Author	Message
davesearles	Posted: 01 Sep 2008 04:56 pm    Post subject: What are demands? When, if ever, are they effective? We've discussed this before but never in its own topic. To me - a demand in the political sense seems that it should be or ought to be more than a purported command. Demand as refers to market forces when supply is relatively stable HAS A DEFINITE EFFECT on price. We would say that if supply is relatively stable that price rises and falls because of rising and falliing DEMAND. If there is no change supply and price goes up, then the same numner of peole are purchasing but at a higher price - the same number of people demand the product more. Demand is also looked at as a tool by a smaller group to attemp to speak for a larger group and thereby attemp to exert influence over the behaviors of the larger group. This second category of demand - I wonder if it is not a way of deluding ourselves into thinking that in fact we can have a predictable influence in the growth of another term, this one even less measurable in less than epic proportions -class consciousness.
mikelepore	Posted: 01 Sep 2008 08:57 pm    Post subject: First of all, a demand in a sentence like "we demand that you do it" has nothing to do with the same word in the economic phrase "supply and demand." They are unrelated uses of the same word. In economics, demand means: Most of us would buy gizmos if its price is $10 or less. The seller wants to know: would there be any demand for a $12 gizmo? No, most people wouldn't buy it. Would there be a demand for a $9 gizmo? Yes, most people would buy it. You can't say how much demand there is for the gizmo until the price is named. I demand that someone do something is to give that person a choice between compliance and the consequences of noncompliance. I demand that you sign the confession or I will stretch you on the rack. We demand that you pay the ransom or we will blow up the plane. I demand that you give me a cookie or I will have a tantrum. I demand that you adhere to the ocntract or I will sue you. The "or else" is a necessary part to completing the sentence. Likewise, political demands are only meaningful if there is an "or else." You can say "We demand that the political leader do this, otherwise we will vote against his reelection." But it makes no sense to say "We demand that the political leader do this; however we wouldn't vote for reelection whether or not the leader does it." The latter example is illogical. There is no consequence. That's why the leftist habit of making demands is useless. This example is from a 1996 Communist Party document: "Put people's needs before corporate profits and greed. Full employment with decent jobs at good wages for all. Massive public works jobs programs to rebuild the country and put everyone back to work. Fund this program with drastic cuts in the military budget and a sharp increase in taxes on the corporations and the super rich. Eliminate all taxes on working people making less than $60,000 a year." Is this the list of things that the CP would really do it they had complete control of the state? Apparently not, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves the Communist Party; they would instead call themselves the Lower Taxes for Workers and Higher Taxes for Corporations Party. It must be the case that these are the goal they express given that they do NOT have complete control of the state. In other words, they are demanding that the politicians do these things. Now, what will the consequences be if the politicians decline to do these things? Will the CP throw cream pies at the politicians? Will they paint curse words on the exteriors of their office buildings? What exactly would the consequences be that the politicians would have to face? Since this is not expressed, the demand is meaningless. It's nothing but an emotional catharsis.
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 12:32 pm    Post subject: an actual demand is more a peremptory command, (the BBC English Lawyer on TV referring to his wife as "she who must be obeyed". Of course there are all kind of usages. In a legal pleading you must "demand" that the lower court do something or else you cannot appeal to a higher court for it not being done. There are peremptory challenges to the seating of jurrors. Peremptory in the sense that the challenge cannot be questioned (for the most part, anyway) In a politial sense the examples you give Mike are on target istm. The "religious right" demanded an anti-abortion candidate on the national ticket and got one. Protesters at the DNC "demanded" all sorts of things and had zip influence. To me those were not actual demands. in that they mostly are not intended as peremptory commands. Go back a few decades - "Free Angela": The "demand" was not to convey a command to the state that it free Angela Davis but more as a "rallying cry". That's two different things, isn't it? Proposition: Practically all of what are termed by the left as "demands" (as in transition demands, minimum demands and maximum demands, etc.) would be more accurately described as being in the nature of rallying cries (or at least attempted rallying cries).
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 03:31 pm    Post subject: And to me that is how the effectiveness of these demands ought to be judged. As a rally cry, does it actually rally. Has developing just the right rallying cries become something of a cottage industry for (some parts of) the left?
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 07:08 pm    Post subject: Your term "rallying cry" is appropriate because most of the left believes that what the working class lacks is sufficient anger. The left fails to understand that working class conservativism is conceptual. The working class believes that capitalism can be reformed to work efficiently, that the main causes of social problems are not found in the economic system, etc., in the same way that the phlogiston theory taught that heat is a fluid, or Ptolemy believed that the sun revolves around the earth. The workers' unwillingness to jump on socialism is based on incorrect understanding of how things mechanically work. But the left thinks that what workers lack is sufficient capacity to feel emotion, and therefore the corrective measures are those which elicit stronger emotions. Therefore the emotion revolutionary and the conceptual revolutionary each charge each other with "doing nothing." The emotion revolutionary says to the conceptual revolutionary: All you do is deliver lectures about principles and publish essays that explain theories, and you fail to organize mass parades and rhyming chants. The conc. rev. says to the emo. rev.: all you do is get everyone stamping their feet and shaking their fists, and you don't teach them the new ideas that they need to understand.
davesearles	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 07:21 pm    Post subject: But to be fair some of the demandering does think that what follows after "What do we want? (fill in the blank) When do we want it? Now" is educational The projected line of thinking must be - so here I am marching down the marching street and hearing people shouting for 30 hours work for 40 hours pay or whatever and that's going to get me realy thinking about organizing with my fellow workers to try to get paid for 30 hours what I used to do 40 hours work for.
The Greenman	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 07:22 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: This example is from a 1996 Communist Party document: "Put people's needs before corporate profits and greed. Full employment with decent jobs at good wages for all. Massive public works jobs programs to rebuild the country and put everyone back to work. Fund this program with drastic cuts in the military budget and a sharp increase in taxes on the corporations and the super rich. Eliminate all taxes on working people making less than $60,000 a year." Is this the list of things that the CP would really do it they had complete control of the state? Apparently not, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves the Communist Party; they would instead call themselves the Lower Taxes for Workers and Higher Taxes for Coeporations Party. It must be the case that these are the goal they express given that they do NOT have complete control of the state. In other words, they are demanding that the politicians do these things. Now, what will the consequences be if the politicians decline to do these things? Will the CP throw cream pies at the politicians? Will they paint curse words on the exteriors of their office uildings? What exactly would the consequences be that the politicians would have to face? Since this is not expressed, the demand is meaningless. It's nothing but an emotional catharsis. Thanks Mike for this explaination. DSA uses the same useless demands since there can be no consequences politically. I think the idea is that the squeeky wheel [rallying cries] gets the oil. But the wheel really is not all that noisy or annoying to make a difference. A politician may oil the wheel running for office but after the election he/she breaks those promises and the wheel starts getting noisy for another two to four years and the cycle repeats itself. People rally for their favorite football team with emotional fevor. Pentecostals get emotional over Jesus and jump around or roll on the floor. Are we suppose to get excited over political demands without knowledge of what socialism and social ownership is about? Another example is collective bargaining. The consequences could be a strike or a sharp reduction in production. Of course we know that collective bargaining has nothing to do with socialism (especially the social ownership of both production and distribution) despite the claims of many socialists. I don't expect to change the spots of a leopard or other socialist. I wonder if an economic organization of workers, with IU departments and such, could be done experimentally? Of course this would be considered Utopian or sectarian by socialist/communist but what do they know other than to quote Marx or Lenin till they are blue in the face. John T.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 07:55 pm    Post subject: A demand made in collective bargaining makes some sense, because workers can (sometimes) indicate that they won't work if the conditions worsen below some level of perceived tolerance. But we can't do that with government. We can't tell the government, "We will only obey the laws you pass if you will repeal the X Law and enact the Y law, and if you refuse then we will shoot the sheriff." So a job demand has some logic to it, but a political demand never means anything unless it's proposed as a condition for election and reelection.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 08:50 pm    Post subject: It may be true that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but that formula is only true when there's expectation that the wheel can be caused to stop squeaking. If people say to a politician, "I'll vote for you if you support this", this strategy may really work. But if you say to the politician "I wouldn't vote for you even if you were the last person on earth. I;ll condemn you either way. Now, I demand that support this reform bill" -- the politician won't waste any oil on that hopeless wheel. So principled Marxists are disqualified from issuing demands. The audibility of their squeak isn't conditional.
mikelepore	Posted: 02 Sep 2008 09:02 pm    Post subject: It's not a priori that the slogan "30 hours work for 40 hours pay" isn't educational. It's just that I don't see any lesson objective being served by it. If it's educational then one ought to be able to articulate what conclusion the student is expected to learn from it. Not only do I see no concept being learned; on the contrary, I see it conveying further error that will later need to be unlearned. It promotes the illusion that the duration of work that the workers are compensated for is meaningfully expressed by the number of hours shown on the paycheck stub, which, as anyone who has read Das Kapital know, is untrue. As Marx wrote, during each minute you work fifteen second for your wages and forty-five seconds for which you are robbed.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 03 Sep 2008 05:44 am    Post subject: I would like to add that I am in the middle of another work right now. As for the 32-hour workweek (one of at least ten demands covered in my new work): http://www.revleft.com/vb/32-hour-workweek-t88097/index.html Quote: Therefore the emotion revolutionary and the conceptual revolutionary each charge each other with "doing nothing." The emotion revolutionary says to the conceptual revolutionary: All you do is deliver lectures about principles and publish essays that explain theories, and you fail to organize mass parades and rhyming chants. The conc. rev. says to the emo. rev.: all you do is get everyone stamping their feet and shaking their fists, and you don't teach them the new ideas that they need to understand. My work aims to be a combination of both, popularizing higher-level theory in bulk (by brief explanation) and "rally-crying" through demands that have, unfortunately, escaped most economistic Marxist groups today. :(
davesearles	Posted: 03 Sep 2008 07:20 am    Post subject: jr: my work aims to be ... ds: sure thing jacob, we all aim. but what is the measure of actual present as opposed to dreamed of future success?
davesearles	Posted: 03 Sep 2008 02:32 pm    Post subject: here is jr's "demand" from his above cited writing: Quote: Enough is enough. We call for amending the federal labor laws to: Define the normal work week to 32 hours without loss of pay or benefits; Provide a minimum of double-time pay for all hours worked over 32 hours a week and 8 hours a day; Forbid compulsory overtime; Mandate one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime; Require twenty days paid vacation for all workers in addition to the federal holidays; Provide one year of paid educational leave for every seven years worked. Taken together these proposals will create millions of new jobs and allow us free time we need to care for our families and to participate in our communities. More family time and more community participation should be the fruit of increased labor productivity. Remarkabley this "demand" is preceeded by jr's comparison of Korean workers to workers in Paris: Quote: In a recent report, UBS says that Seoul residents spend more than 2,300 hours at work each year. That's the longest among 71 world cities surveyed. Based on a 42-hour workweek, the average South Korean worker puts in about 60 days a year more than their peers in Paris who spend just 1,480 hours on the job, the world's lowest. So based upon jr's DEMAND Parisian workers would apparently have to work longer hours than they do now?
mikelepore	Posted: 03 Sep 2008 05:02 pm    Post subject: You can't demand that employers provide more vacation days or other benefits without implying that employers should continue to exist. Their continued existence is a precondiiton for their doing anything. So the set of demands concedes the right of a category of employers to continue existing. But Marxism says that they don't have any right to exist. How could the reform-revolution fence sitters not comprehend this? If you demand a new law that will say that someone is only allowed to whip you as long as they don't give you more than a hundred lashes, then you conceding their right to whip you. If I say that you are only permitted to punch me in the face as long as you don't poke my eyes in the process, then I'm saying that you are allowed to punch me.
mikelepore	Posted: 03 Sep 2008 05:06 pm    Post subject: Even if a something-now, something-is-better-than-nothing set of demands is acceptable, the list of demands that Dave just quoted doesn't even acknowledge that exploitation occurs . To acknowledge exploitation, it could say, for example: "At the present time, the workers are paid one-sixth of what they produce and robbed of five-sixths. We demand an improvement in the workers' conditons, to the effect that the workers will receive one fifth of what they produce, and increase compared to what they receive now, and shall be robbed of four-fifths, a decrease of the amount of which they are robbed, compared to the present time." Why wasn't an explanation of this type included in the list of demands? Because it wouldn't make sense. It would condone the continuation of exploitation. Well, it condones the continuation of exploitation even *without* saying such a thing --- because the author of the demands knows that exploitation occurs, and chose to conceal the fact. Some educational process. The lesson that you're there to teach, you decide not to mention. Like I'm going to teach you algebra, but I choose not to mention variables and equations.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 01:27 am    Post subject: ^^^ Comrade, the problem is that this demand is related to time and not money. Please note my emphatic citations of Marx and Kautsky regarding the struggle for the eight-hour day in that RevLeft article. On the other hand, I am reconsidering the demand for inflation indexing and deflation protection of the minimum wage and replacing it with full implementation of cost of living adjustments: http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-wages-t87470/index.html In any event, I invite you to reword this (which is in my WIP Appendix): The definition of the normal workweek to 32 hours without loss of pay or benefits, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over 32 hours a week and 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime
davesearles	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 04:06 am    Post subject: ml: "Well, it condones the continuation of exploitation even *without* saying such a thing --- because the author of the demands knows that exploitation occurs, and chose to conceal the fact. "Some educational process. The lesson that you're there to teach, you decide not to mention. Like I'm going to teach you algebra, but I choose not to mention variables and equations." jr: Comrade, the problem is that this demand is related to time and not money. Please note my emphatic citations of Marx and Kautsky regarding the struggle for the eight-hour day in that RevLeft article. ds: This is the basis of your analysis isn't it? not only quotations but emphatic quotations! Those might get you brownie points on other sites but none here. Even if KHM himself were to sign on here he would have to justify the proposed use in 2008 of a rallying cry that gave the definite impression that capitalists have a legitimate right to ownership of the means of production as long as workers do not "normally" work over 32 hours/week. Even the idea of normality needs serious rethinking. No forced overtime! Not unless you need the money.
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 05:42 am    Post subject: The capitalist can make things "compulsory" without making them "compulsory." Here's how you do that: "Announcements. Next month we will decide which 1,000 employees to fire, in our 'dead wood' housecleaning. We will focus on the elimination of employees who aren't 'team players', who have a 'bad attitude', who fail to 'make it' when we 'raise the bar.' These selections haven't yet been made. Now, here's another announcement -- on a completely different topic.... We will need a lot of people who will volunteer for overtime to meet the aggressive schedule. This is entirely voluntary."
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 05:55 am    Post subject: I repeat this about one every three months, and I always feel that I need to make this point more clear. I'm not against reforms themselves. I'm against the insertion of reform ideas in any document or summary named something similar to "the socialist program", the "road to socialism", "the revolutionary course", etc. Perhaps socialists can give some kind of assistance to reform causes while simultaneously clarifying "these suggestions have nothing to do with the socialist program -- seizing the means of production is the only thing that has to do with the socialist program". But I'm not sure how they might communicate that. Better yet, as I have proposed many times, do it as individuals. Do your volunteer work on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the reform cause, then return to the task of socialist education, and don't add any dilutions or distractions to it.
mikelepore	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 03:29 pm    Post subject: I think I led Dave's topic into an unintended direction. Seems that it wasn't meant to be a discussion of reformism, but a discussion about the act of demanding things, which are different issues.
davesearles	Posted: 04 Sep 2008 08:00 pm    Post subject: The two are related somewhat because for some strange reason for the most part what the demandering left puts out are demands for things that seem never to inextricably lead to the idea of collective worker ownership and control of the means of production. A stupid way of looking at people that often works out it that there are various brain switches or dichotomies that get set pretty early in life. The propensity to believe in god seems one of them, in our cultural anyway. Either you have it or you don't. Gay or straight seems another. I propose that one dichotomy is the belief (or not) that people will be almost exclusively be inclined NOT to become class conscious beings if they are told upfront that the object is for the workers to collectively operate the means of production for them/our selves. Oh no, that would turn them off. People who know me know that I advocate workers collectively operating the means of production for them/our selves. Even 40 years later, people who I haven't seen in all of that time remember that that was what I advocated then and are not at all surprised to hear (one more time) that that is exactly what I advocate today. That they are convinced of the immediate and palpable necessity of this happening very seldom seems to be the case - but, is there ANY logical basis whatsoever for the notion that had I instead over the last 40 years not been upfront with this idea but dribbled out less than the full idea that people would more readily agree with the whole idea? I simply cannot see it. Perhaps there are those who after much thought agree otherwise. Perhaps.
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 05:17 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: but, is there ANY logical basis whatsoever for the notion that had I instead over the last 40 years not been upfront with this idea but dribbled out less than the full idea that people would more readily agree with the whole idea? I regard the SP and SWP and several others as empirical tests of that. They tried to avoid turning people off, so that they could get millions of members. Did they get them? No. Some new approach is needed, but dilution of the suggestion for abrupt revolutionary change isn't it. I think it will have to involve new kinds of cooperation among factions that don't necessary agree on everything, but without compromising when it comes to debating their differences.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 05:21 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: I repeat this about one every three months, and I always feel that I need to make this point more clear. I'm not against reforms themselves. I'm against the insertion of reform ideas in any document or summary named something similar to "the socialist program", the "road to socialism", "the revolutionary course", etc. I think we're on the same page here. Since you have my draft document, the "program" mentions nothing about such reforms being some sort of "road to socialism" or "revolutionary course." I've just relabelled the "draft program" the "draft programmatic combination," just to make this clearer to you. In keeping the common, historic aim of manual, clerical, and professional workers consciously in full view, pro-reform Social-Labourists hereby proceed from the above to issue these political and economic demands for immediate but real, reform-enabling reform – to begin with... Once more, because these political and economic demands for immediate but real, reform-enabling reform will not fall from heaven, the Social-Labourists are firmly convinced that the complete, consistent, and lasting implementation of these changes can only be achieved by class struggle. You also need to recognize the difference between "agreeing" with something and "accepting" something. The SPD and RSDLP rules were based on "acceptance" of "The Document" (I will note, however, that modern class-strugglist parties will have to base themselves on both "agreement" with basic principles and "acceptance" of the rest of "The Document"). The problem with leaving out radical reforms from "The Document" is that you're then leaving such initiatives to "spontaneity." There isn't much awareness regarding workplace occupations (like in South America), let alone worker buyouts, because most self-proclaimed "Marxist" parties today are HIGHLY economistic in their programmatic outlook. Their idea of "reforms" is based on "social-democratic" reform, NOT on class-strugglist reform. Quote: Perhaps socialists can give some kind of assistance to reform causes while simultaneously clarifying "these suggestions have nothing to do with the socialist program -- seizing the means of production is the only thing that has to do with the socialist program". But I'm not sure how they might communicate that. I guess some technical clarity needs to be made here. You're right: anything apart from the "basic principles" section is NOT a socialist program. My suggested "programmatic combination" is a COMBINATION of at least two programs: the socialist/maximum/revolutionary program, the "dynamic minimum" program, and an implicit directional program in the socioeconomic analysis section. I'll also note once more (since you read the file) that the organization that I have in mind would include class-strugglist anarchists. Along with the "programmatic combination" come the "programmatic disclosures" - a euphemism for official critiques of the "programmatic combination." Think of the whole package as something akin to a corporate annual report, with management discussion & analysis, the auditor's report, the financial statements, and the notes to the financial statements. The anarchists will have, as part of their critique, an additional principle regarding "the state." Social-proletocrats such as myself will have, as part of our critique, an additional principle regarding labour credit (thereby abolishing wage slavery and capital formation). Quote: Better yet, as I have proposed many times, do it as individuals. Do your volunteer work on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the reform cause, then return to the task of socialist education, and don't add any dilutions or distractions to it. But then the group would be reduced to some sort of "workers' united front," no? Quote: Some new approach is needed, but dilution of the suggestion for abrupt revolutionary change isn't it. I think it will have to involve new kinds of cooperation among factions that don't necessary agree on everything, but without compromising when it comes to debating their differences. BINGO! The "basic principles" are there for EVERYBODY to agree on (and BTW, you'll be happy to note that "social-democratic" pseudo-reformists, due to their REJECTION of class struggle, are excluded).
Jacob Richter	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 05:31 am    Post subject: Basic Principles http://www.revleft.com/vb/basic-principles-sectarian-t87880/index.html
davesearles	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 12:04 pm    Post subject: ds: Who you think the audience for the writing above would be. You have to be the judge of that and make sure that you have adjusted the tone of the writing accordingly. Thinking that you have unabashedly borrowed from previous works justifes very little where I went to school. Quote: (The task of Class-Strugglist Social Labour) is to shape the struggles of the working class into a class-conscious, unified whole ds: It's preambulatory hype - high sounding with no practical meaning of its own.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 01:52 pm    Post subject: ^^^ On the contrary, that was how maximum programs were written (and MIA did give reproduction permissions on their website): http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm Quote: That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm Quote: Only the transformation of the capitalist private ownership of the means of production – land and soil, pits and mines, raw materials, tools, machines, means of transportation – into social property and the transformation of the production of goods into socialist production carried on by and for society can cause the large enterprise and the constantly growing productivity of social labor to change for the hitherto exploited classes from a source of misery and oppression into a source of the greatest welfare and universal, harmonious perfection. This social transformation amounts to the emancipation not only of the proletariat, but of the entire human race, which is suffering from current conditions. But it can only be the work of the working class, because all other classes, notwithstanding the conflicts of interest between them, stand on the ground of the private ownership of the means of production and have as their common goal the preservation of the foundations of contemporary society. The struggle of the working class against capitalist exploitation is necessarily a political struggle. Without political rights, the working class cannot carry on its economic struggles and develop its economic organization. It cannot bring about the transfer of the means of production into the possession of the community without first having obtained political power. It is the task of the Social Democratic Party to shape the struggle of the working class into a conscious and unified one and to point out the inherent necessity of its goals. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm#v06zz99h-027 Quote: To effect this social revolution the proletariat must win political power, which will make it master of the situation - and enable it to remove all obstacles along the road to its great goal. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential political condition of the social revolution. Russian Social-Democracy undertakes the task of disclosing to the workers the irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the capitalists, of explaining to the proletariat the historical significance, nature, and prerequisites of the social revolution it will have to carry out, and of organising a revolutionary class party capable of directing the struggle of the proletariat in all its forms.
davesearles	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 02:43 pm    Post subject: Quote: Quote: ds: Who you think the audience for the writing above would be. You have to be the judge of that and make sure that you have adjusted the tone of the writing accordingly. Thinking that you have unabashedly borrowed from previous works justifes very little where I went to school. Quote: (The task of Class-Strugglist Social Labour) is to shape the struggles of the working class into a class-conscious, unified whole ds: It's preambulatory hype - high sounding with no practical meaning of its own. jr: On the contrary, that was how maximum programs were written ds: Regardless of what was written then "(The task of Class-Strugglist Social Labour) is to shape the struggles of the working class into a class-conscious, unified whole" has no practical meaning of its own. "That's how they were written" does not answer for what should be written today does it?
mikelepore	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 05:50 pm    Post subject: No matter how we word it, it still gets back to the speculation each of us makes about the psychological effect on people of seeking improvements that are short of a whole new kind of society. The left believes that seeking improvements will make people more forward-looking, by getting people in the mood to discuss change. I believe it makes people more conservative, by causing them to look back on successes as proof that "this system really works", and looking back on defeats as proof that "the problem is in human nature."
davesearles	Posted: 05 Sep 2008 10:03 pm    Post subject: I wouldn't bet the farm on it either way - but reading stuff like: shape the struggles of the working class into a class-conscious, unified whole means nothing except someone has taken the trouble to write it who may have some idea of his own just what the heck shaping the struggles of the working class means - to me it's just foolish talk. Open up a can of jargon and spread it around. No thanks I'm not interested in the slightest. What gets me is the continual references to the writngs of Marx, Lenin, Kautsky or whomever for verification. What if, just what if, we actually have a better perspective than they as to what should happen today?
Jacob Richter	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 03:49 am    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: No matter how we word it, it still gets back to the speculation each of us makes about the psychological effect on people of seeking improvements that are short of a whole new kind of society. The left believes that seeking improvements will make people more forward-looking, by getting people in the mood to discuss change. I believe it makes people more conservative, by causing them to look back on successes as proof that "this system really works", and looking back on defeats as proof that "the problem is in human nature." What about "directional" demands, then? Although they're side benefits apart from worker-social ownership, worker-social control, and labour credit, they can't be achieved under bourgeois capitalism. For the litigation rights demand, all it takes is ONE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT launched by every worker in the US to bankrupt the bourgeoisie for all the past exploited labour. [Consider the punitive, as opposed to equitable, litigation environment today, as well.]
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 04:53 am    Post subject: When you say "side benefits apart from worker-social ownership" -- if, as expressed, they are consistent with socialism, okay. Eliminating racism and sexism, guaranteeing freedom of speech, guaranteeing separation of church and state, or a law to prevent parents from abusing their children, a law to tell everyone to recycle their beer bottles, the exploration of the solar system, medical research -- all such things, one an reasonably argue, need to be done no matter what economic system we are going to have, capitalism or socialism, so they are consistent with adopting socialism next year or next month or tomorrow morning. The main word there is "consistent." But legislation to make the employer give workers higher wages, shorter hours or improved benefits isn't consistent with socialism, because it blesses the continued existence of the employer. It blesses the system in which incomes and benefts are matters of negotiation and relative strength between clashing parties with opposite interests. I quote the following from from De Leon's 1904 pamphlet, "The Burning Question of Trades Unionism": "Steps in the right direction, so called 'immediate demands', are among the most precarious. They are precarious because they are subject and prone to the lure of the 'sop' or the 'palliative' that the foes of labor's edemption are ever ready to dangle before the eyes of the working class, and at which, aided by the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class, the unwary are apt to snap and be hooked. But there is a test by which the bait can be distinguished from the sound step, by which the trap can be detected and avoided, and yet the right step forward taken. The test is this: Does the contemplated step square with the ultimate aim? If it does, then the step is sound and safe; if it does not, then the step is a trap and disasterous."
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 05:23 am    Post subject: Here's another speculation about psychology. Has any of us here ever simultantously decided to eliminate anything and also to improve it? Has anyone ever decided to throw away an old worn-out pair of pants and, while stuffing it into the trash, and not regreting doing so, simultaneously had thought: I think I'm going to take this to the tailor to get mended? Has any every taken an old car to the junk yard to get scrapped, and, at the same time one is pleased by the image of crusher consuming the old piece of junk, made the decision to get that car a new paint job? I assert that it's impossible for the brain simultanously to want to scrap something and also want to fix it. Likewise, if we want the workers seriously to consider abolishing capitalism, we have to stop encouraging them to think in terms of improving it.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 07:47 am    Post subject: ^^^ Then would you please care to explain the irrelevance of that infantile disorder known as "left-wing communism" (they too are maximum-only folks, but they're also against national liberation, working within unions as class-strugglist militants, etc.) and groups such as the IBRP and the International Childish Current? Quote: Likewise, if we want the workers seriously to consider abolishing capitalism, we have to stop encouraging them to think in terms of improving it. Consider these demands, then: Quote: Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association, free from anti-employment reprisals and police agents such as agents provocateurs. The expansion of “gun rights” (the right to bear arms and to self-defense in general), including the formation of citizens’ militias along the bourgeois-capitalist Swiss model, thereby going beyond the recent District of Columbia vs. Heller case in the Supreme Court of United States and even the rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, the most influential gun lobby group in the world.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 02:14 pm    Post subject: compare: Quote: Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association, free from anti-employment reprisals and police agents such as agents provocateurs. to: a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Quote: Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control and operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine. Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The litigation rights (to "bankrupt capitalism") above would need a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court would knock them down in a heartbeat - and suppose there was such a right to a lawsuit. All it would get would be a judgment - and the workers would have to stand in a long line to be able to enforce that judgment. At a sheriff's sale which would wipe out all of the previous liens on the property, don't you think that the capitalists will be able to manipulate the process so that THEY actually buy back the property for a song, now minus mortgage liens, mechanic's liens tax liens, etc.? Litigation rights? Essentially gives a slave the right to sue for the amount of the exploitation while keeping slavery in place. You don't think the slave holders could manipulate that process? Why not just advocate the constitutional amendment above? When adopted it would directly alter the entire legal structure concerning the means of production as property - and it frames the debate as such. One reason that I like it is that we don't have to "shape workers' struggles" what ever that means. We don't have to pretend that we have have any special expertise over anyone whatsoever. We simply propose and argue for the above amendment as a method for workers to resolve THE struggle.
mikelepore	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 06:28 pm    Post subject: I see at once that a law to guarantee freedom of assembly and association passes De Leon's test: "Does the contemplated step square with the ultimate aim?" A proposed law to guarantee freedom from "anti-employment reprisals" -- I don't see how it could be enforced, because reprisals are rarely called by what they are. The boss doesn't tell the worker you're fired for organizing. The boss tells the worker you're fired for making a mistake in your work, or for being a minute late arriving on that day of the blizzard. The boss can give the worker a job requirement that's physically impossible; I myself had a supervisor who, because he hated me, rewrote my formal job description to say "find a way to do twice the work in half the time." There is almost never an admission that the boss is enacting revenge. I'm curious about why the category of civil law (lawsuits) rather than criminal law (prosecution) was recommmended. Is this believed to be associated with more success for poor workers? As for gun ownership, I don't understand the intent here. I don't see why gun ownership should be recommended, or why it should be regarded as a right, or what's wrong with having strict limitations on it.
The Greenman	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 06:50 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: A demand made in collective bargaining makes some sense, because workers can (sometimes) indicate that they won't work if the conditions worsen below some level of perceived tolerance. But we can't do that with government. We can't tell the government, "We will only obey the laws you pass if you will repeal the X Law and enact the Y law, and if you refuse then we will shoot the sheriff." So a job demand has some logic to it, but a political demand never means anything unless it's proposed as a condition for election and reelection. But collective bargaining only improves wages and benefits. The consequence the employer faces if a contract is not reached is to have a strike or a 50 percent reduction in production. I believed it is whacked to think that each won contract or union grievance is a step toward socialism nor will raise class consciousness. Quote: It may be true that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but that formula is only true when there's expectation that the wheel can be caused to stop squeaking. If people say to a politician, "I'll vote for you if you support this", this strategy may really work. But if you say to the politician "I wouldn't vote for you even if you were the last person on earth. I;ll condemn you either way. Now, I demand that support this reform bill" -- the politician won't waste any oil on that hopeless wheel. So principled Marxists are disqualified from issuing demands. The audibility of their squeak isn't conditional. I understand the political demand when it has to do with the politician being elected or not elected. So, I was not writing about "principled" Marxists" (whatever that is) but those socialists who would say to the politician that, "I will vote for you if support this reform bill." However, certain socialists believe that in exchange for votes the capitalist politician would introduce reform bills but after the election they really don't deliver because the bills would work against the interest of the capitalist class whom the politician looks after. I think it is one huge brain fart to think that capitalist politicians would enact laws that would harm the interest of the capitalist. If reforms are passed into law, such as universal health care, then the capitalist class would benefit mostly from it because people would believe capitalism is working in their interest even though coverage would be minimal. I am sure private health insurance would play a big part since the government would contract out to them as they do today. The Republican want to contract out education to private firms. I don't know if it would make kids any smarter but I am sure wallets will be lined with money. Sorry to be brief but I am at the library. My computer is still broken. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 07:38 pm    Post subject: I'm curious about why the category of civil law (lawsuits) rather than criminal law (prosecution) was recommmended. Is this believed to be associated with more success for poor workers?
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 07:42 pm    Post subject: ml aparently to jr: I'm curious about why the category of civil law (lawsuits) rather than criminal law (prosecution) was recommmended. Is this believed to be associated with more success for poor workers? ds: as opposed to an amendment proposal which is neither, it's contitutional. In one sweep it affects all law, criminal, civil, common, judical, legislative, executive administrative, federal, state, and local.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 08:07 pm    Post subject: davesearles wrote: a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Quote: Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control and operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine. Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Um, that's the maximum demand, don't you think? HOWEVER, it could be turned into a directional / transitional demand (if especially Section 2 were modified). Section 1 says "exclusion" and "collective," and I was thinking of a "Dual Power" situation like in Russia (Provisional Government vs. soviets). The end to this "exclusion" would not necessarily imply "full worker ownership and control over the economy" (my draft "programmatic combination"). Section 1 also does not talk about "nationalization" vs. expropriation: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg Trotsky wrote: We counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords. In precisely the same way, we demand the expropriation of the corporations holding monopolies on war industries, railroads, the most important sources of raw materials, etc. The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of “nationalization” lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues of the People’s Front who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers. Quote: The litigation rights (to "bankrupt capitalism") above would need a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court would knock them down in a heartbeat Indeed (which was why I raised the issue). Quote: And suppose there was such a right to a lawsuit. All it would get would be a judgment - and the workers would have to stand in a long line to be able to enforce that judgment. At a sheriff's sale which would wipe out all of the previous liens on the property, don't you think that the capitalists will be able to manipulate the process so that THEY actually buy back the property for a song, now minus mortgage liens, mechanic's liens tax liens, etc.? BY ITSELF this directional demand is indeed not enough. It is only given full potential when coupled with collectivization / socialization of the MOP. Ultimately this demand is aimed against the petit-bourgeois small- and medium-business employers: http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html Quote: One reason that I like it is that we don't have to "shape workers' struggles" what ever that means. We don't have to pretend that we have have any special expertise over anyone whatsoever. We simply propose and argue for the above amendment as a method for workers to resolve THE struggle. I suppose, but that could still betray a parliamentary "road to socialism." I am not opposed to this IF and only IF there is "grassroots pressure" on bourgeois legislators to proverbially hang themselves by passing this. This is related to mikelepore's implicit question on citizens' militias: Quote: As for gun ownership, I don't understand the intent here. I don't see why gun ownership should be recommended, or why it should be regarded as a right, or what's wrong with having strict limitations on it. I raised this for explicitly revolutionary purposes (the expansion of gun rights is genuine only when tied explicitly to citizens' militias and even workers' militias).
Jacob Richter	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 08:26 pm    Post subject: mikelepore wrote: I see at once that a law to guarantee freedom of assembly and association passes De Leon's test: "Does the contemplated step square with the ultimate aim?" I wanted to get past bourgeois phraseology. Freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association is a "dynamic minimum" demand I'm still working on (in terms of the commentary and meeting both the Hahnel and Kautsky/De Leon criteria). Quote: A proposed law to guarantee freedom from "anti-employment reprisals" -- I don't see how it could be enforced, because reprisals are rarely called by what they are. The boss doesn't tell the worker you're fired for organizing. The boss tells the worker you're fired for making a mistake in your work, or for being a minute late arriving on that day of the blizzard. The boss can give the worker a job requirement that's physically impossible; I myself had a supervisor who, because he hated me, rewrote my formal job description to say "find a way to do twice the work in half the time." There is almost never an admission that the boss is enacting revenge. You'll note that, in my work, I explicitly evoked Kautsky (The Class Struggle, naturally) and then especially Lenin at the end: Quote: Once more, because these political and economic demands for immediate but real, reform-enabling reform will not fall from heaven, all Social-Labourists are firmly convinced that the complete, consistent, and lasting implementation of these changes can only be achieved by class struggle. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm#bkV06P033F02 Quote: I'm curious about why the category of civil law (lawsuits) rather than criminal law (prosecution) was recommmended. Is this believed to be associated with more success for poor workers? Yes.
davesearles	Posted: 06 Sep 2008 08:43 pm    Post subject: jt aparently in response to what ml had written: I understand the political demand when it has to do with the politician being elected or not elected. ds: I agree that "political demand" can be that, or it can be something much much broader. How did women get the vote when they could not vote? How was slavery abolished when obviously slaves could not vote? Interesting essay on the 13th amendment and amending the constitution in general: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?rbaapc:1:./temp/~ammem_R2l4::
Jacob Richter	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Your link isn't working. :(
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 01:06 am    Post subject:
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 09:53 am    Post subject: Oops, I accidentally deleted Dave's last post from the database. Can you type that url again? It can't be made clickable because the url contains characters that the program doesn't support. Pasting is the only way to select it.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:06 am    Post subject: Jacob Richter wrote: I raised this for explicitly revolutionary purposes (the expansion of gun rights is genuine only when tied explicitly to citizens' militias and even workers' militias). I understood that, but perhaps we have different images of the revolutionary process. To me, the revolution is about the workers recognizing the authority of new administration. What the continuation of capitalism looks like -- Moe: Push the green button. Larry: Okay. What the revolution looks like -- Moe: Push the green button. Larry: Haven't you heard the news? The management appointed by the stockholders is no longer recognized. The workers in this plant have elected Curly to be our coordinator. Curly: Push the blue button. Larry: Okay. Where would a citizens' militia or workers' militia fit in?
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:16 am    Post subject: It's from the Library of Congess "From Slavery to Freedom" collection of pamplets. This one Speech of Gen. Hiram Walbridge, on the proposed amendment to the federal Constitution forever prohibiting slavery in the United States delivered before the Committee on Federal Relations, in the Assembly Chamber of New York, at Albany, Jan. 27, 1865 is quite interesting. directions: highlight the entire text below (not just the part that may be highlighted in blue) and paste it into your browser's address bar. I have found that in order to select the text to copy, I have to start swiping the cursor at the end of the text and swipe to the forward part.) http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(rbaapc32700div4))
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:18 am    Post subject: The Greenman wrote: I think it is one huge brain fart to think that capitalist politicians would enact laws that would harm the interest of the capitalist. As I see it, we have two cases to consider. If capitalism supporters have majority rule, they won't do anything to weaken the capitlaist. If socialism supporters get majority rule, the whole system is being changed fundamentally. So I find it hard to imagine a third case, providing for a relatively drastic reform within capitalism.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: I do. I see it coming to a point when even erstwhile capitialist supporters see the writing on the wall - that there is no way out except for the workers to operate the means of production on a collective basis. (to add another metaphor) of course I do not bank on that, but then I bank on nothing. Capitalist production IS SIMPLY NOT that profitable when more investor money is tied up in non-productive ventures like Google or Yahoo than in the once powerful and mighty General Motors. Capitalist production IS SIMPLY NOT that profitable when more investor money is tied up PURE SPECULATION, like derivatives, than are tied up in the total sum of all the value of all stock in capitalist corporations. There is common ground in survival, iwstm.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:29 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: How did women get the vote when they could not vote? How was slavery abolished when obviously slaves could not vote? Those two changes may not aid understanding here, because both were instances when someone had to do it for the good of someone else, whereas the pending workers' action will have to be do-it-yourself. There are also some peculiarities that won't be repeatable. The abolition of slavery: 600,000 soldiers buried. Women's right to vote: The idea got its major boost after the Christian conservatives began to lobby in favor of it (because they began to expect that it would increase the number of alcohol prohibitionist voters).
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:39 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: I see it coming to a point when even erstwhile capitialist supporters see the writing on the wall - that there is no way out except for the workers to operate the means of production on a collective basis. That's what I'm saying. I only foresee these two cases: people believing in the old system or believing in the new system. I don't see an occasion for the bigger reforms that Jacob suggests, based on realization that capitalism is miserable but let's also keep it around, and therefore enact the 32 hour workweek law, etc.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:50 am    Post subject: Quote: Those two changes may not aid understanding here, because both were instances when someone had to do it for the good of someone else, whereas the pending workers' action will have to be do-it-yourself. Yes and no. The passage of the amendment proposal will depend on many current capitalist but astute politicians putting their fingers in the air and realizing that the idea is too big to stop.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 10:59 am    Post subject: Quote: I don't see an occasion for the bigger reforms that Jacob suggests, based on realization that capitalism is miserable but let's also keep it around, and therefore enact the 32 hour workweek law, etc. nor do I. Not when in what we used to call Red China factories are openly shutting down so that they can transfer production to North Vietnam becuase the labor costs are lower there. The 40 hour work week that exists in some capitalist counties today (analogy alert) is a levee that will not hold. 32 hours exists in France but hardly for all. The 2005 unrest in France certainly had it's roots in the high unemployment rates. A 32 hour work week doesn't mean much if you can't get a job for any number of hours. Sadly it must be observed that when the workers did win the hard fought battle for a 40 hour work week or even 32 hours, that they did not keep going straight on to socialism.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 11:06 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: The passage of the amendment proposal will depend on many current capitalist but astute politicians putting their fingers in the air and realizing that the idea is too big to stop. I can see that for people who are not too wealthy who went into politics. Not a millionaire oil investor who went into politics.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Perhaps not but they would probably serve to prove the rule by their conspicuousness.
davesearles	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 01:41 pm    Post subject: Quote: for the good of someone else I just caught that. I do not think that either the 13th or the 19th amendments were done out of any particular benevolence to african americans or to women. They were enacted by the people through their elected representatives for the good of the whole nation. I think that only a complete cynic or a plain contrarian could come to any other conclusion.
mikelepore	Posted: 07 Sep 2008 05:30 pm    Post subject: I was only refering to the fact that women before 1920 couldn't vote for the women's suffrage legislators, just as in 1860 the slaves couldn't vote for Lincoln. Someone had to rely on someone else.
davesearles	Posted: 08 Sep 2008 02:10 pm    Post subject: I see your point. In this case workers can simply elect workers or worker friendly pols committed to the amendment. Hell, all they need do is to start to elect some and the (anlalogy alert) hand writing will be on the wall. (I don't know if that is an analogy or not, perhaps not.)
The Greenman	Posted: 08 Sep 2008 04:43 pm    Post subject: Mike wrote: Quote: As I see it, we have two cases to consider. If capitalism supporters have majority rule, they won't do anything to weaken the capitlaist. If socialism supporters get majority rule, the whole system is being changed fundamentally. So I find it hard to imagine a third case, providing for a relatively drastic reform within capitalism. That is something purposely over looked by the majority of socialists being that they won't even consider being elected into different offices. They have to start from the bottom for instance like school boards, dog catchers, city councils, etc., which a lot of pro capitalist/conservative political parties do. What candidates that are run for President and VP is simply to get some people to notice and investigate their political form. In other words, canidates are just an educational avenue during election time. Another problem is that putting forth the concept of social ownership of the means of production is considered Utopian by the majority of socialist. I am sure if these same people lived during the time when the 13trh Amendment was just a concept I am sure that would have been argued against as Utopian. Yet, it came to pass politically. Yes, socialist candidates are necessary for the passage of the Amendment proposal for social ownership of production/distribution. Unfortunately, what political demands that are made are directed toward reforms within the existing system instead of a new system. For the record, government has no business in running industries when the workers know what their jobs consist of. I can understand some government regulations as to prohibit dumping of waste into creeks, rivers, lakes, and oceans or excessive pollution of the air but never to do any economic planning or dictate what is produced and distributed. In other words, the SIU would be separate from political government just as private industries. Government would be looking out for the interest of the workers in the future which would include the freedom of speech to call Lenin, or any other political figure, an asshole and the free exercise of religion. Government today looks out for the interest of the capitalist. John T.
davesearles	Posted: 08 Sep 2008 04:47 pm    Post subject: jt: Quote: I can understand some government regulations as to prohibit dumping of waste into creeks, rivers, lakes, and oceans or excessive pollution of the air but never to do any economic planning or dictate what is produced and distributed. In other words, the SIU would be separate from political government just as private industries. Government would be looking out for the interst of the workers just as they look out for the interest of the capitalist. ds: That's the way that I see it, if that means anything.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 20 Oct 2008 02:22 am    Post subject: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/sep/00.htm Quote: The old Economism of 1894–1902 reasoned thus: the Narodniks have been refuted; capitalism has triumphed in Russia. Consequently, there can be no question of political revolution. The practical conclusion: either “economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals”—that is a curvet to the right—or, instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution. That curvet to the left was advocated in a pamphlet, now forgotten, of a Russian Economist of the late nineties. Now a new Economism is being born. Its reasoning is similarly based on the two curvets: “Right”—we are against the “right to self-determination” (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, the struggle against annexations—that has not yet been fully thought out or clearly stated). “Left”—we are opposed to a minimum programme (i. e., opposed to struggle for reforms and democracy) as “contradictory” to socialist revolution.
mikelepore	Posted: 20 Oct 2008 02:58 am    Post subject: If we're just gonna post cool quotations without comment, here's mine for today: "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet 2-2
Jacob Richter	Posted: 20 Oct 2008 04:45 am    Post subject: ^^^ My apologies, Mike. I was responding to the ever-acerbic, ever-antisocial, and ever-paranoid Dave.
davesearles	Posted: 20 Oct 2008 07:14 am    Post subject: Jacob Richter quotes: Quote: The old Economism of 1894–1902 reasoned thus: the Narodniks have been refuted; capitalism has triumphed in Russia. Consequently, there can be no question of political revolution. The practical conclusion: either “economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals”—that is a curvet to the right—or, instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution. That curvet to the left was advocated in a pamphlet, now forgotten, of a Russian Economist of the late nineties. Now a new Economism is being born. Its reasoning is similarly based on the two curvets: “Right”—we are against the “right to self-determination” (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, the struggle against annexations—that has not yet been fully thought out or clearly stated). “Left”—we are opposed to a minimum programme (i. e., opposed to struggle for reforms and democracy) as “contradictory” to socialist revolution. And Jacob Richter remarks: I was responding to the ever-acerbic, ever-antisocial, and ever-paranoid Dave. d.s. writes: Now when you as "Jacob Richter" say that this is in response to something that I wrote - does that mean that you as Lenin wrote this in response to something that I wrote?
Jacob Richter	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 02:35 am    Post subject: Caveman Dave, you're in the Internet Stone Age. Most people use pen names on the Internet. I merely quoted the ORIGINAL "Jacob Richter" to point out the flaws of not having a minimum program ALONGSIDE the socialist program which you so cherish (Note to Mike: Thanks to your insightful remarks, I am very careful with my words here). It gives an excuse to support periodic wage hike legislation but NOT "idealist" living wages (and salary/contract equivalent), cost of living adjustments, shortened work weeks, workplace occupations and buyouts, etc. (not to mention the democratic reforms Mike has stated support for above, but which ultra-lefts dismiss).
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:07 am    Post subject: Which ultra-leftists are opposed to which democratic reforms?
Jacob Richter	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:13 am    Post subject: ^^^ Left-communist groups: the ICC, the IBRP, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:14 am    Post subject: I still don't think wage and workday demands belong in a socialist document. They are unquestionably to be supported, but supported where and when? Supported in our role as workers and as voters. But not in our role as authors of a socialist document. That's about taking a sledgehammer to the intrinsically unfair system, not about making it fairer. Maybe I'm just making a "there's a time and a place....." assertion? A person wears many hats.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:18 am    Post subject: ^^^ Fair enough, but you may wish to look further into the left-communist sites above to see through their utter political bankruptcy and sectarianism. An ultra-left would NEVER say "there's a time and a place..." or NEVER "wear many hats." [HINT: "Mass strike now! Workers' councils now! Insurrectionary mass strike / revolution now!"]
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:40 am    Post subject: You see, I believe individuals own their own lives autonomously even after they become revolutionaries. So I say: On Monday, Wednesday and Friday a person might want to work for the socialist cause, and on Tuesdays work to legalize reefer, and on Thurdays oppose NAFTA. I believe it's better to keep the socialist platform and literature purely socialist. But each and every person in that group could also do other things. If I wasn't clear before about before then my critiques of your essays must have seemed contradictory, with me saying on one occasion that something is a good idea and later me saying the same thing is not a good idea. Cripes, I was reading recently about how the Barnes administration of the SWP rules the personal lives of the members. They tell them what companies they must apply to work for. You are hereby ordered to quit your office job and look for a factory job. That's totally nuts.
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:43 am    Post subject: Left Communists - what would be an example of a democratic goal that they would consider unsupportable?
Jacob Richter	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 05:44 am    Post subject: ^^^ The Barnes cult is in no way, shape, or form, a Marxist-Kautskyist-Leninist organization (and we should talk about this cult case in a new thread).
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 06:03 am    Post subject: "Socialism -- so easy a caveman could do it."
davesearles	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 07:41 am    Post subject: Agent Richter quotes from a holy text of the cult of Ulyanov: Quote: The old Economism of 1894–1902 reasoned thus: the Narodniks have been refuted; capitalism has triumphed in Russia. Consequently, there can be no question of political revolution. The practical conclusion: either “economic struggle be left to the workers and political struggle to the liberals”—that is a curvet to the right—or, instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution. That curvet to the left was advocated in a pamphlet, now forgotten, of a Russian Economist of the late nineties. Now a new Economism is being born. Its reasoning is similarly based on the two curvets: “Right”—we are against the “right to self-determination” (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, the struggle against annexations—that has not yet been fully thought out or clearly stated). “Left”—we are opposed to a minimum programme (i. e., opposed to struggle for reforms and democracy) as “contradictory” to socialist revolution. And now Agent Richter writes: Quote: I merely quoted the ORIGINAL "Jacob Richter" (Ulyanov) to point out the flaws of not having a minimum program ALONGSIDE the socialist program which you so cherish. The caveman responds: Yes to you THE FLAW of not having a "minimum" program is that Lord Ulyanov 92 years ago in tzarist Russia was in favor of having what he refered to as a minimum program and God forbid that a lowly acolyte such as yourself even a century later should consider any other strategy for as long as the holy texts are in existence.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 02:22 pm    Post subject: ^^^ Caveman Dave, I have considered other programmatic approaches (as noted by those excellent CPGB videos), including that of "Lord DeLeon" ( :rolleyes: ). Mike: Quote: If I wasn't clear before about before then my critiques of your essays must have seemed contradictory, with me saying on one occasion that something is a good idea and later me saying the same thing is not a good idea. Actually, you were very clear in stating your disagreement. :)
davesearles	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 03:37 pm    Post subject: Agent Richter: "Lord DeLeon" caveman: Actually he was refered to as the pope. But in fact you will not find a single quotation of DeLeon by Mike, John or I on this whole site - wherein any of us has ever refered to text of DeLeon as a justification of ANYTHING AT ALL. In other words we NEVER offer text of DeLeon for the premise that anything is true, that anything is correct, proper or even preferable because DeLeon wrote it.
mikelepore	Posted: 21 Oct 2008 11:54 pm    Post subject: The way Jacob sometimes answers the question "why do you think..." by popping in quotations or linking to publications, sometimes without comment, it tends to make a reader conclude that he takes ideas as the gospel truth because certain illustrious writers said so. But it could also be due to laziness, or the belief that the saving of a minute will free up a minute to go elsewhere. I would recommend: always take that minute to write a new and coherent sentence. You can save that sentence and you will always have it available for your future writing projects. A third possibility is that Jacob is, like anyone else, quotes others because of a liking for the way those writers expressed themselves. We shouldn't use other writers' expressions without crediting the sources (plagiarism). But if we overdo this, readers will see it as quoting scripture, articles of faith. It also omits the important evaluation, "I think the writer is correct about this point but incorrect about that point." A fourth possibility is that Jacob hasn't had a lot of practice responding to other people's request for a brief statement that summarizes an idea that has many sides to it. This is understandable -- not everyone went to journalism college or whetever. The forums are a good place to keep practicing. ******************* But Dave's response, to make the leap from saying "your writing style irritates me" to saying "you're a maniac", is too quick. It's not so easy to know when a conclusion has been demonstrated, especially a conclusion drawn from ambiguities. It's better just to say: "I asked you twice to clarify that obscure remark, and you still don't give a satisfactory answer, which leaves your whole theory hazy." The other guy isn't necessarily Attila the Hun. A lack of a clear answer is just that -- a lack of a clear answer. That's not information. That's the absense of information.
Jacob Richter	Posted: 22 Oct 2008 03:42 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: Agent Richter: "Lord DeLeon" caveman: Actually he was refered to as the pope. That was Kautsky, BTW: the "pope" of [classical] social democracy / Marxism. :roll:
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Oct 2008 04:02 am    Post subject: De Leon was also called the pope. By the people who quit the SLP and formed the SP.
davesearles	Posted: 22 Oct 2008 05:33 am    Post subject: Quote: But Dave's response, to make the leap from saying "your writing style irritates me" to saying "you're a maniac"..., ds: moi? Quote: The way Jacob sometimes answers the question "why do you think..." by popping in quotations or linking to publications, sometimes without comment, it tends to make a reader conclude that he takes ideas as the gospel truth because certain illustrious writers said so. ds: I must admit that is what I see. It takes a discipline to recognize the differnence between a supported and a non-supported conclusion. There is a tendency to treat conclusions of classical writers as truth. If there could be less of that I think that we would be making progress.
mikelepore	Posted: 22 Oct 2008 08:26 am    Post subject: davesearles wrote: the differnence between a supported and a non-supported conclusion. or, within the bracked item "non-supported conclusion" -- the difference between "your conclusion is non-supported because you're a creepy person" and "your conclusion is non-supported because you have a misconception about how things really work." Jacob's has the belief, which I consider a misconception about how things work, that even if the working class gets very largely organized politically and industrially, there remains a danger of a capitalist class refusal to cooperate having the power to make a difference, possibly thrusting society backward to a repressive situation. Certainly a society has the right to defend itself. So he doesn't know what else a revolution could do about it but (to guote Groucho Marx in Duck Soup) "stand them up against the wall and pop-goes-the-weasel".