Defensive struggles: a question for Left-Communists and ortho-Trots

[Die Neue Zeit]

My head is still spinning around the idea of emphasizing support for defensive, "social-democratic" struggles of workers and even of raising defensive, equally "social-democratic" demands. In this "age of decadence" (according to left-communists and more orthodox Trotskyists), how do these tactics of left-communists and ortho-Trots, respectively, promote politico-ideological independence for the working class?

[Hit The North]

I don't understand the question (but then I'm neither a Left Communist or an orthodox Trotskyist). The vast majority of the battles the working class fight under capitalism are defensive struggles. Workers have no choice but to fight, irrespective of what any particular faction has to say.

Moved to Theory, btw. :)

[Devrim]

I don't understand the question (but then I'm neither a Left Communist or an orthodox Trotskyist).

I don't either.

Devrim

[KC]

I don't think anyone besides him does.

BTW Jacob, how's your WIP coming? Did you ever get it published?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't either.

Devrim

Left-communists support defensive worker struggles, but are against raising more "offensive" demands that fall short of "revolutionism." Take, for example, union struggles to increase wages vs. sliding scale for society as a whole.

[Devrim]

I still have no idea of what the question means, nor of that points relevance to the question.
Devrim

[ComradeLands]

Orthodox trotskyist call for transitional demands, linking the current struggles to the fight for socialism i.e. defence of picket lines against the state, can be linked into organising the working class on an armed basis. They moved away from the maximum minimum programme of only fighting for immediate demands then saying you plan socialism eventually.

Left communists, as far as I understand it, would jump the gun a bit and using the defence of picket lines example would call for the arming of the working class, rather than linking it into the current working class consciousness and trying to push it forwards.

[Devrim]

Left communists, as far as I understand it, would jump the gun a bit and using the defence of picket lines example would call for the arming of the working class, rather than linking it into the current working class consciousness and trying to push it forwards.

Not really, no. I am a left communist and in the last three decades, I am pretty sure that I have never called for the arming of the working class on a picket line.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Left communists, as far as I understand it, would jump the gun a bit and using the defence of picket lines example would call for the arming of the working class, rather than linking it into the current working class consciousness and trying to push it forwards.

Wut?
I think you may have a bit of a peculiar definition of what Left Communism is. Perhaps confused it with those Russian Nihilists of the 19th Century?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Orthodox trotskyist call for transitional demands, linking the current struggles to the fight for socialism i.e. defence of picket lines against the state, can be linked into organising the working class on an armed basis. They moved away from the maximum minimum programme of only fighting for immediate demands then saying you plan socialism eventually.

Left communists, as far as I understand it, would jump the gun a bit and using the defence of picket lines example would call for the arming of the working class, rather than linking it into the current working class consciousness and trying to push it forwards.

Calling for armed people's militias now is absolutely necessary as part of a minimum program, not a "transitional one," for politico-ideological class independence (I understand your dumbed-down interpretation of the minimum program, though (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/686/programme.htm) :( ). Left-communists jump the gun and scream "revolution" (and in their theoreticals proclaim that real, reform-enabling reform is impossible today), then quietly support worker struggles around merely "social-democratic" demands that compromise that goal (independence).

Another example: calling for full freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-assembly-t99908/index.html) now is probably the core of that aforementioned minimum program. Most Trotskyists merely want to scrap anti-union laws in the here and now, then slowly proceed to more radical demands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html). Left-communists jump the gun and scream "down with unions," then quietly support worker struggles around union demands that do nothing to promote class independence.

I hope my examples cleared some noticeable fog with regards to how I worded my question above.

[Bilan]

Your characterisations of Left Communism are rather misleading, Jacob.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given your particular remarks in the thread on the eight-hour day (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ever-happened-eight-t103404/index.html?p=1380109), I don't think so.