"Minimum" program for "workers' government"? [Brainstorming]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Brainstorming links:

The minimum platform and extreme democracy (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm)
For a minimum programme! (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/686/programme.htm) (Quoting Marx's Programme of the French Workers' Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm))


We arrive at the analysis I made above of the PO programme: the minimum programme is the democratic republic (= the dictatorship of the proletariat) plus some immediate ‘economic’ demands in the interests of the working class. The ‘maximum programme’ is simply the ultimate aim of communism.

Programmatic objectives of socialism today (http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2008/08/programmatic-objectives-of-socialism.html) by Paul Cockshott
Transitional Demands and Directional Demands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-demands-t93441/index.html?p=1275420#post1275420)
The Democracy Question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=122)
Class-Strugglist Assembly and Association: Self-Directional Demands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-assembly-t99908/index.html)

And:


1) At least some organs of collapsing state power (such as parliaments, “imperial presidencies” and cabinets, and law enforcement apart from investigative organs) are to be smashed immediately by either traditional armed revolution or “well-defended” mass strikes;
2) Organs of workers’ power (not necessarily soviets, contrary to the reductionist organizational fetish with the soviet form) are to be elevated in replacing smashed organs of state power;
3) Remaining organs of state power are to be transformed either into additional but temporary organs of workers’ power (democratic but hierarchical and internally uncritical offense-oriented militaries as a supplementary means of spreading revolution, as mentioned in Chapter 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html?p=1198024) and contrary to Lenin’s overly optimistic appraisal of non-hierarchical workers’ militias and post-decision criticisms expressed within them) or into new organs of state administration (law enforcement investigative organs and internment organizations for, in Lenin’s words, “suppressing both exploiters and hooligans” in a purely administrative fashion); and
4) Organs of state administration (the civil bureaucracy), while existing, are to be transformed such that they will be destined for irrelevance at some future point.

(Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?&do=discuss&groupid=12&discussionid=627))




Leaving aside other current discussions on redefining the "minimum" program in relation to reforms, which historic demands for workers' power specifically (the DOTP) remain relevant, which have become obsolete, and which new demands have emerged?

[davidasearles]

Here is the minimum program to obtain worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

(1) Utilize maximum democracy by popularizing a demand for a recognition of the alteration of the basic organic law of each and every country: That workers have a right to form into collectives to control the industrial means of production and distribution. (2) No equivocation, no distractions, no derailments, no compromises by persons advocating anything less than this minimum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here is the minimum program to obtain worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

(1) Utilize maximum democracy by popularizing a demand for a recognition of the alteration of the basic organic law of each and every country: That workers have a right to form into collectives to control the industrial means of production and distribution. (2) No equivocation, no distractions, no derailments, no compromises by persons advocating anything less than this minimum.

Define "democracy." :)

[MarxSchmarx]

2) Organs of workers’ power (not necessarily soviets, contrary to the reductionist organizational fetish with the soviet form) are to be elevated in replacing smashed organs of state power;I would emphasize this point. The reason is that it is relatively easy to call for the destruction/reform of existing organs of bourgeois state power. It is more difficult to create alternative institutions.

We must understand that no matter how we may adjust institutions such as the military or the civil service, they are institutions borne and perfected to serve a bourgeois order. The endless conflicts engendered by the Catholic church show how a major social institution that is a holdover from a previous economic system cannot be wished away, and must, even within the context of modern capitalism, be reckoned with. The more we can minimize such headaches, the better.

What we organically provide in their stead, as a genuinely proletarian alternative, will make all the difference for the success or failure of the workers' government. Chavez's bolivarian circles are a step in this direction, as are soviets, and, at least in theory, neighborhood councils like exist in Cuba.

However, if we focus on gaining state power first, rather than building these institutions, we will have to continue to rely on bourgeois institutions to provide the basics like waste water treatment, resolving contractual disputes, and fixing traffic lights.

The Bolshies were able to proclaim "All power to the soviets" and the CNT/FAI was able to demand production be taken over by the syndicates precisely because these institutions had existed before any worker's government became remotely possible.

The relative weakness of such alternative institutions can be seen in the example of the Cuban neighborhood councils. There, after 50 years these instituions have an ambiguous relationship to institutions of the authoritarian state (such as censorship of Gramna) - a legacy of the Bautista past that was allowed to continue after the revolution.

Indeed, if Chavez's efforts in Venezuela fizzle, it will in no small part be due to the inherent difficulty in creating alternative institutions de novo when leftists inheret the bourgeois state.

[peaccenicked]

I am finding the debate premature. We have to take stock of the defeat neoliberalism has done to the working class movement. The unions are largely tamed, and solidarity action has been made illegal. The left has lost much of its members. The reformist opposition has become neoliberal ie counter reformist.
There was a large swing to the right as the false economy of the bubble, created the illusion that the housing market was the safety valve par excellence for capitalism.
However,the protest against the Iraq war showed that complacency was not universal.
The left did nothing to develop the momentum of these protest as though there was not a next level. We could have occupied recruitment offices and stepped up these occupations, all the way to parliament .
We do not have embryonic structures that could be tomorrow's soviets.
A political program, need a swing to the left. Let us look at Iceland.
The basic demand has been a general election.
It makes sense to replace the government but what of the Red/Green alliance.
Will they be more like Kerensky or Lenin? I am going with the former.

The point is there is a developing revolutionary situation in Iceland while in the US/UK
There is still to be a recovery of the left in meltdown, perhaps that is one of the reasons the central banks are considering quantitative easing as a policy option for economic recovery. Who is there to oppose it?

There is this report (http://blunahase96.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/crisis-which-crisis-part-3/) from Germany.

The politics of the program needs a healthy opposition.

We need to to develop that and if we have to leave the tradition left behind, so be it.

When we start occupying the chambers of commerce etc. join the fight against foreclosures. (http://www.truthout.org/012409D)

We will need a movement to the left, for to gain the ears of the people.
A program is the product of a political party.
I have seen many over the years.
I have a problem with Trotsky over this. He says the workers are creating self rule, but we are creating the program.
How far are we trying to impose a program on those we believe have self rule.
What democracy is there in that?. Perhaps it should eternally be in draft form.

Movement to me has the priority over program in the coming period.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You seem to have a problem with Lenin (not Trotsky) here, comrade. Without a revolutionary program, there can be no revolutionary movement. Although you're probably not aware of how the German workers' movement unfolded, this programmatic lesson was proven from the 1848 Immediate Demands of the Communist Party in Germany to the three programs of the international proletariat's first vanguard party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html) (Eisenach, Gotha, and Erfurt - hence my "location" ;) ).

As for Marx and his dictum, he had an information disadvantage in terms of knowing the impact of the three programs, which popularized "revolutionary theory." :(

[peaccenicked]

Jacob,
I have problems with both lenin and trotsky. I do regard Trotsky as Lenin's heir at least programmatically.
I am not arguing against a revolutionary program. I agree that there needs to be a
revolutionary program for a revolutionary movement. It is not unnecessary.
What I am trying to indicate is there is lull in any type of movement. Indeed, this is a reactionary period that is only beginning to show some sign of promise.

The movement is not everything but in this period , the character of the movement is yet to be seen. How piecemeal, how uncoordinated? What directions it is taking?
All unknown variables at the offset.
A revolutionary program is little more than us sharpening historical lessons.
That is all very well good and necessary but in itself it is not in the realm of what Habermas calls "communicative action" . In other words we are talk to ourselves about a future event a revolution that needs a program.

This is problematic in that we need less than a revolution, we need to come out of this reactionary period. Are we capable of leading the way? Maybe but I dont think so!
The left will be turned too, when the self movement of workers hits obstacles.
I just think it is wise to be link our program to these obstacles.
Huh. It is early days.
Thanks for your contribution. There may be more from history you can teach me.:confused:

[davidasearles]

The smashed state - a point of lore but not informed logic.

[davidasearles]

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidasearles http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-program-workers-t100051/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-program-workers-t100051/showthread.php?p=1340179#post1340179)

Here is the minimum program to obtain worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

(1) Utilize maximum democracy by popularizing a demand for a recognition of the alteration of the basic organic law
of each and every country: That workers have a right to form into collectives to control the industrial means of
production and distribution. (2) No equivocation, no distractions, no derailments, no compromises by persons
advocating anything less than this minimum.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Define "democracy."

Define the indefinite? Why to attempt to participate in your academic prattle?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What we organically provide in their stead, as a genuinely proletarian alternative, will make all the difference for the success or failure of the workers' government. Chavez's bolivarian circles are a step in this direction, as are soviets, and, at least in theory, neighborhood councils like exist in Cuba.

But did not the soviets emerge at the eleventh hour? That, alas, made it all too easy for the Bolsheviks to, albeit under war conditions, shut down soviets that turned on them electorally, as well as subvert those that still supported them.


However, if we focus on gaining state power first, rather than building these institutions, we will have to continue to rely on bourgeois institutions to provide the basics like waste water treatment, resolving contractual disputes, and fixing traffic lights.

I believe that was the case when the Bolsheviks relied on the spetsy ("specialists") from the czarist autocracy.


Indeed, if Chavez's efforts in Venezuela fizzle, it will in no small part be due to the inherent difficulty in creating alternative institutions de novo when leftists inherit the bourgeois state.

I think they've already started to fizzle since the victory of that "No" vote (in large part due to class collaborationists like Chirino).



Anyway, here's what I've got written so far as a theoretical elaboration of "Class-Strugglist Democracy," while referencing the People's Charter raised by the Chartists (http://www.chartists.net/The-six-points.htm):

----------------------------

To tie all this together, listed below are demands based on the struggles of politico-ideologically independent worker-class movements in the past. Taking into account modern developments and critiques, the consistent advocacy of this core of a minimum program for political power – as opposed to the more common and orthodox “minimum program” for continued opposition even after complete fulfillment – emphatically solves the problem of broad economism throughout the class-strugglist left by being much greater than the sum of its political and economic parts. While individual demands could easily be fulfilled without eliminating the bourgeois-capitalist state order, the complete, consistent, and lasting implementation of this minimum program in the pre-orthodox sense (as formulated by Marx himself) would mean that the working class will have captured the full political power of a ruling class:

1) All assemblies of the remaining representative democracy and all councils of an expanding participatory democracy shall become working bodies, not parliamentary talking shops, being legislative and executive-administrative at the same time and not checked and balanced by anything more professional than sovereign commoner juries. The absence of any mention of grassroots mass assemblies is due to their incapability to perform administrative functions on a regular basis. Also, this demand implies simplification of laws and of the legal system as a whole, dispensing entirely with that oligarchic legal position of Judge.
2) All public offices shall be assigned by lot as a fundamental basis of the demarchic commonwealth. This is in stark contrast to elections for all public offices, the central radical-republican demand that completely ignores electoral fatigue. With this demand comes the possibility of finally fulfilling a demarchic variation of that one unfulfilled demand for annual parliaments raised by the first politico-ideologically independent worker-class movement in history, the Chartist movement in the United Kingdom.
3) All public offices shall be free of any formal or de facto qualifications based on non-possessive property or, more generally, on wealth. The Chartists called for “no property qualification for members of Parliament – thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.” While the struggle against formal property qualifications was most progressive, even freely elected legislatures are almost devoid of the working poor, especially those who are women. Also, by no means does this demand preclude the disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie as one of the political measures of a more obvious worker-class rule, since the original Soviet constitution deprived voting rights from the bourgeoisie and others on functional criteria such as hiring labour for personal profit.
4) All public offices shall be compensated, but shall have standards of living that are no higher than that of an average worker. On the one hand, formulations that demand compensation for public officials to be simply no more than that for an average worker fail to take into account the historic worker-class demand for legislators to be paid in the first place, first raised by the worker-class Chartists, “thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country.” On the other hand, even freely elected legislators tend to increase their collective level of expenses beyond reasonable levels.
5) All public offices shall be subject to immediate recall in cases of abuse of office. This can be fulfilled effectively under a radical-republican system of indirect elections and hierarchical accountability, as opposed to the current system of direct electoralism (based on mass constituencies) that require significant numbers of constituents to sign recall initatives. However, like the two preceding demands, this demand is best fulfilled not just when all public offices function with the aforementioned hierarchical accountability, but also when all public offices are assigned by lot, thereby minimizing interpersonal political connections.
6) There shall be a reduction of the normal workweek – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, and the prohibition of compulsory overtime. In addition to the extensive analysis provided in the next chapter, it must be noted that proposals for an eight-hour day were made but not implemented within the Paris Commune, and that the development of capitalist production is such that time for workplace democracy and so on should be part of the normal workweek and not outside of it.
7) There shall be full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association, even within the military, free from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement.
8) There shall be an expansion of the right to bear arms and to general self-defense towards enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training, especially in connection with class-strugglist association, and also free from police interference such as from agents provocateurs.
9) All state debts shall be suppressed outright. Unlike the more directional suppression of all public debts on a transnational scale, the minimum character of this demand was long established by the historical precedent of the 19th-century imperialist powers periodically going into debt to fund their wars and then defaulting upon them on an equally periodic basis.
10) All predatory financial practices towards the working class, legal or otherwise, shall be precluded by first means of establishing, on a permanent and either national or multinational basis, a financial monopoly without any private ownership or private control whatsoever – at purchase prices based especially on the market values of insolvent banks – with such a monopoly inclusive of the general provision of commercial and consumer credit, and with the application of “equity not usury” towards such activity. The usage of the word “multinational” instead of “transnational” signifies the minimum character of this demand, given the multinational structure of the European Union and given that, as mentioned earlier, a single transnational equivalent should put to an end the viability of imperialist wars and conflicts more generally as vehicles for capital accumulation.
11) There shall be an enactment of confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, whether such wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers. Ultimately, the flight of gold from Parisian banks by those in control over same banks weakened the workers of 1871 Paris and financed the ruthless suppression of the Paris Commune.

[Note: Due consideration must, of course, be given to other political issues crucial to the beginning of worker-class rule, such as local autonomy and the full or partial addressing of certain directional issues like political transparency and genuine freedom of movement.]