Die Neue Zeit
24th March 2009, 02:57
"Krichevskii advanced his soon-to-be notorious 'stages theory' within this Erfurtian framework. Workers advanced to political class awareness through a series of predictable stages. The first and lowest stage was 'purely economic agitation'. Next was political agitation still strongly tied to immediate economic interests. Then came agitation still linked to economic interests but intended to show how the wider political planks in the Social-Democratic platform (for example, political freedom) were necessary for economic struggle. Finally, came political agitation not tied to economic interests but, rather, to the proletariat's role as leader of the people. At this stage, political agitation should 'embrace without exception all questions of social-political life', since everything affects the class interests of the proletariat." (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=krichevskii+stages+theory+erfurtian&source=bl&ots=5i3q6svIZt&sig=RDY-JaK_p7csygxX1YTywcOmzEE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA294,M1) (Lars Lih)
"The first and lowest stage was 'purely economic agitation'"
One of today's articles by Socialist Alternative (the US CWI section) brings into relevance a key, anti-economist criticism of Lenin that, "At a time when our fundamental sin consists in lowering our political and organizational tasks to the most immediate 'tangible' and 'concrete' interests of the ongoing economic struggle, all we hear is the same old song: we must impart a political character to the economic struggle itself!"
Even the very demand for a shorter workweek can be spun in a very economistic fashion:
http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article14.php?id=1062
By Nick Shillingford
The decline in the state of financial markets, and more recently the real economy, has hit working class families and poor people the hardest both in the United States and worldwide. The anger that many working people have felt for some time has already begun to come to the surface in the form of struggle.
One of the most recent examples in the U.S. is the factory occupation by United Electrical Workers that took place at Republic Windows and Doors in December of 2008. While this was only one group of workers at a single factory it is inevitable that in the next several years other organized struggles will take place both inside and outside of the labor unions.
With the number of unemployed and underemployed people in the United States rising, the labor unions and other organizations of the working class must demand a 30-hour workweek without loss of pay. This demand will be an important step towards increasing the number of people that are employed and decreasing what Karl Marx called “the reserve army of labor.”
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The unemployment rate in February of this year rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent. This number does not account for those that are employed and getting less hours than they require to live or so called discouraged workers, who have not been able to find a job and have given up looking. The real unemployment rate according to Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg is 13.9%.
The capitalist class depends on the reserve army of unemployed laborers as a way to threaten the jobs of the working class and drive down wages for the employed. It should be the role of workers’ organizations to unite employed, underemployed, and unemployed people against these types of attacks by the bosses. The demand for a 30-hour workweek is an important tool to bridge the gap between employed and unemployed workers.
Over the past 30 years productivity across the whole economy has increased by 60%. To a worker this should translate into a decrease in the number of hours worked in a day for the same wage. Instead under a capitalist mode of production, based on profits, this is translated into layoffs, as fewer workers do more of the labor to produce increased profits for their employer.
But the demand for a 30-hour workweek with the same pay will not be a new demand. These demands have been raised in strikes, in this country, since the 1920s.
Many at the top say that this is a new situation, and in a time of recession everyone is going to have to “tighten their belts.” But who do they mean will have to pay for this crisis? Not the big banks that are receiving record government bailouts.
According to the Wall Street Journal more than 200 publicly traded banks have received a total of $191.5 billion. The current economic depression is a result of the capitalists’ drive for profits and continued exploitation of working people.
Capitalism is a system constantly driven to increase production while also reducing the cost of production, i.e. the hours and wages of workers who produce it. This means that while the number of products increases, the working class as a whole is not able to buy back the vast number of items that are produced Therefore capitalism is always marked by booms and slumps caused by overproduction.
Since the production and circulation of goods is not planned and firms are in constant competition for larger profits and greater market share, capitalism’s booms are always followed by busts.
I don't have much in the way of comments on the above, but problems with the article do arise later on.
"Next was political agitation still strongly tied to immediate economic interests"
Well over 11 million workers are currently unemployed and even more are underemployed or not included in the official jobless figures. A 30-hour workweek as well as a program of public works to rebuild infrastructure in the inner city would provide jobs to the unemployed.
As socialists we believe that the 30-hour workweek is an essential demand to defend workers under this system. But, we must take things further to create a workers’ democracy to guarantee workers a decent life in this period of capitalist crisis. We must end this destructive system based on the rule of profit and fight for a democratically planned economy based on human needs as well as fighting to make big business, not workers, pay for this crisis of capitalism.
Workers should not be made to pay for this crisis with their livelihoods. Workers must fight for a 30-hour workweek as part of a larger program that includes a minimum wage of $12.50/hour, an end to anti-union laws, and the formation of a new party for working people outside of the Democrats and Republicans.
While agitating for political demands still strongly tied to immediate economic interests, the author doesn't address the shorter workweek as a key leisure measure, nor does he write about time for workplace democracy, workers' "self management," and so on. He doesn't explain the concept of a "living wage" or even talk about inflation indexing of pay and benefits.
"Then came agitation still linked to economic interests but intended to show how the wider political planks in the Social-Democratic platform (for example, political freedom) were necessary for economic struggle"
To achieve that, socialists have a far sighted and internationalist view that it will be necessary to take into public ownership, under democratic working class control and management, the top 500 corporations, banks, and insurance and finance houses worldwide.
The author fails to discuss how a shorter workweek can lead to increased numbers of constituents bugging their legislators about the financial mess and more (generic legislation and perhaps the odd "we want pork" here and there).
There is one particular aspect of the debate between the 30-hour workweek and the 32-hour workweek that has been ignored in this article: the Green issues of the very party that SA supports, the Green Party. With a four-day workweek, workers consume less fuel (and spend less on it) and spend less time driving back and forth.
"Finally, came political agitation not tied to economic interests but, rather, to the proletariat's role as leader of the people"
For an article inspired by the Krichevskii-inspired (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html) Transitional Program, it totally fails to go into this part. The author fails to discuss how a shorter workweek can lead to participatory-democratic alternatives to the congressional system. :(
"The first and lowest stage was 'purely economic agitation'"
One of today's articles by Socialist Alternative (the US CWI section) brings into relevance a key, anti-economist criticism of Lenin that, "At a time when our fundamental sin consists in lowering our political and organizational tasks to the most immediate 'tangible' and 'concrete' interests of the ongoing economic struggle, all we hear is the same old song: we must impart a political character to the economic struggle itself!"
Even the very demand for a shorter workweek can be spun in a very economistic fashion:
http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article14.php?id=1062
By Nick Shillingford
The decline in the state of financial markets, and more recently the real economy, has hit working class families and poor people the hardest both in the United States and worldwide. The anger that many working people have felt for some time has already begun to come to the surface in the form of struggle.
One of the most recent examples in the U.S. is the factory occupation by United Electrical Workers that took place at Republic Windows and Doors in December of 2008. While this was only one group of workers at a single factory it is inevitable that in the next several years other organized struggles will take place both inside and outside of the labor unions.
With the number of unemployed and underemployed people in the United States rising, the labor unions and other organizations of the working class must demand a 30-hour workweek without loss of pay. This demand will be an important step towards increasing the number of people that are employed and decreasing what Karl Marx called “the reserve army of labor.”
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The unemployment rate in February of this year rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent. This number does not account for those that are employed and getting less hours than they require to live or so called discouraged workers, who have not been able to find a job and have given up looking. The real unemployment rate according to Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg is 13.9%.
The capitalist class depends on the reserve army of unemployed laborers as a way to threaten the jobs of the working class and drive down wages for the employed. It should be the role of workers’ organizations to unite employed, underemployed, and unemployed people against these types of attacks by the bosses. The demand for a 30-hour workweek is an important tool to bridge the gap between employed and unemployed workers.
Over the past 30 years productivity across the whole economy has increased by 60%. To a worker this should translate into a decrease in the number of hours worked in a day for the same wage. Instead under a capitalist mode of production, based on profits, this is translated into layoffs, as fewer workers do more of the labor to produce increased profits for their employer.
But the demand for a 30-hour workweek with the same pay will not be a new demand. These demands have been raised in strikes, in this country, since the 1920s.
Many at the top say that this is a new situation, and in a time of recession everyone is going to have to “tighten their belts.” But who do they mean will have to pay for this crisis? Not the big banks that are receiving record government bailouts.
According to the Wall Street Journal more than 200 publicly traded banks have received a total of $191.5 billion. The current economic depression is a result of the capitalists’ drive for profits and continued exploitation of working people.
Capitalism is a system constantly driven to increase production while also reducing the cost of production, i.e. the hours and wages of workers who produce it. This means that while the number of products increases, the working class as a whole is not able to buy back the vast number of items that are produced Therefore capitalism is always marked by booms and slumps caused by overproduction.
Since the production and circulation of goods is not planned and firms are in constant competition for larger profits and greater market share, capitalism’s booms are always followed by busts.
I don't have much in the way of comments on the above, but problems with the article do arise later on.
"Next was political agitation still strongly tied to immediate economic interests"
Well over 11 million workers are currently unemployed and even more are underemployed or not included in the official jobless figures. A 30-hour workweek as well as a program of public works to rebuild infrastructure in the inner city would provide jobs to the unemployed.
As socialists we believe that the 30-hour workweek is an essential demand to defend workers under this system. But, we must take things further to create a workers’ democracy to guarantee workers a decent life in this period of capitalist crisis. We must end this destructive system based on the rule of profit and fight for a democratically planned economy based on human needs as well as fighting to make big business, not workers, pay for this crisis of capitalism.
Workers should not be made to pay for this crisis with their livelihoods. Workers must fight for a 30-hour workweek as part of a larger program that includes a minimum wage of $12.50/hour, an end to anti-union laws, and the formation of a new party for working people outside of the Democrats and Republicans.
While agitating for political demands still strongly tied to immediate economic interests, the author doesn't address the shorter workweek as a key leisure measure, nor does he write about time for workplace democracy, workers' "self management," and so on. He doesn't explain the concept of a "living wage" or even talk about inflation indexing of pay and benefits.
"Then came agitation still linked to economic interests but intended to show how the wider political planks in the Social-Democratic platform (for example, political freedom) were necessary for economic struggle"
To achieve that, socialists have a far sighted and internationalist view that it will be necessary to take into public ownership, under democratic working class control and management, the top 500 corporations, banks, and insurance and finance houses worldwide.
The author fails to discuss how a shorter workweek can lead to increased numbers of constituents bugging their legislators about the financial mess and more (generic legislation and perhaps the odd "we want pork" here and there).
There is one particular aspect of the debate between the 30-hour workweek and the 32-hour workweek that has been ignored in this article: the Green issues of the very party that SA supports, the Green Party. With a four-day workweek, workers consume less fuel (and spend less on it) and spend less time driving back and forth.
"Finally, came political agitation not tied to economic interests but, rather, to the proletariat's role as leader of the people"
For an article inspired by the Krichevskii-inspired (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html) Transitional Program, it totally fails to go into this part. The author fails to discuss how a shorter workweek can lead to participatory-democratic alternatives to the congressional system. :(