "historians" make them out to be (even the bourgeois media don't diss Che and Ho).

The dissolution of the USSR was an setback, but not in the way you think: the various "social-democratic" concessions in Cold-War Europe were eliminated through liberalization. It also provided fodder for the bourgeois media and bourgeois "historians." Ever heard of "there is no alternative" by Margaret Thatcher?

Quote:

Why do you have a double standard on "bureaucratic state despotism" and control over the means of production? You acknowledge that social-abolitionism cannot exist without workers' control (not just ownership), yet you don't acknowledge that one does not have to own the MOP under capitalism in order to control them.

Quote:

But the self-employed not-a-wage-worker not-a-capitalist producers, like my friends Tim the plumber and Ed the dishwasher repairman, are significant in the economic system, and yet their role often goes unexplained.

Marx characterized them in Das Kapital as "unproductive" labour. By "unproductive," he meant the production of surplus value.

In my CSR work, I have attempted to explain their role ("The Development of Society's Labour and Its Capabilities"): they're in the same class as lawyers, judges, cops, security guards, and artisans.

Ownership or non-ownership over the MOP may have been the Communist Manifesto's conception of class (and Marx was beginning to drop this in Das Kapital), but it isn't the only valid Marxist conception of class.

davesearles

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 09:47 am Post subject:

Quote:

Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, in spite of their misconceptions regarding "socialism," were NOT mass murderers that the bourgeois "historians" make them out to be (even the bourgeois media don't diss Che and Ho).

Of course you know this because you were good friends with both of them and were intimately familiar with their every move.

mikelepore

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 04:43 pm Post subject:

I think if you go to google and search on the phrase "che guevara firing squad" ...

mikelepore

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 05:06 pm Post subject:

Jacob Richter wrote:

Perhaps you have been persuaded by the Parecon hypothesis that the large stockholders don't control the corporations; that the management executives control them. That's only true in the sense that the people of the city control the city council, and if they choose not to apply any influence then they expressing default approval to the incumbents. The major stockholders control the management hierarchy. The managers are their delegates. On many issues the stockholders leave the executives alone to use discretion. That's the stockholders' choice. Every stockholder, even the owner of one share, has the right to propose a mandatory resolution for the annual stockholders' convention to vote on. The one-share one-vote rule sees to it that it's the major stockholders who have the control, not the stockholders in general; but, either way, whatever the annual convention decides the corporate executives strictly obey.

In the USSR, the equivalent group, the ruling class that appointed the industrial management, was the leadership of the Communist Party, with the Central Committee having the greatest power.

In the Vatican, the equivalent is the College of Cardinals, which elects each CEO called the Pope.

mikelepore

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 05:40 pm Post subject:

Che Guevara -- Imagine you're allowed to choose any government job you'd like, anything at all, because the dictator is a close friend of yours. Would you like to be a diplomat? How about a lecturer at the university? Administer the arts or education or athletics? Just name it. --- So what job does he pick? He decides that he wants to be the guy who recites to the firing squad "ready, aim, fire."

davesearles

Posted: 22 Sep 2008 08:43 pm Post subject:

The man without a citation wrote:

Quote:

Marx was beginning to drop (ownership or non-ownership over the MOP as a conception of class) in Das Kapital

????????????

Jacob Richter

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 04:17 am Post subject:

mikelepore wrote:

Jacob Richter wrote:

Perhaps you have been persuaded by the Parecon hypothesis that the large stockholders don't control the corporations; that the management executives control them. [...] The major stockholders control the management hierarchy. The managers are their delegates. On many issues the stockholders leave the executives alone to use discretion.

It's more complicated than that: even a significant number of "major stockholders" delegate to a Board of Directors, and that board in turn doesn't do a lot of stuff, leaving most of the grunt work to senior management.

Given the nature of my education and job, I've had to read a bit about Sarbanes-Oxley (laws on corporate governance). A lot of directors are appointed from outside the company as if they were invited to a social club or something. [I think Bill Gates himself serves as a director on a couple of other companies, but obviously cares squat about those other companies.]

davesearles

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 10:37 am Post subject:

jr:

Given the nature of my education and job, I've had to read a bit about Sarbanes-Oxley (laws on corporate governance). A lot of directors are appointed from outside the company as if they were invited to a social club or something. [I think Bill Gates himself serves as a director on a couple of other companies, but obviously cares squat about those other companies.]

ds:

Bill Gates "cares squat" about the corporations where he sits as a director? (Is this yet another offering from the "out of thin air" department?)

You are proposing as a reform that members boards of directors be more responsive to share owners? Oh my - the revolution is upon us!

davesearles

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 10:48 am Post subject:

And Jacob were you ever going to give us a citation on:

"Marx was beginning to drop (ownership or non-ownership over the MOP as a conception of class) in Das Kapital"

Reading between the lines I gather from this that Jacob Richter has chosen to belief that Marx in Capital was beginning to de-emphasize worker control of the MOP - then of course due to the religious nature that he imparts to the writings of Marx (and others), that is justification in and of itself for control of the MOP by the workers to be conveniently dropped from the idea of socialism.

This is where you are going with this, isn't it Jacob?

mikelepore

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 04:16 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

You are proposing as a reform that members boards of directors be more responsive to share owners?

No, he just offered that, something to do with how corporations are run, as evidence after he said that the De Leonist designation of the Soviet-style regimes is "bureaucratic state despotism" shows a "double standard." What he sees as the connection between the two things, I don't yet understand.

mikelepore

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 04:31 pm Post subject:

Since Marx and Engels wrote only about how capitalism sucks and capitalism is historically doomed, and neither of them took out five minutes to write a anything about the kind of new system they would have liked to see capitalism replaced with, we will never know they thought about the goal of worker control of the means of production.

The only little scrap I'm aware of is this comment from Engels' 1872 article "On Authority":

"Let us take by way of example a cotton spinning mill.... particular questions arise in each room at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of materials, etc. ... whether they are settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labor, or, if possible, by a majority vote...."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

I think that's "it" -- from the collected works of two prolific writers. What the hell were they thinking, that this wouldn't lead to an argument about what they were trying to say?

davesearles

Posted: 23 Sep 2008 08:43 pm Post subject:

Quote:

mass murderers like Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh

Mike do you have a cite for Ho?

mikelepore

Posted: 24 Sep 2008 12:24 am Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

Mike do you have a cite for Ho?

No.

-------

And now for the joke of the day:

Italian grandmother: "If you don't eat what I cooked, I'll kill you."

Jewish grandmother: "If you don't eat what I cooked, I'll kill myself."