SP-USA's Alexander: Socialists Say Nationalize All U.S. Banks [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

7th March 2009, 18:16

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2009/03/35225.php

Alexander: Socialists Say Nationalize All U.S. Banks
by Stewart A. Alexander

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks it’s necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in recent statements has indicated that the nationalization of some banks may be necessary under certain conditions, and many economic analysts believe nationalization is only a matter of time; however, socialists nationwide say nationalization of all U.S. banks is now necessary to achieve a national economic recovery.

Socialists strongly disagree with Alan Greenspan and the banking analysts on several points; socialists believe any move to nationalize the banking industry should be permanent and should be kept out of the hands of private investors. Socialist Party USA, a nationwide socialist party, is calling for all banks, financial institutions and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority.

Socialists are also opposed to any bank bailouts and bailouts for the insurance industry. Socialist Party USA says, for the present “it is necessary to re-regulate the banking and insurance industries” to resolve the financial chaos facing these two industries

During July 2007, the failure of Indymac Bank sent shock waves throughout the financial markets and was a wake up call to the nation how serious the crisis is for the U.S. banking industry. Indymac Bank made risky loans during the home mortgage boom; unfortunately, those risky loans took the mortgage giant from boom to doom. Many other banks have now become victims of their greed for profit and time is quickly running out for a quick recovery; just as Indymac Bank, large and small banks are standing in line to collect on their losses from working people with a series of government bailouts.

Many nationalization advocates believe the government should seize some of the nation’s big banks, to include Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo; breaking up these banks and selling them to the private sector. However, socialists believe the U.S. government must nationalize all U.S. banks while opposing the idea of selling off the assets of banks to private investors. Socialists are also concerned that the good assets that will generate profits will be sold to wealthy profiteers while the American taxpayer will be left holding the bag of bad assets.

A major challenge for the Obama administration will be resolving the present banking crisis that is systemic of the global financial crisis. Similar to the situation facing AIG, American International Group, the insurance giant, most of the larger banks are deeply tied to investments throughout the global economy; resolving the U.S. banking crisis will require a global approach.

Only this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with President Barack Obama and addressed a joint meeting of Congress; Gordon Brown emphasized the importance for the U.S. to work with other European countries to help resolve the present world banking crisis. Brown also cautioned against U.S. protectionism; referring to protecting U.S. financial markets.

Prime Minister Brown will be chairing a G-20 economic summit in London next month and Brown’s visit to the U.S. is helping to lay the ground work for a global economic recovery. Brown is also hoping to gain support from the international community to establish new standards for international banking that will meet the needs of advance and developing nations; a world banking system that would improve accountability and transparency.

Socialists believe it is most important to have a nationalized banking system that will accommodate the needs of working people; a 21st Century banking system that is not a model of 20th Century banking which was only a benefit to the capitalist ruling elite and a system that has repeatedly failed to meet the long term needs of working class people.

For more information search the Web for: Stewart A. Alexander; Capitalists Attempting to Redefine Socialism.

http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/financialcrisis012509.html
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol29no2/economy29201.html

http://StewartAlexanderCares.com
http://peaceandfreedom-sjv.org/home/
http://www.sp-usa.org/

robbo203

7th March 2009, 20:57

Socialists believe it is most important to have a nationalized banking system that will accommodate the needs of working people; a 21st Century banking system that is not a model of 20th Century banking which was only a benefit to the capitalist ruling elite and a system that has repeatedly failed to meet the long term needs of working class people.

This really does illustrates the complete and utter bankruptcy of some on the Left. Nationalise the banks! How the friggin hell does a bank, nationalised or not, get to "accomodate the needs of working people", Can we look forward to an extension on our overdraft facility? Maybe we can expect to pay less than average interest on our loan in which case our friendly nationalised High St bank can expect to find the going tough. And what happens when they are put int the hands of receivers ? Presumably they will be renationalised!

It is pathetic. Whatever happened to great inspiring goal of a genuine socialist society. If the best that some on the left can up with is something that not even many capitalists would disgaree with - afterall it is to aid their system! - then they deserve to remain in utter obscurity

Kassad

7th March 2009, 22:22

This is borderline reformist and social-democratic; the usual irrelevant bile we see from Socialist Party USA and other lip service revolutionaries in the United States. The idea that we can nationalize the banking industry, or frankly any industry, in the current capitalist system is absurd. Nationalization is a totally counterproductive term, as instead of building the power of the state in a state capitalistic manner, we should be destroying the state and placing the means of production and progress in the hands of the proletariat.

Nationalizing anything hardly takes power away from the central bankers, the corporate oligarchy and the bourgeoisie. It's quite simple, really. The United States government is a totally bourgeoisie institution that veils its corporate agenda in a very thin manner. Those at the top of the wealth hierarchy have immense control over the way the system operates, which is shown consistently in the private sector's refusal to modernize basic commodities, such as automobiles and other means of energy. Nationalization of industry in the capitalist system doesn't change one thing, as the corporate agenda will still manipulate the workers, no matter where that business is and who it is allegedly regulated by.

Socialist Party USA shows its consistent social-democratic nature, which is nothing short of appeasing the bourgeoisie classes. It will result in more exploitation, more manipulation and more capitalism. A revolutionary party should be used to advocate what it claims: revolution. Not reformism and counterrevolutionary ideologies. In all honesty, I'm not too far from expecting Socialist Party USA to come right out and support Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and other bourgeoisie reactionaries who have caused the economic and social crisis we are current attempting to solve. They're no better than the reactionary bourgeoisie sympathizers in Communist Party USA. Revisionism doesn't work and reformism is a symptom of revisionist socialisn. I can't imagine why anyone would support a party that claims this:

Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.

Just because you put quotes around the word communist does not veil your ridiculous reformism. Socialist Party USA does not claim to form a revolutionary, militant party of the proletariat that will counter the capitalist state and attempt to ideologically apply communism. In fact, it advocates state capitalist reformism and bourgeoisie regulatory schemes which will not help the working class in the slightest. So basically, now all of you Socialist Party USA supporters are aligning with a group that says 'communism' is the equivalent of military dictatorship and party bureacracy. I'd be stunned if Stewart Alexander has any comprehension of Marxism.

Nationalization does absolutely nothing when the government taking the action is led by the bourgeoisie dictatorship. A militant proletariat can rise against corporate profiteering and corporate manipulation. Bourgeoisie regulation and nationalization is a total farce and I would not stop before saying that it is a total insult to the intellect of revolutionary socialists like myself. Do we want reform or revolution? Socialist Party USA wants the former, but I'd beg to differ.

Pogue

7th March 2009, 22:54

abolish the banks and fake money, it doesn't serve us

ZeroNowhere

8th March 2009, 03:54

Nothing is impossible, except for possibilists to make sense.

Die Neue Zeit

8th March 2009, 23:46

Kassad

9th March 2009, 00:08

So... Stalin called for nationalization of the banking industry, while still part of the capitalist, czar-controlled system? I don't ever recall that and I'm ecstatic to see where you found such a thing. Also, I am not a part any kind of misunderstanding here. Socialist Party USA, as I stated in the quote from their website above, claims that communism is a military bureacracy, which is totally ignorant to Marxist-Leninist principles, which you claim to be an avid supporter of. Seems a little contradictory, doesn't it?

And what we have now is a 'who's more radical' debate. I mean, honestly. Is that the road we have to follow? The Party for Socialism and Liberation realizes that no revolutionary change will come through elections, where as Socialist Party USA promotes a Menshevik-style ideology in which they believe they can establish socialism and social reforms through the use of the United electoral/election process. It's appeasement of the capitalist system, as opposed to revolutionary change. The Party for Socialism and Liberation uses elections as educational opportunities, not as opportunities to bring about revolutionary change. It's absurd to think that using the Republican system of government will bring about revolutionary change.

Revy

9th March 2009, 01:11

Kassad, there's a lot of your characterizations to sift through. But I will respond to a few right now. You think that our strategies are so different, but they are not. We do not believe in revolution through elections either. We use it to raise socialist consciousness.

When it comes to that passage you quoted, the quotes are around the word Communist because it denies that these states are truly communist. as has been said, the wording of this is likely to be changed at the next convention in fall of this year.

I really don't need to bash PSL but I will defend my party.

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 02:26

stancel,

how does nationalizing american banks lead to a socialist consciousness?

Revy

9th March 2009, 03:36

stancel,

how does nationalizing american banks lead to a socialist consciousness?

Was that even said by Mr. Alexander?
Does anyone bother to look at our website?

Quotes from the SPUSA Statement of Principles:
"The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future"
"We support militant working class struggles"

Doesn't sound reformist or social democratic to me. Nobody in this party sees nationalization as the path to socialism. Stewart Alexander is writing about how it's a step in the right direction. An immediate demand...like ending the wars. Our vision goes way past nationalization.

Die Neue Zeit

9th March 2009, 04:07

I've read the PSL's website, and not one single immediate demand of a radical nature has been raised:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=campaigns

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 04:15

stancel's viewpoint, and that of his party, represents a major trend amongst the left, and one that has led to our inability to create any real cohesion.

Revolutionary movements arent created by appealing to working people's immediate interests, and then moving onto to revolutionary and socialist demands. The need for revolution needs to permeate all aspects of our political work, and the SP's call for nationalization just isnt a part of that. It is a reformist, capitulationist conclusion.

We are living in a time of deep financial crises, imperialist war, etc., etc. WHY do "communists" insist so much on these verdicts?

What better time is their to infuse (theoretically and practically) the need for communist revolution and what that would mean?

If nationalization isnt a path towards socialism, then why do you advocate it? Why would anyone advocate anything that doesnt serve the creation of a revolutionary movement?

I'm not here to say I know what needs to be done. I certainly don't. But I do know that we desperately need to take up these dire times to put communism and revolution back on the table as alternatives to this capitalist madness.

Hoping that working people build a bridge between nationalization and the need for communism is simply wasting another opportunity (as has been done time and time again).

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 04:18

We need to focus on events and raise demands that can raise the sights of the people for the need to organize for revolution..and nothing less.

Movements that focus around immediate economic interests dont break out of the "whats in it for me?" framework of bourgeois right. These struggles are just and legitimate, but the question is: where do communists focus their work on?

In these times, people need to understand that a radically new society is possible, and how this system is naturally opressive and exploitative (as the crisis exemplifies).

Die Neue Zeit

9th March 2009, 04:25

You should read my work, then, for a good idea of what kind of demands should be raised. :)

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 06:59

Why don't you elaborate them here, so we can discuss different alternatives?

And please, do so LEGIBLY. Don't give me links.

ComradeOm

9th March 2009, 13:20

Revolutionary movements arent created by appealing to working people's immediate interests, and then moving onto to revolutionary and socialist demands. The need for revolution needs to permeate all aspects of our political work, and the SP's call for nationalization just isnt a part of that. It is a reformist, capitulationist conclusionSo how would you characterise the campaign for the eight hour day?

Kassad

9th March 2009, 14:14

I've read the PSL's website, and not one single immediate demand of a radical nature has been raised. :(

Are you attempting to be totally ignorant right now? There are dozens and dozens of articles advocating militant, revolutionary change through emancipation of the working class. There are multiple articles and posts on Marxist theory, whether scientific, economic or philosophical. There is a list of issues in modern America that the Party takes a revolutionary stance on. In truth, this is just a dick waving contest. "I'm more radical than you!" That's not what we're here for, but honestly, I can't believe that your only grievance with Socialism and Liberation is the fact that they aren't radical, which is totally absurd.

Kassad, there's a lot of your characterizations to sift through. But I will respond to a few right now. You think that our strategies are so different, but they are not. We do not believe in revolution through elections either. We use it to raise socialist consciousness.

When it comes to that passage you quoted, the quotes are around the word Communist because it denies that these states are truly communist. as has been said, the wording of this is likely to be changed at the next convention in fall of this year.

I really don't need to bash PSL but I will defend my party.

That's awesome. You can defend your party every minute of every day, but I'm not going to sit here and chuckle while social-democrats like Stewart Alexander advocate nationalization under capitalism. Frankly, that's a blunt ideology of state capitalism that he is promoting. Nationalization of the banks by a capitalist government does nothing. Distribution of ownership of a corporate entity by the working class is what we should all be advocating, not some moderate-liberal ideology that is advocated by reformists like Michael Moore. I'm aware that this may appear contradictory, as at the current time my party and I advocate more unemployment benefits and socialized healthcare, but because those things totally serve the people, it would be impossible to revoke them without an international uproar after people see how well they operate. A nationalized banking system would hardly serve the people, as the heads of the nationalized banks would likely still be the corporate executives and figureheads. It's totally absurd to advocate what Stewart Alexander is promoting right now and no revolutionary socialist should sympathize or support a party that advocates petty reformism. Where's the talk of revolution in that article? Where's the talk of emancipation of the worker? It isn't there because that's not on their direct agenda. Modern day Mensheviks; in the flesh.

ZeroNowhere

9th March 2009, 17:38

Are you attempting to be totally ignorant right now? There are dozens and dozens of articles advocating militant, revolutionary change through emancipation of the working class. There are multiple articles and posts on Marxist theory, whether scientific, economic or philosophical. There is a list of issues in modern America that the Party takes a revolutionary stance on.
He was talking about 'radical' immediate demands, not just whether the PSL is radical or not.

Kassad

9th March 2009, 18:23

He was talking about 'radical' immediate demands, not just whether the PSL is radical or not.

An immediate moratorium on foreclosures? Full employment for all? The right to unionize? Socialized, single-payer healthcare? A woman's right to choose? LGBT equality? Education for all, pre-school through college? Immigrant rights? An end to all military occupations? Ending military spending and using the funds to pay off workers debt and innovative social services? A progressive, steep income tax that supports workers, not the rich? Workers control over the means of production? An end to police brutality?

Do you people intentionally fabricate information or is it just for amusement?

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 18:36

So how would you characterise the campaign for the eight hour day?
A reform movement around immediate economic interests.

People need to understand, I AM NOT against these struggles.

But seriously, it is fucking criminal to concentrate our forces on unionizing people or working to obtain higher wages, as important as that it.

We are going through a period of intense global capitalist crisis. Our theory and practice need to correspond this! We need a revolution, and building a labor movement (which is fundamentally based around immediate interests) wont lead to that.

An immediate moratorium on foreclosures? Full employment for all? The right to unionize? Socialized, single-payer healthcare? A woman's right to choose? LGBT equality? Education for all, pre-school through college? Immigrant rights? An end to all military occupations? Ending military spending and using the funds to pay off workers debt and innovative social services? A progressive, steep income tax that supports workers, not the rich? Workers control over the means of production? An end to police brutality?

Besides the second to last one, how are any of those demands "radical"?

Do you honestly think we are going to build a revolutionary movement by attempting to win working people's trust through these concessions?

The truth is, reformists and revolutionaries struggle to win the people over. Clearly, we have absolutely no sway. EVERYTHING we do needs to be judged on the basis of whether it leads to the development of revolutionary consciousness amongst the people. I dont think the PSL's demands do so.

ZeroNowhere

9th March 2009, 18:45

An immediate moratorium on foreclosures? Full employment for all? The right to unionize? Socialized, single-payer healthcare? A woman's right to choose? LGBT equality? Education for all, pre-school through college? Immigrant rights? An end to all military occupations? Ending military spending and using the funds to pay off workers debt and innovative social services? A progressive, steep income tax that supports workers, not the rich? Workers control over the means of production? An end to police brutality?

Do you people intentionally fabricate information or is it just for amusement?
The second last would be a part of the maximum program, or whatever the fuck it's called, and the third would be a part of the meh program.
Though I wasn't saying that he was either right or wrong, just saying that you seem to have taken it to mean that he was saying that you were less radical or something. Then again, I think that his focus was on things achievable under capitalism that then 'lead on' to a mass workers' movement or something or the other. But anyways.

Kassad

9th March 2009, 18:52

All of the immediate demands of the Party for Socialism and Liberation are demands that can be met without any real revolutionary fervor, to be honest. Many of them can be achieved through reformism, but that isn't what Socialism and Liberation advocates. We advocate a militant resistance of the bourgeoisie and we propose revolutionary socialist economics, as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeosie. I'm not going to advocate rejecting these reforms and embracing conservative, reactionary and laissez-faire economics that could potentially murder millions, just in the interest of fueling class consciousness. The capitalist system will fail as its recessions and innate flaws become more and more evident. Providing a revolutionary alternative is mandatory. Regardless, these reforms cannot be sustained without a workers movement, which is why we are attempting to create a unified socialist movement.

The things I listed are not all we are advocating, for social reforms only go so far. We require a revolutionary party and a socialist movement that will combat bourgeoisie imperialism and oppression. If you disagree with those immediate demands, though you may want to ask yourself why you're here because opposing those reforms is incredibly counterrevolutionary and neglectful.

Lynx

9th March 2009, 19:13

The Party for Socialism and Liberation realizes that no revolutionary change will come through elections, where as Socialist Party USA promotes a Menshevik-style ideology in which they believe they can establish socialism and social reforms through the use of the United electoral/election process. It's appeasement of the capitalist system, as opposed to revolutionary change. The Party for Socialism and Liberation uses elections as educational opportunities, not as opportunities to bring about revolutionary change. It's absurd to think that using the Republican system of government will bring about revolutionary change.
For those of us who live in democracies, revolutionary change will not come about through extra-legal means. The electoral process and representative system of government are unavoidable starting points. From minority status, to coalitions, to majority party status - the pitfalls must be anticipated and avoided. If they aren't, revolutionary social change will be slowed, then halted. I don't see any alternative to the platform-based parties, whose reforms are both radical and comprehensive.

Rawthentic

9th March 2009, 19:37

kassad:

relax bro. take a step back.

I don't oppose the demands and reforms the PSL puts forward. They are obviously demands that resonate with the needs of the people in the united states.

But we arent going to make revolution by attempting to win them over through their immediate concerns. It doesnt happen that way.

And I think it is condescending to think that working people only care about what is immediate to them. Arent they looking for alternatives to this madness? Why present such un-radical demands if they dont lead to a revolutionary consciousness?

Why not be creative and organize, using methods that do create a rev movement and consciousness?

If our theory and practice doesnt break out of bourgeois right, how will the people?

x359594

9th March 2009, 19:38

ZeroNowhere

9th March 2009, 19:44

All excellent and necessary demands, and they happen to be the common underlying demands of the socialist left regardless of party. Any party or organization that doesn't have these as a minimum requirement is worthless.
The SPGB is 'worthless', now? No, not especially. Though I'm not entirely sure what the hell you mean by the 'common underlying demands of the socialist left'... Eh? They're methods (well, other than socialism itself, but that's not an 'immediate demand' anyways) that the bourgeois state will only implement if it would hold back the socialist movement, they're not socialism, so I don't see how they are somehow inherent to it. Except perhaps abortion, seeing as it's not really much of a 'demand'. Unless one means 'free abortions', in which case it could be spelled out better. Or ending military spending, which I doubt it would do even with a strong labour movement.

Education for all, pre-school through college
Hell, having this demand would move them closer, rather than further, from worthlessness.

cyu

9th March 2009, 20:05

For those of us who live in democracies, revolutionary change will not come about through extra-legal means. The electoral process and representative system of government are unavoidable starting points.

I wouldn't say that. The electoral process may be a starting point, or a mid-point, or an end-point, or (preferably in my view) be a parallel process that goes on independently of what else is happening.

Unions weren't always legal in "democracies" - yet employees formed unions anyway "using extra-legal means". People with browner skin color weren't always allowed to sit anywhere on the bus in certain "democracies" - yet people with browner skin color did it anyway "using extra-legal means" - it's just a matter of degree.

Civil disobedience is done in the open - you violate the law and you're not afraid to admit it. In fact, you want as many people to see you doing it as possible. It's really just choosing your actions wisely - you don't want to alienate people, while at the same time, you want to have a positive effect on overcoming oppressive forces.

GX.

9th March 2009, 21:13

Why would they want the government to take on all the bad assets of zombie banks rather than creating some sort of national lending facility? That would free up credit without the government having to pump billions of dollars into worthless entities. And the whole proposal sounded more like Proudhonism than a transitional demand (I assume that's what the author was going for).

GX.

9th March 2009, 21:17

SocialRealist

9th March 2009, 21:27

Would nationalization of the American economic and banking system really be the correct thing to do? Not at all, I don't think we should hand the banking system to a government that has been shown to be extremely corrupt in the past. To me that's just giving the state to much power and authority which as we know leads to a vast network of power exploitation and authoritative actions.

Instead we should push for the working class to have more control of the banking and economic systems. This way the working class will be able to directly get the benefits and control of the economic system without a state that could possibly abuse their control.

ComradeOm

9th March 2009, 21:57

We are going through a period of intense global capitalist crisis. Our theory and practice need to correspond this! We need a revolution, and building a labor movement (which is fundamentally based around immediate interests) wont lead to thatUnless you expect a proletarian revolution... then the labour movement becomes rather important. By all means, feel free to grab a rifle and run to the hills but don't expect a worker revolution without the workers

x359594

9th March 2009, 22:14

The SPGB is 'worthless', now?...

Don't put words in my mouth comrade. I said nothing about the SPGB. I'm not familiar with that party.

A constructive response might direct everyone to where we can learn about the SPGB's platform and positions.

Kassad

9th March 2009, 22:29

Lynx

10th March 2009, 00:22

I wouldn't say that. The electoral process may be a starting point, or a mid-point, or an end-point, or (preferably in my view) be a parallel process that goes on independently of what else is happening.

Unions weren't always legal in "democracies" - yet employees formed unions anyway "using extra-legal means". People with browner skin color weren't always allowed to sit anywhere on the bus in certain "democracies" - yet people with browner skin color did it anyway "using extra-legal means" - it's just a matter of degree.

Civil disobedience is done in the open - you violate the law and you're not afraid to admit it. In fact, you want as many people to see you doing it as possible. It's really just choosing your actions wisely - you don't want to alienate people, while at the same time, you want to have a positive effect on overcoming oppressive forces.
I agree that some reforms can be achieved through extra-legal means, in practical terms, by circumventing the system. This is to be welcomed. That being said, the desired solution to these grievances was political. Problem solving within the 'modern democracies' is increasingly tied to politics.

x359594

10th March 2009, 00:38

...the working class is not currently looking for a revolutionary socialist alternative to the current economic fiasco...Because of this, the only means we have of uniting people is through education and organization; a duty that is performed most efficiently by a party with set standards and ideals. A party that stands for socialism can attract workers from all walks of life, regardless of what they do for a living. Calling for universal healthcare and unemployment benefits may not rally the proletarian class to fight a people's war against the elitists, but it can claim their attention, if only for a moment. With this newfound attention and desire for social reform, those workers; man or woman; old or young; industrial or agricultural can learn that the only means of social change and revolutionary emancipation is through socialism...

Comrade Kassad has once again succinctly stated an authentic socialist position that has wide appeal to all working people.

I know the counter-argument is "worse is better"; the worse conditions become for the working class the more likely they are to turn to revolution. This is only true when there is already a high level of ideological awareness, and at present this is not the case in the United States, so "worse is better" can easily produce a fascist response, especially given that the mass media here is concentrated in reactionary hands. For example, AM radio is almost entirely given over to right wing talk shows. This is why a program of immediate amelioration of the harsh conditions the working class faces at this moment is the best way for socialist parties to connect to the working class.

Mike Morin

10th March 2009, 00:38

Nationalizing the banks is rubbish.

I agree completely with the manner in which "Robbo203" has expressed his disdain for the idea.

Anyway, how could we nationalize something that is internationally owned?

I heard a proposal on the radio, that the plan was to "nationalize" (actually put them in "Government Receivership") troubled banks, "clear out toxic assets" (whatever that means) then sell the banks to a new round of investors.

Duh.

What the US Government should do is honor their "obligations" from FDIC, FSLIC, etc., pay unemployment insurance, and allow the affected to apply for food stamps and SSI.

Rawthentic

10th March 2009, 01:42

Rawthentic, I'm sorry, but the working class is not currently looking for a revolutionary socialist alternative to the current economic fiasco. In fact, the United States government and the ruling class have managed to paint socialism as the cause for the current ailment of the nation's economy, despite how absurd we realize such a rationalization is. Unfortunately, with the near-landslide election of Barack Obama, it's obvious that the lower and middle classes of America are not going to take up arms and unite against the bourgeoisie at the current time.

Because of this, the only means we have of uniting people is through education and organization; a duty that is performed most efficiently by a party with set standards and ideals. A party that stands for socialism can attract workers from all walks of life, regardless of what they do for a living. Calling for universal healthcare and unemployment benefits may not rally the proletarian class to fight a people's war against the elitists, but it can claim their attention, if only for a moment. With this newfound attention and desire for social reform, those workers; man or woman; old or young; industrial or agricultural can learn that the only means of social change and revolutionary emancipation is through socialism. That's why the Party for Socialism and Liberation and every other Marxist-Leninist (I use this term loosely, as few real Marxist-Leninist parties exist in the United States.) party stands for the working class and the benefits and luxury they deserve. Social change does not come at the snap of our fingers, for if it did, socialists would be elected, would they not? The media monopoly and ruling elite prevent this, which is why immediate organization is imperative.omg. Sometimes people like you make me feel so demoralized. But I don't give in. There has to be communists somewhere that are still revolutionary.

If socialism is not the alternative to this "fiasco", then what is? Goddamit, we are living in a global capitalist crisis and people like you still insist on leaving communism and revolution off the table for reforms?

Look, (and this goes for comrade om too), I am not saying it's possible to start a revolution right now. I have no idea where any of you got that.

What I am saying is that we need to develop methods for a praxis that develops revolutionary consciousness. We need to focus on movements and organize movements that are based around that. If they dont develop this consciousness, what will? It is our responsbility as communists to point out the nature of this crisis and put forward that revolution is the only solution.

Embedded in your thinking is that because ppl are not thinking about revolution at this moment, that we need to lower our sights and fight for credible reforms. Ok. Why do you think communists exist? Do you think we exist to tail what the people think at a certain moment and organize around that? Or do we exist as "tribunes of the people" (as lenin said) and build social movements that are based fundamentally on the need for revolution?

You think that we first need to win the trust of the workers through winning concessions. Why? Why win people over through trust, rather than line? Do you really think that they will go along when you decide that you've fought long enough for reforms and now its time to organize for revolution? Clearly that logic doesnt work, since your methods rely on getting trust from the people, rather than them taking up a communist line and following you on that basis.

The point is: if we lower our sights, like the PSL does, we wont make revolution. If we dont organize for that, we won't get there.

Building a movement (in a time of capitalist crisis!) around reforms is criminal. What better time exists to talk about revolution than now? Do you think Lenin waited until a deeply revolutionary time to infuse communist politics? From the beginning, our practice needs to be guided (and at all times) by the need for revolution. You might profess to revolution and communism, but your intentions dont match with your reformist practice. Your politics reflect a deeply embedded tailism, meaning the PSL doesnt act as a communist party, putting forward the most radical demands and the need for communism, but rather wack as reforms because somehow, the people "dont care about revolution at this moment".

Dont be condescending. Do you think the people are so narrow that they cannot see beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeos right? I think it is criminal to the people around the world to waste this precious opportunity. In times like this, do you think people are only interested in healthcare or education? They look for alternatives! They want to know if a radically different world is possible! That requires new government, laws, relations, etc., in order for the people to become masters of society. THAT is the vision we need to put forward.

We need to teach people (and learn from their movements and them) that this system has nothing to offer us. Your politics are based around "getting the attention" of the people, even when that means watering down what communism means and working as a functional social-democrat.

Die Neue Zeit

10th March 2009, 02:53

An immediate moratorium on foreclosures?

"Social-democratic" tailism.

Full employment for all?The right to unionize? An end to police brutality?

"Trotskyist economism":

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/649/programme.htm
http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html

In regards to the latter two, read this article:

Class-Strugglist Assembly and Association: Self-Directional Demands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-assembly-t99908/index.html)

Socialized, single-payer healthcare?

You're forgetting the private drug companies, even if you've taken into consideration the state hiring doctors.

A woman's right to choose? LGBT equality?

Identity politics.

A progressive, steep income tax that supports workers, not the rich?

I'll up you:

Socio-Income Democracy: Direct Democracy in Income Taxation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-democracy-t92929/index.html)

Die Neue Zeit

10th March 2009, 02:59

I agree that some reforms can be achieved through extra-legal means, in practical terms, by circumventing the system. This is to be welcomed. That being said, the desired solution to these grievances was political. Problem solving within the 'modern democracies' is increasingly tied to politics.

Comrade, I tend to think that demarchy will have to come about through some sort of political revolution (Cockshott talks about "people's war," though not in the Maoist sense). If some constitutional amendment on this were about to be passed, there would be extra-legal bourgeois resistance.

You might be talking about violence per se, which is different from extra-legalism. Marx should've said "legal means where possible, extra-legal when necessary, whether peaceful or violent depends on the bourgeoisie."

From minority status, to coalitions, to majority party status - the pitfalls must be anticipated and avoided.

I take it you've read comrade Macnair's repeating of Kautsky's warning against coalitionism? Coalitions would only be appropriate if the other parties agree to implement the demarchic commonwealth (with some labour-friendly legislation) off the bat, like the petit-bourgeois rulers of the Paris Commune.

Kassad

10th March 2009, 14:32

I truly must ask if some of you people get your jollies from having no reading comprehension abilities and your infallible abilities to ignore just about everything I've said. The ideology that 'socialism and communism must be offered as an alternative!' is so obvious that it is almost self-defeating. The problem with your ideology is that you refuse to define 'offering'. Revolutionary socialism is consistently being offered as a solution, but the amount of attention it receives from bourgeoisie media and elitists politicians is minute. Capitalist control of basic commodities, the educational system and the media allows for elitist manipulation of even the youngest citizens of the United States. It's incredibly tiresome to break the shackles of capitalist conditioning and that's why it's incredibly difficult to rally a movement for revolutionary socialism right now. People are ignorant.

You cannot force revolutionary fervor at the barrel of a gun. You can offer a solution all you want, but unless a militant movement of the proletarian class rises to join you in struggle. If the American working class is content with reformism and bourgeoisie capitalism, there isn't much that can be done besides promoting education and organization. Until a movement rises to meet the challenge, it will just be a petty minority of revolutionaries with no popular support and that is not how a successful revolution is maintained. You're totally patronizing and ignorant on this issue.

Socialism is the only alternative to the capitalist crisis, but class consciousness cannot be forced onto the masses. The failure of the capitalist system through its innate recessions and militarizations will destroy the system from the inside and more people are realizing this truth every day. I'm not saying we shouldn't offer socialism as an alternative, but you obviously don't care about logic and reason right now. If there was a militant mass movement working for the destruction of the bourgeoisie state, its presence would have been felt far before this, but that movement does not exist, thanks to bourgeoisie suppression.

I do applaud your ridiculous fallacies and assertions. Do you have any grasp of a revolutionary workers party? A party cannot just sit idle and say 'when the revolution comes, we'll be there.' Instead, it must organize its memberships into a revolutionary movement that prepares for revolution through education, community organization and consistent ideological application of Marxism-Leninism. The immediate demands of the Party for Socialism and Liberation might be seen as 'reformist', but then again, would it not be 'reformist' to advocate a living wage at the current time? Or gay rights? We can advocate socialist reforms until the time is proper for a revolution, as our struggle does not begin or end with the revolution and emancipation of the proletariat.

You're the kind of person that would march through the streets of New York with a rifle and say you're bringing about revolution. You don't realize that a revolution of the proletariat must be made by the proletariat and the working class as a whole or else it will totally fail. Forced class consciousness does not apply. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Marxist-Leninists in American strive for the application of Marxism and socialism in America and across the globe, not just petty reforms.

In all honesty, I see the current state of American affairs as atrocious, but there is not a massive class consciousness in the United States. Most people are content with moderate reforms and those who aren't are still malleable enough to fall prey to bourgeoisie propaganda. That's why the American populace consistently votes back and forth between the two corporate parties. Their ideology is malleable, which is why an immense amount of the population believes socialism is the cause of the current economic ails. Sorry, but your surrealist fantasies do not apply here. I would love to see some form of revolutionary opportunity in the United States, but after seventy five years of propaganda and fear mongering, do you really expect any kind of people's war to rise in opposition to imperialism or the bourgeoisie class? The only potential means of liberation is through class consciousness, as anything else is doomed to fail through counterrevolutionary and bourgeoisie means. The organizational opportunities right now are immense, which is why the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition is consistently in the streets across the nation rallying support for radical change. Until a militant movement forms, which Socialism and Liberation advocates, there is no real chance for revolutionary Marxism in the United States.

Rawthentic

10th March 2009, 18:45

wow, Kassad, you are repeating the same tired reformist diatribe, and not even responding to my post.

How the fuck do you think revolutionary movements come to be? Do you think they rise out thin air? That is why revolutionary communists exist! We don't exist to be union hacks or tailists. If our responsibility doesn't consist of leading the people with radical demands and the need for socialism in mind, then we aren't communists. We are social-democrats (well, you are).

According to your consdescending theory, people are "ignorant". And, umm, whose role consists of combatting that ignorance, if not us? We don't wait for working people to magically "wake up" and then infuse our communist politics.

Once again, (i feel silly for repeating this) I KNOW a revolution is not possible right now. The question is, what sort of politics and goals guide our methods. You, on the one hand, advocate a clearly tailist and reformist practice. You don't want to lead the people and organize to develop revolutionary consciousness. You just want to advocate reforms here and there, hoping that working people bridge the gap between that and the larger system (and if decades of reform show, just doesnt happen).

What I advocate is developing methods of organization and practice, NOT PICKING UP A GUN (fucking strawman), that correspond the serious times we are living in and ackknowledges the deep need for revolution. If that alternative isnt struggled for theoretically and practically, then you don't mean anything (well...).

Yes, I want support. We need support. Our difference arise in HOW TO GET IT. You call for reforms that can win people's trust towards us. This is the same tired method that has failed and betrayed revolution time and time again.

During the 1930s the CPUSA had a base of millions of workers. This party existed during a time of capitalist depression, world war, socialist revolution, etc., and IT STILL said they would concentrate on the immediate concerns and reforms the workers desired so as to "win their trust". Any organizing towards revolution was derided as utopian and "out of touch." It proceeded from the same reformist and condescending politics of the PSL: our job is to win the trust of the workers through reform and then organize for revolution some other time. And guess what? Nothing happened. They gave up on a deeply precious revolutionary opportunity. A time, like now, when people were beginning to question the vailidity of the capitalist system and searching for better alternatives.

Our job is to create this movement. Not wait for it to spring up and then jump in, hoping to lead it. We need to build a base, not around reforms, but around a revolutionary communist line that would be ready for when a revolutionary crisis really does develop (through our efforts and objective conditions). Develop a base based on line...or on "trust"?

You can offer a solution all you want, but unless a militant movement of the proletarian class rises to join you in struggle. If the American working class is content with reformism and bourgeoisie capitalism, there isn't much that can be done besides promoting education and organization.
NOTE: Can anyone else see the clear tailism embedded in Kassad's politics?

Our job is NOT to do what "people want" at a certain moment! That is the job of reformists and social democrats! Have you ever read What is to be Done?

Your politics are dead end and cannot lead to revolution (by their nature).

We exist to LEAD the people and push for the most radical demands while organizing for revolution.

If people want reforms at a certain moment, why settle on that? Why not organize and develop ties amongst working people that stretches their sights OUTSIDE of this system, connecting that with the highest interests of their class (rather than their perceived their immediate interests)?

Our methods are clearly diametrically opposed.

MY politics start from the need for communist revolution and the emancipation of humanity. When we go out and develop practice, we need to be able to ask ourselves if it contributes to that. Lowered sights from that, like yours, are the one of the main reasons the left has failed.

I don't want to force consciousness on anyone. I want to develop revolutionary consciousness through revolutionary practice and organization. A practice that has revolution as its guiding light, not one that looks down and calls the people "ignorant", while not actively working for a politics that challenges that.

We both want to organize. But, you want to use methods for reform, I want to use methods that can highten the consciousness amongst the people (and can be the begiinning towards the creation of a rev movement).

cyu

10th March 2009, 20:18

I agree that some reforms can be achieved through extra-legal means, in practical terms, by circumventing the system. This is to be welcomed. That being said, the desired solution to these grievances was political. Problem solving within the 'modern democracies' is increasingly tied to politics.

Well, this is a political web site, isn't it? Of course the desired change is political =)

I guess what you really mean is that the desired change has to happen through the electoral process - well, I'm not arguing for a new society that doesn't have an electoral process. In fact, I think capitalist "democracies" aren't democratic enough - they tend toward rule by the rich, rather than rule by everyone.

However, as far as civil disobedience goes, the real question to me is, how far can you take it? If you can form "illegal" unions, if you can sit in "illegal" seats on a bus, what else is possible?

That's were workplace occupation comes in. The employees show up, assume democratic control of the company, and then carry on doing their jobs. It's completely "civil" - they can even be polite when they tell the CEO to take a hike (or alternatively, "can you get me a coffee instead?")... and of course, it's disobedience - disobedience to the laws that protect wage slavery.

But how "civil" do you want to be? What happens when thugs show up to kick out the employees? Then that depends on how radical your employees are. Some may go peacefully. Some may just run away for now, only to return later. And some may pull out their weapons and defend themselves and each other.

Kassad

10th March 2009, 22:57

Hi, nice to meet you. I'm a Marxist-Leninist advocating a revolutionary people's war. Calling me reformist grows immensely tiresome. Honestly, you're like an inexperienced player attempting to play some form of video game. I use strategy, logic and rationality, whereas you use the same move over and over again and attempt to paint yourself as experienced and honorable. Your assertions are completely absurd and this is around the point where I stop attempting to debate with someone spouting such irrelevant drivel.

You claim to be a Maoist. You should have some grasp of a people's war, even though it's obvious that you do not. A people's war requires popular support of the working masses. Mao Tsetung did not establish a revolutionary socialist movement out of thin air. Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks did not unite one morning and ignite a revolution. It took time, organization and education. The Bolshevik Party made revolutionary demands. It proposed and implemented educational innovation that increased literacy. It fought for women's equality and the party consistently combated reactionary and counterrevolutionary forces. The demands of the Party for Socialism and Liberation are what we would ideally like to see. A community where no one is homeless, without healthcare or without education. Regardless, we aren't advocating these things under the capitalist system. We're promoting a revolutionary movement of the proletarian class that struggles for this social equality. If you don't understand this, your knowledge of socialism is obviously minute and I feel I am totally wasting my time.

We see more and more ignorance from our good friend here. Where did I ever advocate that we sit back and relax until revolutionary fervor ignites? I advocate community activism, which the Party for Socialism and Liberation is incredibly active in, to educate those without an advanced level of class consciousness. This organization comes through multiple things, such as promoting Marxist theory, distributing literature and encouraging activism. If this is your definition of waiting for the revolution, then it's obvious you're totally ignorant.

I'm not calling for reformism, no matter how many times you attempt to spout such ludicrous bile. I'm calling for a revolutionary socialist implementation of Marxism-Leninism in the United States and across the globe that promotes these reforms. These reforms are not sustainable under capitalism, but I'm not going to frown and pout if these reforms are implemented. I realize they are merely used as bandages for a broken system, but I'm not going to get upset that workers are provided with living wages and everyone is provided with free healthcare and housing. This isn't reformism. This is promoting revolution and smiling upon the radical change that comes from it.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you. Go to our website if you'd like. Every article is calling for socialism. All the pages on theory praise Marx and Lenin, as well as their scientific, philosophical and economic contributions. Each cause and activity taken by the party is an action in support of Marxism and communism, which is the only means of emancipation for the working class across the globe. Again, I ask myself why I'm explaining something so basic to someone so ignorant.

What I said in that quote is basically what you said. You said revolution is not possible right now, so you support organization and education. I said the exact same thing. What I have said multiple times is that you cannot attempt to wage a people's war without popular support, which is a key component of revolutionary class struggle. Without the working class in support of a movement, it will likely become decadent and bureaucratic, which is counterproductive to the proletarian movement.

And as we approach the end of this mind-numbing post, we see that I am apparently calling the American masses ignorant and not doing anything about it. Hi, nice to meet you again. I have been very active in the Party for Socialism and Liberation for many months now, promoting education through a multitude of different means. I am a member of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and I am organizing a branch for both in my city. I consistently work for community activism and am always supporting the class struggle. Sorry if you expected me to be an armchair general, but after reading a few of your IQ-lowering posts, I don't expect much more from your narrow perspective.

Are the American people ignorant? Yes, they are. Any conclusion to the contrary is absurd. The nation just elected a center-right bourgeoisie politician who managed to convince the majority of the country that he is any different than Bush or McCain even. In fact, he is furthering imperialism across the globe, as well as neglecting human and social rights issues in the United States. He is ignoring the cause of the economic crisis and advocating a mega-dose of the corporate welfare and executive favoritism that we've seen since the Reagan era. If you want to preach the ideology that the American masses are enlightened, I think you need a little bit of psychological assistance. The American people have managed to be swept into a hole of ignorance once again and it's people like you who ignore solutions and act in an incredibly divisive manner which allows the bourgeoisie class to maintain its power. Thanks for your assistance.

Rawthentic

11th March 2009, 00:28

haha, ok. Let's dig into this. First off, I want to say that I made a thread in theory a few months ago titled "On the Consciousness of the People and Revolution". Would you mind reading it and responding?

Don't give me the bullshit that you are going to stop responding to my "drivel". It is clear you haven't been able to directly respond to my points, rather than sweet responses about how you really are revolutionary and you want a people's war. Don't use copt outs.

Neither the Bolsheviks nor the chinese communists built a revolutionary movement around reformist demands, such as the ones the PSL makes. For example, the Bolsheviks centered their program around "Peace, Land, Bread." This slogan encapsulated the burning issues facing russia at the time, and delineated the need for socialist revolution to eliminate oppression. Likewise, Mao built the movement he led around the need to free china from world imperialism and struggle to abolish feudalism (and towards the road to socialism). That movement wasnt built around reformist demands like the PSL makes. Neither of these two movement tailed and organized about what the masses believed "at a certain moment." If that were the case (as it is with the PSL), they would never have made revolution. The vision and practice of communism is what guided everything they did. Their actions, from forming soviets to implementing land reform, aided the development of communist consciousness amongst the oppressed they were organizing. I think you are deluded if you believe that organizing ppl around the need for socialized healthcare will create this consciousness.

Revolutionary movement has never, and will never, be built around winning the trust of the people (through reforms here and there). Am I saying we shouldnt fight for reforms? Of course not. But we have very different methods on how to approach that. My method calls for approaching those reforms from the standpoint of revolution and communism. How does this struggle aid that? The question for communists IS NOT that the people are ignorant therefore we lower our sights and struggle for what people to percieve to be immediate to them. That is reformism and tailism (and it is clearly what you advocate). We exist to put forward the most radical demands from the understanding that they are positive movements toward revolutionary consciousness.

WE are the ones that hold the responsbility (ultimately) for the creation of a radical communist movement. You do advocate community activism? Cool. I dont give a fuck. Why? Because that activism is not centered around organizing minds and forces for revolution, but towards reforms that dont break out (ideologically) from the framework of bourgeois right.

We need to be able to win the advanced over to a communist viewpoint, and, in that manner, push forward the intermediate and backward sections of the people. This takes years of preparatory work. We need to train people to confront the system and its ideology. How does that happen, Kassad, by abandonding communist practice and focusing on tangible reforms? Don't you understand the link between theory and practice?

One the of the beauties of the cultural revolution was that it was focused on building a revolutionary and communist awareness and struggled against bourgeois ideology, for the purpose of continuing the socialist transformation of china.

It is condescending to label the people as ignorant. Clearly they voted for obama in droves. But there is complexity to that. First of all, communists dont know everything. We are students as much as we are teachers. Our leadership is a back and forth dialectical interplay between the people and ourselves. So, that "ignorance" is a product of objective conditions AND our inability to create a cohesive REVOLUTIONARY base amongst the people.

Once more, fighting for reforms arent bad. The question is one of approach. We are living in a time of global capitalist crisis! DOnt you think our forces should be concentrated in areas that can develop revolutionary organization in these critical times! If we dont live up to it, to this urgency and the aspirations of people, we are nothing.

Lastly, I cant understand how you claim to be a marxist leninist by tailing the people. Claiming that people dont want socialism at a particular moment so we should organize around what they think is a textbook definition of tailism. How do you explain this? You know what I am talking about.

Lynx

11th March 2009, 03:41

Well, this is a political web site, isn't it? Of course the desired change is political =)

I guess what you really mean is that the desired change has to happen through the electoral process - well, I'm not arguing for a new society that doesn't have an electoral process. In fact, I think capitalist "democracies" aren't democratic enough - they tend toward rule by the rich, rather than rule by everyone.
I was trying to say that the resolution of these types of grievances is political (ie. a new law, better enforcement of existing laws, constitutional precedent, etc.) Some of these can be enacted without having to call an election or referendum.

However, as far as civil disobedience goes, the real question to me is, how far can you take it? If you can form "illegal" unions, if you can sit in "illegal" seats on a bus, what else is possible?
I suppose the only way to know for sure is to 'push the envelope'.

That's were workplace occupation comes in. The employees show up, assume democratic control of the company, and then carry on doing their jobs. It's completely "civil" - they can even be polite when they tell the CEO to take a hike (or alternatively, "can you get me a coffee instead?")... and of course, it's disobedience - disobedience to the laws that protect wage slavery.

But how "civil" do you want to be? What happens when thugs show up to kick out the employees? Then that depends on how radical your employees are. Some may go peacefully. Some may just run away for now, only to return later. And some may pull out their weapons and defend themselves and each other.
A dispassionate analysis would boil down to what qualifies as a winning tactic. Not an easy thing to do, until after the fact.

Kassad

11th March 2009, 14:36

Basically, we're at a point now where you're completely lying. I'm not saying we should build a reformist movement because the people don't want revolution, but as I feel I must say again, if the proletarian class is not ideologically prepared for revolution, it can not be ignited. The means of preparing the masses is through organization and education on Marxist-Leninist theory. I'm not saying we should advocate reformism because the people aren't ready. All I'm saying is that we can't instigate a people's war without proper ideological and material support. My party and I are advocating revolutionary Marxism and the emancipation of the people through revolutionary force. If that's 'reformism' and 'tailism,' then I'm sorry you are so narrow-minded in your perspective. There's a difference between rational preparation and belligerent ideological application. Rationally preparing the working class through the education of Marxist economics and science is not reformism. It is working towards a heightened level of class consciousness.

Rawthentic

11th March 2009, 19:03

There's a difference between rational preparation and belligerent ideological application. Rationally preparing the working class through the education of Marxist economics and science is not reformism. It is working towards a heightened level of class consciousness.
Really? Maybe we've been talking past each other. But I don't think so.

You said earlier:
Calling for universal healthcare and unemployment benefits may not rally the proletarian class to fight a people's war against the elitists, but it can claim their attention, if only for a moment. With this newfound attention and desire for social reform, those workers; man or woman; old or young; industrial or agricultural can learn that the only means of social change and revolutionary emancipation is through socialism.
How does focusing on "claiming their attention" through reforms going to build class consciousness?

I've argued and pointed out in this thread before that revolutionary movements dont come about that way. If (and especially during these times) communists dont build support based on line, that is, the need for revolution, then we aren't going to build a revolutionary movement. You argue for winning their "attention", but that is based on reforms and concessions, many of the same reforms that social democrats and reactionaries compete for to win the masses over.

Say you do win them over that way. Fine. What about when you decide that you've gotten their "attention" long enough? Do you really think they are going to react positively when you decide to switch to communist organizing? We need to train people not only to militantly (and revolutionarily) battle the system, but to become masters of society.

Winning people over by means of social reforms is not "Rationally preparing the working class through the education of Marxist economics and science".

It is text book tailism and reformism.

Hi, nice to meet you too.