|
Author
|
Message
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
 Posted:
08 Feb 2007 11:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
I thought it good to bring this subject up once again
in the Socialist Recontruction of Society phamplet by DeLeon it
says here that:
The "reason" for a political party
unfits it to "take and hold"
the machinery of production. As shown when I dealt
with the first
sentence of this clause - the sentence that urges
the necessity of
political unity - the "reason" for a
political movement is the
exigencies of the bourgeois shell in which the
social revolution must
partly shape its course. The governmental
administration of
capitalism is the State, the government proper
(that institution is
purely political). Political power, in the language
of Marx, is
merely the organized power of the capitalist class
to oppress, to
curb, to keep the working class in subjection. The
bourgeois shell in
which the social revolution must partly shape its
course dictates the
setting up of a body that shall contest the
possession of the
political robber burg by the capitalist class. The
reason for such
initial tactics also dictates their ultimate goal -
the razing to the
ground of the robber burg of capitalist tyranny.
The shops, the
yards, the mills, in short, the mechanical
establishments of
production, now in the hands of the capitalist
class - they are all to
be "taken," not for the purpose of being
destroyed, but for the
purpose of being "held"; for the purpose
of improving and enlarging
all the good that is latent in them, and that
capitalism dwarfs; in
short, they are to be "taken and held" in
order to save them for
civilization. It is exactly the reverse with the
"political power." That is
to be taken for the purpose of abolishing it. It
follows herefrom
that the goal of the political movement of labor is
purely
destructive.
I also understand that the political aspect of
socialism is a separate power from the union being that the political has
no control of the union and vice versa I do believe. If not I read it
wrong. On the other hand, the idea of the political is to allow the union
to take the means of production by keeping at bay forces that would do
human harm. After the transfer of power is complete the political ajourns
or to put it another way, the political that has kept power in the
interest of the capitalist is swept away due to the ballot. However, I
must ask that since there won't be a perfect society there will be some
crimes commited against one another. I guess there would be some
universal uniform laws and some enforcement people and courts.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
09 Feb 2007 07:35 am Post subject:
|
|
I'm sure a legislature will continue to be necessary.
It's dopey to think that a crazed serial killer will think, "I'll
never do that again, because now the workers have taken over the means of
production!" People might do away with the two-house congress,
people might do away with the congress constructed on the basis of fifty
states, but some kind of legislature will be necessary. With the
"adjournment" thing, I suspect that De Leon didn't think it through
very carefully.
Also, there have always been some people (I don't
know what proportion) in the SLP who think that any necesssary laws
should be made by the congress of industrial constutuencies -- the
manufacturing representative, the transportation representative, the
education representative, etc. That's also a dopey idea! Law makers
should be derived from a simple procedure of one-person one-vote.
As I get older I feel more and more that the whole
Marx-Engels treatment of the termination of the "state" was poorly
thought out. To say that socialism will be a stateless society, and then
to make that true by definition -- to say that, if it isn't the
instrument of class oppression, then it isn't a "state" in the
first place -- I don't think that's good sociology. It leaves a gap in
the issue of what kind of administration is considered possible, and what
kind is being recommended, and then the focus on redefinition of the word
distracts from the task of filling the gap.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
09 Feb 2007 08:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
I am glad I 'm not the only one who thinks that a form
of state will continue. I actually believe it will be a small government.
Socialism will achive what the Libertairians desire except it will
protect everyday people from harm or theft. It will not protect one's
class over another. The administration of things, whatever those boundries
will be, will be voted by the people. Another thing I have also
considered is that there may not be one big union as Deleon and the IWW
believe. There will be work cooperatives, other work aministrative groups
and perhaps more than one SIU. The political would unite them all and I
believe the TLU would be under the government administration as being the
currency of exchange. It would be up to these work administrations to
"pay" workers for labor through the electronic medium. The
government would make sure there is no abuse since there is no more
capitalism.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
09 Feb 2007 10:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
John wrote:
There will be work cooperatives, other work
aministrative groups and perhaps more than one SIU. The political would
unite them all and I believe the TLU would be under the government
administration as being the currency of exchange. It would be up to these
work administrations to "pay" workers for labor through the
electronic medium. The government would make sure there is no abuse since
there is no more capitalism.
dave writes:
Think that over a bunch. The industries are
administerd by the workers at work, its all the same whther you work
making condoms for crocidiles or falsies for transvestites or the script
used to account for labor performed and value withdrawn from
anystorehouse of any kind.
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 09:57 am Post subject:
|
|
Dave, the political has to be thought over a whole
bunch of times. I was not clear enough. What unites industries and
businesses is the circulation of money which is issued from governments.
On the other hand, industries and cooperatives would (I hope) use the TLU
as administrative accounts for labor done and transaction at social
stores. The government maintains a sense of law and order such as keeping
identity theft from taking place or protecting from those who would harm
others.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 03:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Another thing
I have also considered is that there may not be one big union as Deleon
and the IWW believe. There will be work cooperatives, other work
aministrative groups and perhaps more than one SIU.
|
Seems to me, all departments have to be united at some
level because the goals of each have to recognized by the others. If the
transportation department wants a new bridge, the mining department has
to provide the metal. If the education department wants a new school, the
furniture assembly department has to provide the desks.
Is that not "central planning"? -- if we
can try to answer that question without being overcome by our preexisting
dislike of that phrase.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 06:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
John, no governmenrt to issue money, no governemt to
collect money, no money, only script issued by the indistries to tally
value in hours contributed and value in hours withdrawn.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 06:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Another
thing I have also considered is that there may not be one big union
as Deleon and the IWW believe. There will be work cooperatives, other
work aministrative groups and perhaps more than one SIU.
|
Seems to me, all departments have to be united at
some level because the goals of each have to recognized by the others.
If the transportation department wants a new bridge, the mining
department has to provide the metal. If the education department wants
a new school, the furniture assembly department has to provide the
desks.
Is that not "central planning"? -- if
we can try to answer that question without being overcome by our
preexisting dislike of that phrase.
|
As things are now presently the one big
union is held by the IWW, there are various cooperatives, then you got
socialist running around wanting one big government to run things without
much change to existing institutions. The SIU concept is still being
rejected by a lot of socialist and anarchist so there is no
mining/education/furniture assembly departments that exist except in the
IWW. An SIU would rival the IWW which would mean that you would have more
than one industrial union which have the same departments. An SIU would
not bring an end to the IWW nor cooperatives.
"What to do" is a guess as well as the
"next step". The political would have to govern with laws. When
towns were set up here in the colonies forms of government came into
existance. Then they all were unified under the federal state aka United
States government which serve the interest of the ruling class. Daniel
DeLeon came around and tried to organize on the political and economic
field with one big union. Good idea but it was rejected outright except
for those in the SLP. More than 100 years later there is no SIU in sight
but the IWW has grown. The IWW still refuses to be political but the
members can be political. I see a separation of power here and it may not
be such a bad idea after all. The IWW has taken measures to be the
industrial government. That being the case the political should direct
its energy to make it so without involving itself in the affairs of the
IWW. I hope you understand my thoughts here.
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 06:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
I don't that that would be central planning. A desk
factory gets an order from a school for so many desks, send them the
desks.
I do think that something has to be central to all
of these orderers and suppliers to monitor the situation, are orders
being met? is quality satisfactory, is for what ever reason some place
ordering way too many desks, who can order the desks in the first place,
do we need a better design of desks? That kind of stuff, but planning is
just an adjunct to production. It has to be centered between the producer
and consumer of desks obviously, but not the same planning that goes into
planning for food. So not entirely central for the most part. Obviously
some planning has to take precedence, like total resource management, but
even that wouldn't be central to everything except indirectly.
Of course I have no idea what I am writing about
here but in the moment it seems logical.
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
10 Feb 2007 07:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
Actually, I don't see planning except in those
departments to improve on quality, the production process or a new line
of products. What is ordered follows the same aspect of a market except
everything is based on need rather than talking people out of their TLUs
for profit. What people exchange at the social store(s) determines orders
for clothing, furniture, etc. What I do see planned is new modes of
transportation or old modes such as trains and trolly cars. Did not the
capitalist, through the political aspect, tear up trolly car tracks for
the automobile? Did not air travel replace the train in transporting
people more quickly because capitalism wants things done yesterday? Would
the union do social planning or would there have to be people playing
politics?
One more thing, I am back in contact with the IWW.
Like it or don't like it it is the only industrial union in existance. I
do have a question: What DeLeon had in mind for the SIU was the political
suppose to be separate from the union or part of it and under the control
of the SLP? As far as the political is concerned with me is that
socialist remain divided and I did give the SP-USA a shot.
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Feb 2007 01:32 pm Post subject:
|
|
John wrote:
More than 100 years later there is no SIU in sight
but the IWW has grown.
I agree that there is no SIY in site, but the IWW
has grown? I didn't get that part.
Moreover, OK, as a union they say that "politics"
is up to the indivual, BUT does the IWW have an ultime goal of social
ownership of the means of production. One big union one big union, to
what end?
dave
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Feb 2007 01:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
As a follwup I re read the Debs speach at the IWW
convention
http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1905/iwwfound.htm
What is the ultimate goal? I know Debs has said
more at other times, but do we ever get a clear and consitent indication
from him thaat is is looking for actaul social ownership of the means of
production, let alone social ownership in the form of the SIU?
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
11 Feb 2007 06:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
Dave wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Moreover, OK,
as a union they say that "politics" is up to the indivual,
BUT does the IWW have an ultime goal of social ownership of the means
of production. One big union one big union, to what end?
|
The IWW does state in their preamable that the goal
of the union is the social ownership of the means of production but they
don't want politicians running the union. I believe that might be
a fair assessment of how they think. They have been around over a hundred
years and they do say that they are growing and unionizing different
places of employment here and abroad. The union does say that
"politics" is up to the individual. If those individuals could
see a socialist political party who would work in their interest they
would most likely join that party so long as that party remain separate
from the union. The SLP does not want to be a separate entity from the
SIU. They remained dormaint for a long time.
You are correct that the political has to be
thought over a whole lot. It has to play a far different role than it
originally set out to be. My own thoughts suggest that there has to be a
small civil government to handle law and perhaps keep some sense of order
when things get out of hand between people. Socialist cannot force people
to be members of the union since they might be very happy as part of a
cooperative. Something has to be done. You wrote: only script issued
by the indistries to tally value in hours contributed and value in hours
withdrawn. But who is going to tally those hours and hours withdrawn
in the cooperative? Sure, the union can tally their hours with no problem
but cooperative are separate entities and there has to be a system put in
place for them. The union could do it but they might demand membership
from them before hand. Would some independent agency be set up to handle
the tally of hours contributed and withdrawn as an act of the political?
John Trimbath
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
11 Feb 2007 08:16 pm Post subject:
|
|
By script I didn't really mean paper. Debit cards. The
SIU can set up a system any coopertive could set up it's own system based
on whatever exhane they wanrted to set up. I assume that the coop are
going to be miniscule complared to the SIU and that they would simply
transfer around labor voucher hours aquired when selling things to SIU
members.
Does the IWW actually say social ownership.? I
haven't seen there stuff in a while. And do they push that or is it
something nice like equality for all that has a nce sound to it but
desn't actually mean anything?
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
11 Feb 2007 10:28 pm Post subject:
|
|
Part of the IWW premable:
|
Quote:
|
|
The working
class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no
peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the
working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all
the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of
the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of
production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the
Earth.
|
This is part of their mission statement to own the
means of production.
Dave wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
By script I
didn't really mean paper. Debit cards. The SIU can set up a system any
coopertive could set up it's own system based on whatever exhane they
wanrted to set up. I assume that the coop are going to be miniscule
complared to the SIU and that they would simply transfer around labor
voucher hours aquired when selling things to SIU members.
|
I know the TLU would be in debit card form and not
paper so I knew what you were saying here. However, would the IWW accept
the labor voucher (unit) system? Would the coops? Would the political
have to implement the system as I wrote before? A lot of speculation but
there is no harm in doing so. What about the separation of the political
from the industrial union? We might have to accept that the political
might have to organize apart from the union as I wrote before.
John
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Feb 2007 02:54 am Post subject:
|
|
The IWW and SIU will be one, we have no contadtictory
goals just different stratgies to atain them.
No the coops don't have to accept siu script but
that would be like merchants in Lake george refusing to accept canadian
money, technically they can refuse but it wold bancrupt them if they did.
(I never knew this, but by convention all of the places that fly the
Candian flag in the region pledge to accept canadian money at face
value.) So the co-ops don't have to either, but SIU members are going to
be their main customers, stopping off for a piece of fresh apple pie
during lunch or getting their toe nails polished, they'll be happy to
accept SIU script.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
12 Feb 2007 04:00 am Post subject:
|
|
Aside from the scrip used in a socialist society I am
still wondering if the political can achieve the desired outcome apart
from the IWW or any other industrial union? A separation of power so to
speak.
John T
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Feb 2007 11:01 am Post subject:
|
|
I would say:
Nyet, nada, no
Except in those limited instances that which the
SIU recognizes.
For example no doubt there will still be a need for
family courts. E.G. a family court is a court of limited jurisdiction set
strictly by statute. There is no reason that the SIU could not establish
the continuance of these courts within the old venues using previously
established case law with the judges popularly elected within each an established
judicial district. The SIU cold certainly utilize all aspects of current
administrative law to establish all manner of agencies, even local is
character with commission members popularly elected to deal with
regulating traffic, garbage and the harboring of stray cats. However,
under adminstartive law, the authority of the statute which establishes
that agency, and the legislature which passes those staute is always
recognized as supreme - the same goes for the SIU which establishes such
agencies.
A little like the interplay between federal and
local authority. Mail truck drivers are only subject to local trafic laws
only to the extent the federal govt. says that they are subject to local
trafic laws. The operations of the SIU would only be subject to outside
administrative control to the extent that the SIU chose to allow.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
12 Feb 2007 05:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
Hi Dave,
Okay, I understand that the SIU can perform the
same continuance of law and order as seen today. I have wondered about
that for a long time. However, I don't think you understand what I am
writing about. The political action that would turn over the means of
production to workers might, just might have to be done separate from the
industrial union. If members of the IWW, for instance, understood that
there was a political party that would turn over the means of production
to them they just might support such a party. This keeps politics out of
their union but at the same time the members are excercising their
political muscle at the ballot. This is what I mean by separation of
powers because neither one controls the other. This approach might make
everyone happy.
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
12 Feb 2007 07:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
John writes:
The political action that would turn over the means
of production to workers might just might, just might have to be done
separate from the industrial union.
dave writes:
No. The workers already have the means of
production, the political is merely a signal to the workers and all that
care to listen to announce to the civilized world that the workers at
that moment are in charge - "OK now the SIU is in effect."
That's it, no matter if one had been in the IWW or what ever unon , no
matter what party one had been in prior to that.
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
13 Feb 2007 11:06 pm Post subject:
|
|
I am not following on what you mean. If the political
is just a signal to the world...then why not just use the news or other
media outlets. Why bother with the political? What I was writing about is
that the political org., apart from the union, is what will keep the
capitalist para-military (strike insurance personnel) by having the
police and national guard protect union members during the general
strike. The IWW and the political are separate but the political serves
the interest of the IWW in respect of political protection. Afterwards,
the political can ajourn. Here is a speech by Stockton Lynd--the famouse
labor lawyer of Youngstown, Ohio. He stresses more than just vauge
blanket statements but actual planning in the industrial government.
http://www.iww.org/organize/strategy/SLynd102002.shtml
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
14 Feb 2007 01:06 am Post subject:
|
|
John writes:
I am not following on what you mean. If the
political is just a signal to the world...then why not just use the news
or other media outlets.
dave writes:
I would be willing to go air and make the great
announcement but to date only you and Mike show any indication of knowing
even tangentially what the hell that I am talking about, so even if they
gave me a whole mini-series to explain it, I do not really think that it
would go anywhere.
No what has to be on the air, broadcast or not,
that the workers have decided to exercise their revolutionary authority
to take hold and operate the means of production.
The political expression by the workers would be
the most recognizable and understandable signal.
Of course I could go on air and proclaim to the workers,
everyone who want for the workers to take over put your heads out the
window and shout "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
anymore."
but a little more recognizable signal might be for
a political candiate to say - I advocate that the workers take over the
means of production and set up an industrial govt. Anyone who favors this
please signal your assent by voting for me. Obviously if that candiate
and other similar won an overwhelming majority of the votes, that would
constitute the electoral mandate , the signal, that the old order is
swept away replaced by the new. Long live the revolution. But the workers
are going to be the only authority after that vote.
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
14 Feb 2007 03:30 am Post subject:
|
|
Dave wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
The political
expression by the workers would be the most recognizable and
understandable signal.
Of course I could go on air and proclaim to the workers, everyone who
want for the workers to take over put your heads out the window and
shout "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
anymore."
but a little more recognizable signal might be for a political candiate
to say - I advocate that the workers take over the means of production
and set up an industrial govt. Anyone who favors this please signal
your assent by voting for me. Obviously if that candiate and other
similar won an overwhelming majority of the votes, that would
constitute the electoral mandate , the signal, that the old order is
swept away replaced by the new. Long live the revolution. But the
workers are going to be the only authority after that vote.
|
I believe that this is what I was trying to convey
that the political would have to be taken on independently apart from the
union. This is so that politics is not played in the union by any
political party. But on the other hand, the political would say as you
wrote: But a little more recognizable signal might be for a political
candiate to say - I advocate that the workers take over the means of
production and set up an industrial govt. Anyone who favors this please
signal your assent by voting for me. The canidate could also say that
the industrial government to be set in place would be the IWW. This
announcement could perhaps get a lot of support from IWW members
who have every right to vote for such a canidate. This keeps politics out
of union affairs, as the members of the IWW like it, but allows their
members to cast their votes for such a canidate as you wrote. The
question is getting a political party to take on SIU concepts and run
canidates who would favor establishing a industrial form of government. I
really hope you understand what I am tring to write here on this
forum. :wink:
John Trimbath
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
14 Feb 2007 10:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
The idea of democracy, that the majority of the people
can choose what's going to happen, means some kind of measurement
instrument for determining the will of the people has been adopted. Right
now the political process approximates that function more than any other
procedure. The history of the political process needs to considered.
Politics didn 't always indicate what the people are thinking. Caligula
became emperor by prying the imperial ring off of the finger of the dead
Tiberius and putting it onto his own finger. In the course of two
thousand years, a zigzag course with a lot of backsliding has finally
brought us to the point that the political process is a good measure of
what the people are thinking. Even if the people elect an idiot, it's
only because the people are being idiotic, and it must be admitted that
process still reflects what the majority of the people are thinking. That
has to settle it for the socialist. We can't have collective control of
industry until the majority of the people realize that it's precisely
what we need and explicitly say so. This can only mean using the
political process to issue the declaration. But that's exactly what it
will be, a declaration. Now that something has been carved in stone, now
what? It has to be implemented. The workers' organization that will
implement socialism can't be a political organization. It has to be
actual organization that drives the trucks, and keeps the power plants
operating, and keeps the food and medicine going out. It has to be the
same workers' organization that administers industrial production. That's
the actual implementation of socialism, whereas the political mandate is
the assurance that the people as a whole have truly authorized this act
to be done in their name.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
14 Feb 2007 11:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
yes, with a only slight difference, I would say that
as far as we can see that awaiting a political election would be the only
way to signal the change - however if a wave swept over us like the
tearing down the berlin wall I wouldn't argue.
Has anyone seen Goodbye Lenin? Great flick..
Watched Dr. Zhivago today it was appropriate with the snow.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
15 Feb 2007 08:49 am Post subject:
|
|
If a wave sweeps over society, and the
"constitutional method" isn't used -- then after the fact we
look back and see that it was successful, then, after the fact, we can be
satisfied with what has happened. Before the fact, however, since we
don't know what the future will bring, my apprehension is that the wave
might sweep over all elements of society except for a few, with the
exceptions being the police and military, which have those collections of
weapons. I don't see how we could know whether they are part of the wave.
If anyone at all is politically-psychologically lagging behind the
workers, the holdouts will be there -- in the worst place holdouts could
possibly be -- behind a line of weapons.
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______
(for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed
over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. So help me God." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment
* * *
Good element of cinematography used by the director
of Dr. Zhivago. He intentionally kept all red objects out of the picture
for a while, so the viewer's senses would get accustomed to that. Then
the bluish-tinted street scene. Suddenly the marchers come down the
street with bright red flags. Sensory impact.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
15 Feb 2007 12:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
no doubt the east german troops were so swornas well.
During WW II Gemans, all germans took a, oath to Hitler personally. My
wife's uncle was ayoung lad in the US Army in Italy when they could get
away with it the German troops nearly fell over themselves trying to
surrender. My wife's uncle went into an outhouse and two germans were in
there, they were waiting for an American to come in and use it so they
could surrender. Of course you can't count on this type of thing.
But people aren't going to wait for election day if
they are starving.
dave
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
15 Feb 2007 10:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
Why did you write: The political expression by the
workers would be the most recognizable and understandable signal.
Then turn around and write: However if a wave swept over us like the
tearing down the Berlin wall I wouldn't argue.--But people aren't going
to wait for election day if they are starving. But is this not what
the IWW trying to do as an end result and create a wave of social change
to an industrial government? Those who wish to make changes through the
political process are oftened "road blocked" from the
opposition. Those in the political are there to secure the interest of
the capitalist class. But we all know that. So, the wave won't come from
those in politics but from those who are in the factories, service jobs,
educational, health, and agriculture fields. On the other hand, if the
political just happens to be in the right place at the right time we
better make sure they are not the "vanguardist types" which
would put working people under collective slavery in service to the party--Winston
learned to love big brother.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
16 Feb 2007 12:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
To answer John from above:
Jon asked me:
Why did you write: The political expression by the
workers would be the most recognizable and understandable signal. Then
turn around and write: However if a wave swept over us like the tearing
down the Berlin wall I wouldn't argue.--But people aren't going to wait
for election day if they are starving.
dave answers:
I assume there is no problem with: The political
expression by the workers would be the most recognizable and
understandable signal.
This next part?
if a wave swept over us like the tearing down the
Berlin wall I wouldn't argue. (and then) people aren't going to wait for
election day if they are starving.
Normally the revolutionary union of workers union
ought to have its own party - that party put forth candidates or (never
discussed) ballot resolutions that clearly spell out the SIU program in
every or nearly every state. If a sizable majority across the country
adopts these measures or votes for these candidates that would be a
sufficient political expression to signal the delegitimazation of the
state and of capitalism. At that point the workers at the industries are
in charge.
I'm only saying that somehow things come to a head
- massive lay offs coupled with high inflation and no food in the stores
and on May day the Gallop poll issues: 90% of all surveyed state that
workers ought to take over the means of production and run it for
themselves. And workers started to set up committees at the workplace and
actully started to thumb their noses at "managment". Civil
disobedience certainly is within our arsenal.
Yes at that point the president of the US could
order the Air Force to drop an atomic bomb, but the presdent could do
that the day after political elections as well.
No I dont see the IWW doing that what you say when
taking over and operating the means of production is certainly not at the
fore of what they are about. it's in their literature but just like
"liberty and justice for all" is within the pledge of
allegience - lip service that's all - in my opinion anyway, although I
would like to be shown that I am wrong.
dave
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
16 Feb 2007 04:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
I have doubts about the idea of revolution that the
Marxian tradition proposes, in which the working class people can
organize sensibly because they don't have food or some other necessity.
When in all of history have human beings ever done a logical thing under
the pressure of a lack of necessities? Such circumstances have always
induced people to put faith in repression and dictatorship. I think it's
more likely that socialism will come about when the working class has
finally acquired the mental sophistication and education to read some
sociology books and debate these issues rationally. We would see the
number of socialists elected to the congress gradually increase, in one
decade merely 1 or 2 of them, then, in the next decade, 17 socialists in
the congress, then 47, then 196, then 265. Other associated changes would
occur in parallel, such as the holding of meetings at workplaces at which
it is discussed that the staff knows that they could, and also wishes to,
manage the plant by themselves (such a meeting is what I visualize
"the SIU" to mean). Reforms would also have occurred in
parallel, perhaps free medical care, perhaps the 30 hour workweek, etc.
-- not because these reforms are steps toward socialism -- they are not
-- but because they would occur as byproducts of an increasing number of
workers and voters going through the psychological difficulty of their
growing realization that capitalism is a type of slavery. In other words,
the positive momentum of many workers becoming revolutionary in their
mode of thought would likely occur at the same time as a positive
momentum of many workers becoming liberals, confused theoretically but
more in solidarity with labor. The power of the government to impose
taxes and regulations will probably have been used to weaken the power of
the large corporations, à la Ralph Nader -- a change which cannot
institute socialism of the SIU definition, but it will weaken the ability
of the ruling class to issue any kind of reactionary response. You'd have
to say I'm suggesting a picture of gradual evolution, but without the
usual assertion that reforms would function as steppingstones toward
achieving the result. Gradualism and reform, themselves useless to the
implementation of socialism, would be found to arrive as part of the
cosmetic form that events will assume.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 03:48 am Post subject:
|
|
It's good to have discussion
here because it really helps me to explain to my co-workers that we are
capable of running the means of production ourselves.
Dave wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Normally the
revolutionary union of workers union ought to have its own party - that
party put forth candidates or (never discussed) ballot resolutions that
clearly spell out the SIU program in every or nearly every state. If a
sizable majority across the country adopts these measures or votes for
these candidates that would be a sufficient political expression to
signal the delegitimazation of the state and of capitalism. At that
point the workers at the industries are in charge.
I'm only saying that somehow things come to a head - massive lay offs
coupled with high inflation and no food in the stores and on May day
the Gallop poll issues: 90% of all surveyed state that workers ought to
take over the means of production and run it for themselves. And workers
started to set up committees at the workplace and actully started to
thumb their noses at "managment". Civil disobedience
certainly is within our arsenal.
Yes at that point the president of the US could order the Air Force to
drop an atomic bomb, but the presdent could do that the day after
political elections as well.
|
There is a party that spells out the SIU program
but their heads went up their rears some time ago. So the idea I been
saying all along is that the working class is going to have to stand
behind a political party. Politics is a lot different today than in
DeLeon's day. But that party will have to run independently from the
union. The political aspect does not infringe on the economic aspect.
Both are separate but serves each others interest. Would not a worker's
solidarity club in each city contribute to their education, political
action and organisation?
Also:
|
Quote:
|
|
No I dont see
the IWW doing that what you say when taking over and operating the
means of production is certainly not at the fore of what they are
about. it's in their literature but just like "liberty and justice
for all" is within the pledge of allegience - lip service that's
all - in my opinion anyway, although I would like to be shown that I am
wrong.
|
I believe Stockton Lynd was asking them how would
the IWW function when the bosses cease to exist? We know that it will
take TLU's, orders taken and filled, voting for administrators, and
("sigh") foremen to start with. Workers would have to be more
educated when it comes to running the means of production. However, I
don't know if the IWW is talking among themselves as to what roles they
will play in the new society.
I don't think workers fully conceive the idea of
what reforms are. The media protrays them as socialist/communist
measures--these days--that make it harder for capitalist to make big
profits. But we know that these measures have actually kept any
revolution from taking place and keeping capitalist in power. Now that
the capitalist went global the power to exploit increased which lead to
cuts in benefits, down sizings and layoffs of workers. I just don't
understand why workers just lie down and take the abuse. Workers are
going to have to think in terms of "we" rather than
"me".
I like the point that Mike made that capitalism is
a form of slavery and it is just that when workers only receive so much
in wages while the capitalist reap profits. Profits is what the
capitalist makes after over head, wages and salaries, including his own,
are taken care of. The IWW can negociate pay and benefits but the members
remain under the thumb of the bosses. Perhaps the IWW might, just might
think of political action some day.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 04:17 am Post subject:
|
|
Mike wrote:
I think it's more likely that socialism will come
about when the working class has finally acquired the mental
sophistication and education to read some sociology books and debate
these issues rationally.
dave writes:
I highly respect your right to put up such horse
shit on this forum as it gives the flies somewhere to go.
However - what you are saying is that when the
members of working class aquire the powers of observation of an eight
year old - that a person goes to work produces and the more that they
produce the less they make - that then they would be able to figure out
socialism. It is becuase such powers of observation that many people who
buy electric devices will ask an eight year old how to operate it.
mental sophistication?? We don't need no stinking
mental sophistication !!
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 05:41 am Post subject:
|
|
Whether my choice of words is the best possible choice
of words isn't the main issue. The majority of the working class thinks
more about the love affairs of movie stars than they do about solving
society's problems. No social change will be possible until people become
more advanced intellectually. Call it by whatever term you choose.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 10:06 am Post subject:
|
|
No, not the choice of words at all.
It is a frustration to us that the rest of the
working class does not see what we see so plainly and have seen so
plainly for so many years.
However I do not see that at all indicative of
advanced intelectual powers, not at all. Maybe we're just too stupid to
see anything else, or lacking in social skills were we cannot
respectfully pretend that we see an emporer arrayed in the finest garments
instead of strutting bare ass naked in the parade. Whatever it is, I do
think that what we do have is the slightest amount of integrity to
conclude to be true what everthing seems to indicate is true without
regard for the fact that very few agree with our conclusion, AND that we
feel compelled to say what we see.
But of course neither side in this particular
debate is verifiable or falsifiable and both constitute only so much
horse shit until the desired revolution comes or while it does not come.
And then if it comes we can argue at the old age home as to what it was
that exactly brought it about.
dave
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 09:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
When a big social change occurs, the number of people
who had been suggesting it years before was very small. In Europe or
America in 1750, you could find some people -- they were a minority but
at least you could easily find them -- saying that a republic would be
better than a monarchy. But could you find anyone saying that in 1450?
That early, just one person in ten thousand might utter it, but then the
only memory that other people would have of hearing that utterance would
be that they had encountered a lunatic.
This is what the socialist is now. The socialist is
someone who says things that will one day be recognized by everyone as
common sense, but saying it up to hundreds of years before everyone else
does. We're not smarter than anyone else, but some kind of cog in our
brains is made such that we don't internalize a concept merely because
99.999 percent of the other people are saying it. We don't have any
genius or insight in subjects generally, and in all other respects we are
ordinary, but, for some unknown reason, when we heard a suggestion
(socialism) that came from sources that almost everyone else rejected as
sheer lunacy, we nevertheless checked that suggestion for reasonableness,
we determined that the suggestion (socialism) is reasonable, and we publicly
announced this finding, without ceasing on the ground (which is
irrelevant to the objective truth) that most people will think we're
lunatics.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
17 Feb 2007 10:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
Not as an endorsement of religion but a big amen to
that.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
18 Feb 2007 03:16 am Post subject:
|
|
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
The socialist
is someone who says things that will one day be recognized by everyone
as common sense, but saying it up to hundreds of years before everyone
else does. We're not smarter than anyone else, but some kind of cog in
our brains is made such that we don't internalize a concept merely
because 99.999 percent of the other people are saying it. We don't have
any genius or insight in subjects generally, and in all other respects
we are ordinary, but, for some unknown reason, when we heard a
suggestion (socialism) that came from sources that almost everyone else
rejected as sheer lunacy, we nevertheless checked that suggestion for
reasonableness, we determined that the suggestion (socialism) is
reasonable, and we publicly announced this finding, without ceasing on
the ground (which is irrelevant to the objective truth) that most
people will think we're lunatics.
|
I have to say that workers are not lacking in
education but for some reason or another the realization that we, as
socialist, have has not dawn on the majority of workers. Actually, I
cannot say why I did not accept capitalism for what it is and put all my
energy into learning to make profits through exploitation. What I do know
is that guilt occurs when I think of taking people's money through
exploitive means. Then, on the other hand, I have also realise that
people can produce a better society than what exist now. So, here I am as
a lunatic. I think the best approach is to work with things that are
close to what we believe. We may not agree with everthing done or said (I
do try to stay within parameters of DeLeonism) but perhaps one day the
realization of the political aspect with the economic aspect would hit
home with everyone. Then social change can actually occur. One more
thing, there are now 55 users here and no posts from most of them.
I wonder why people get sooooooo facinated with
movie stars and other assorted people of the entertainment types. I can
like a movie and think the actor did a good job but that is as far as it
gets. When it comes to music I started learning to play bass guitar
because I found out I had the ability to do so but also that Tom
Peterson, of Cheap Trick, had articles of his part in the invention of
the 12 string bass guitar. It had nothing to do with personality worship.
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
18 Feb 2007 12:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
I know what you mean. In our house, we don't watch TV
that much except for old movies but one thing is certain, as certain as
sun rise that the TV will go out the window before anyone watched that
g.d. Entertainment Tonight - however personality worship, it must fulfill
some kind of need. I always imagine that Jack Nicholson and I are
actually friends. Steve Allan, Jimmie Duranti, Louis Armstrong,
Bernadette Peters, Ella Fitzgerald, Cher among many others also have/had
that knack.
Of course this is hardly the stuff of revolutionary
class consciousness, but it doesn't bother my time. I don't think that if
people stopped fawning over whoever their latest is that they'd be any
closer to class consciousness. Nor do I think that it really prevents
people from so becoming - might as well complain about people farting on
the elevator.
I don't think that the 50 or so people registered
actually read this stuff. I am pretty sure that it is only you Mike and
I.
It must be getting close to spring, a house fly
just landed on my computer screen. I will now go out and mow the grass.
dave
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
19 Feb 2007 03:16 am Post subject:
|
|
That many forum users, huh? About half of them are
real human beings, and the other half, which I just deleted, are
spammers. Spammers register every day, and they get added automatically
to the users' list, but, with the current settings I use, no one can post
unless I manually approve their user names for posting. One can usually
identify spammers by what they write in their profile screens, things
like "hobby: buy cheap car insurance" or "hobby: good deal
on a second mortgage", or the way they register user names like
naked-teenage-cheerleaders. Many of them advertise web sites that sell
illegal drugs, which makes me wonder where the FBI is when I need them. I
usually let the spam registrations pile up, then occasionally I delete
twenty or thirty of them all at once.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
19 Feb 2007 11:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
Yeah Dave, I remember John Wayne, Jack Nicholeson, Bob
Dylan, et at, but I don't recall the intense worship of these people. It
was more of an appreciation that they did a fine job as actors or
musicians and applauded when they were finished. You are correct that if
people "stopped fawning" they would still be no closer to
having a class counscious. But I do find it strange that they fawn over
and above thet they had to make new cable and TV programs to show every
detail of these people's lives. Another thing, I don't see why people
bother to spam here.
Oh well, I believe I am out of things to write
about for now. I am reading the manual of the IWW and will write a few
things about it.
John T.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
19 Feb 2007 11:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
John wrote:
they would still be no closer to having a class
counscious. But I do find it strange that they fawn over and above thet
they had to make new cable and TV programs to show every detail of these
people's lives.
dave: hell they have a whole TV network apparently
about mops. Everytime I would go to my otherinlaw's house, you would turn
to this certain channel and they would be selling some kind of a mop. I
think one you could wipe you ass with it with just a simple twist and go
right back to happily mopping your floor without even having to rinse.
John wrote:
Another thing, I don't see why people bother to
spam here.
dave:
it is because they know that we all must be total
illiterates.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
21 Feb 2007 08:28 am Post subject:
|
|
Want to see another of the many reformist groups
pretending to be socialist? Its name is something like the Socialist
Party of England and Wales, and it has no relation to the Socialist Party
of Great Britain. Look at their "Our Demands" document: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/socialism21/ch9.htm
How about this expressed goal of theirs -- "No
to the fat cats." Now that's sure to give the working class a good
education in social matters, huh?
__________________________________________
The spammers aren't posting, they're just
registering. That let's them fill in a website address which becomes
clickable. The Google page rank of a site is based on the total number of
incoming links to it from all other sites.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2007 12:16 am Post subject:
|
|
Mike, it does appear that a lot of socialist groups
define their goals by capitalist standards and speech. To determine the
hours of the work week, what an individual would get per hour, what
monies are spent in rent, etc., would maintain the existing system just
by making demands on it. Last I heard it was called Liberalism.
Here's a good one...Scrapping the anti-trade
union laws. Trade unions to be democratically controlled by their
members. Full-time officials should be regularly elected and receive the
wage of an average worker.
Basically, unions remain separate entities but
would be controlled by regularly elected full time officals. I don't see
the difference except taking a wage no different than what members make.
I guess this is why I asked before if it is reasonabe to create a
political party with the intention of the creation of the industrial
government seeing what exist out there today. On the other hand, I can
understand why it would be much harder to take on the establishment on
economic basis alone. However, I also see how the general working class
folk would be a bit nervous to try and mix politics with union activity.
We know the struggle won't be won when both exclude each other in
reaching for the same prize. But if the political aspect can get the
votes from the economic aspect then the desired goal could be reached.
The political has to be for all working people regardless where they
work. Dave may well be correct that SIU may have to be created
afterwards.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2007 09:53 am Post subject:
|
|
Of the various reasons cited for the political part of
the program, I wonder if this one is logical ... These are De Leon's last
two sentences in Reform or Revolution..... "The capitalist
is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both."
I say yes, it's logical. I think it follows from
the fact that socialist reconstruction is not merely a change for the
better; it is also a slave revolt. It must expect to encounter various kinds
of intentionally erected obstacles, including some that we can't yet
imagine, and be as prepared as posisble to punch through.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2007 10:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
Dave may well
be correct that SIU may have to be created afterwards.
|
Seems to me, the whole hard part of the socialist
task is explanation and persuasion, and the real home base of the
movement should be the communications media. In addition to operating its
own publishing and broadcast facilities, it should try to get articles
into other newspapers and magazines, etc. Socialists can very cheaply
produce an internet-radio series of broadcasts and then advertise to let
people know that it's available. The information part is almost all of
it. The political and industrial organizations rely on public education
and persuasion, wait for it, and will be trivially easy if were first
accomplished. So what's the difference what "category" of
organization it might be, party or union, in the early stages of
developing class consciousness?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2007 09:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
I could do an hour long show, with an appeal to the
workers by an MC at the end of the show:
Please comrades, won't you please do your part to
bring about socalism so we don't have to endure a single more hour of
this?
Radio Triva:
- what do the three tones of NBC signoffs
represent?
- radio station WEVD in NYC is named after who?
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
22 Feb 2007 10:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
Communication will always play
a role informing the working class but I thought we talking about those
who promote "pretense socialism" who are critical of capitalism
but only offers Liberal reforms to that very system. Sure, we have to be
critical of capitalism and show that wages and benefits have to be
reduced to maximize profits and to show that increase prices also reflect
profits. Capitalist, as a whole, could care less about the slave wage
earner. But we also have to produce a blueprint of what a true socialist
society should look like: How an industrial government, controlled by
workers, would function. What Time Labor Units are and how they function
without the profit motive.
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Of the various
reasons cited for the political part of the program, I wonder if this
one is logical ... These are De Leon's last two sentences in Reform
or Revolution..... "The capitalist is organized upon both lines.
You must attack him on both."
I say yes, it's logical. I think it follows from the fact that
socialist reconstruction is not merely a change for the better; it is
also a slave revolt. It must expect to encounter various kinds of
intentionally erected obstacles, including some that we can't yet
imagine, and be as prepared as posisble to punch through.
|
I know that the capitalist are organized on the
political and economic fields but workers have only marginally done so.
The reason the capitalist is so organized is that they have power and
money. Workers only have their labor power to sell and that is done on an
individual basis. Of course you have groups who are concerned over
various issues. One group worries about the enviroment, another about
what rights animals should have. Another group feels that a big pot party
would solve a lot of things. Then there are those who want a national
health care program. Some do take on the political aspect while others
try to tackle the economic. Most workers are only concerned with what
scraps they can get to make a living and jeer at the politicians who they
have voted in office...many don't even vote at all because politics is a
big lie.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
23 Feb 2007 09:01 am Post subject:
|
|
I suggest generalizing the statement that "the
capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on
both." Change "both" to "all". The capitalist is
organized in every possible place, so the socialist movement should
organize in every possible place. Capitalism is organized to insert its
message into entertainment events, so the socialist movement should
insert its message into entertainment and performance arts. [This is what
the IWW music recordings and concerts are, but so far limited only to
coffee house folk music.] Capitalism is organized to insert its message
into educational institutions and text books, so the socialist movement
must insert its message into educational institutions. [See the
"critical pedagogy" movement in school curriculum that was
started by Friere, McLaren, et al.] It has to be everywhere. We need
socialist theater and drama. We need a socialist art gallery. We need to
publish socialist fiction and poetry. We need a science and technology
geek organization run by socialists. Every compartment in the world is
related to the subject what kind of system we shall have, and every one
of them is an ideological battlefield. To say "industrial and
political" as De Leon did, I add: yes, those two areas, plus about a
hundred more.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
25 Feb 2007 06:46 am Post subject:
|
|
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Change "both" to
"all". The capitalist is organized in every possible place,
so the socialist movement should organize in every possible place.
|
Well said and done but there are so few of us and
too many of them. We can also sub divide the Left and you get
vanguardist, democratic, Libertarian, Anarchist, etc. Too many think it's
achieved by force which leaves a negative impression in workers minds.
The Socialist Industrial Government (SIG) presents a plan of action,
collective ownership of capitalist private property, and how the means of
production can be operated by workers through democratic appointments of
administration. But you know that. A positive and consistant promotion
might help win over a few more workers.
|
|
|