Is regulation preferable?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Klaus]

I voted yes. The revolution might come faster without regulation, but how many should be deliberately left to suffer under unregulated capitalism in the meantime? What sort of credibility could any workers' movement have unless it advocated on behalf of the workers?

The Scandinavian countries and Japan come to mind regarding regulation. Not ideal situations obviously, but I'd rather be in Sweden than Laos.

[Invincible Summer]

To play devil's advocate, the welfare state can make the working class complacent. Why would anyone want to revolt if they have universal health care and their superficial concerns taken care of?

[Klaus]

Thats a good point. I would agree on that. People who want to impose their so-called revolution on the working class have to bear in mind that it is the working class that will have to do the revolution. No working class without the basic needs like employment or health can make a revolution.

I'm not sure how true that is, since I think workers are more likely to make revolution when they don't have employment, etc. If their needs (as they perceive them) are being met, then they won't revolt. From my perspective it's just that unregulated capitalism leads to all manner of horrors, and if they can be reduced or minimized they should be.

This is the catch-22 of revolutionary leftism, and I'm glad you posted a thread on it. On the one hand revolution would be to the greater good, but on the other one has to consider the condition of workers in the present; I think the immediate conditions of workers have to take precedence over revolutionary ideals in this case.

[Klaus]

To play devil's advocate, the welfare state can make the working class complacent. Why would anyone want to revolt if they have universal health care and their superficial concerns taken care of?

This is true, however I think that even with reforms in place, the structural problems of capitalism remain. In the present economic crisis, Europe too has issues. Indeed, Europe has been the scene of far more "revolutionary" activity (in the form of riots and protests) than my own den of bourgeois iniquity, the USA, despite Europe's far more robust social systems.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would say that yes, definitely the left should be vigilant in working for reform (including regulation) in favor of the working class.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Umm... because of their elevated class consciousness.

Why do you think a person who does not have a job or a house will have the strength or patience to revolt against oppression? By opposing economic regulation, are we not in fact involved involved in going against the workers' welfare? Are we not for the welfare of workers?

Yeah, this is a definite truth.

There is absolutely no fact-based evidence to back up the claim that helping the working class in ways we can today will make it complacent. In fact, just the opposite has been shown to be true time and time again.

[Klaus]

Yeah, this is a definite truth.

There is absolutely no fact-based evidence to back up the claim that helping the working class in ways we can today will make it complacent. In fact, just the opposite has been shown to be true time and time again.

I think it would depend on the manner of help. As I mentioned above, from my vantage point there is far more consciousness in Europe compared to the US, but there is also more consciousness in Latin America. I'm not sure what makes the US so blind; I suspect it's a variety of factors.

[Invincible Summer]

Umm... because of their elevated class consciousness.

Why do you think a person who does not have a job or a house will have the strength or patience to revolt against oppression? By opposing economic regulation, are we not in fact involved involved in going against the workers' welfare? Are we not for the welfare of workers?

Like I said, I was playing Devil's Advocate to get the "other side" in.

[Charles Xavier]

It is the job of the revolutionary left to stand up for the working class, it is through the struggle for reforms that the working class learns its power.

[Coggeh]

It is the job of the revolutionary left to stand up for the working class, it is through the struggle for reforms that the working class learns its power.
Hit the nail right on the head here IMO . Theirs confusion about what makes workers radical . People think that good reforms weaken the conciousness but the opposite is true . Why are unions in France much stronger than those in the US for example . Because the working class are empowered their not complacent .

[Charles Xavier]

Hit the nail right on the head here IMO . Theirs confusion about what makes workers radical . People think that good reforms weaken the consciousness but the opposite is true . Why are unions in France much stronger than those in the US for example . Because the working class are empowered their not complacent .


Yes of course fatalism is one thing we must struggle against, the complacency , that nothing can be done so why even bother. First of all, reforms don't even happen unless there is a big push from the working class for them to happen, and it is through this struggle workers find they can actually win reforms if they struggle.

But also in reformist struggles workers learn the limitations, of reformism as a tactic.

Remember the Russian revolution of 1905, it was a reformist struggle, peasants came to address their concerns to the Tsar. Instead of addressing their complaints the Tsar opened fire. But it was through that struggle that the Russian Proletariat learned its lesson. And when the 1917 revolution occurred the workers knew what to do.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No. Regulation, that is to say, state capitalism is in no way 'preferable' or progressive. The era in which we live not only makes this the case, it makes regulation and state intervention a permanent characteristic and tendency of the capitalist economy.

[Pogue]

I chose neutral because sometimes the regulation is shit. Obviously social democracy is betetr on workers than free market capitalism but it'd be sutpid for revolutionaries to take side because we advocate neither.

[Charles Xavier]

I chose neutral because sometimes the regulation is shit. Obviously social democracy is betetr on workers than free market capitalism but it'd be sutpid for revolutionaries to take side because we advocate neither.

We advocate fair trade and nationalization of resources, a progressive income tax, a control board of imports and exports under state control and yes regulation.

[Niccolò Rossi]

We advocate fair trade and nationalization of resources, a progressive income tax, a control board of imports and exports under state control and yes regulation.

Of course you do, it's not like the official CP's lining up behind the state against the proletariat is anything new.

Maybe instead of stating facts you would care to justify the line (and no, not by just stating "Nationalisation is progressive, we support progressive movements under capitalism, therefore we support nationalisations", I mean actually explaining and justifying the position).

[Charles Xavier]

The fact is we are 100% in favour of elevating the position of the working class, both materially and socially under any system.

We do not want our brothers and sisters to suffer, under any system, including capitalism, so if that means reforms, we will take reforms. We do not believe the worse things are the better. That is a slogan of the Ultra-Left. My loyalty is to my class. I'd rather live in a social democratic bourgeoisie rule than a fascist one.

And if you don't think reforms lead to revolution you are shooting yourself in the foot. It is only through the struggle to gain reforms does the working class know what it can do. And it is through our dedicated struggle for the working class for reforms that the working class will follow us to revolution.

It is not reform or revolution. Its both.

We do not reject reforms, we reject reformism. We do not reject a minimum wage, we do not reject Unemployment insurance, we do not reject pensions, or an 8 hour work day, if you reject those reforms under capitalism you are siding with the bourgeoisie and not your own class. We do reject that capitalism will be rid of its injustices through simply reformism, we also reject class collaboration, and selling out.

Maybe you follow the slogan the worse things are the better things are. But it is a luxury of those not in the struggle to ask for those, the working class will spill no blood for "your" revolution, when you stand by those who betray us or preach apathy to their political and economic attacks apon our class. The working class will reject you and they will never follow you.

The bourgeoisie are only repressive when change threatens their rule. When change threatens their rules, when the working class have demanded too much for the bourgeoisie to handle and they aren't willing to bow down, that's when you see fascism and that's when you see a revolutionary change.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Thank you for your reply.


The fact is we are 100% in favour of elevating the position of the working class, both materially and socially under any system.

I would undoubtedly agree.


We do not want our brothers and sisters to suffer, under any system, including capitalism, so if that means reforms, we will take reforms.

Do you think it's possible to have a reformed capitalism without exploitation, oppression and suffering. This post seems to indicate that. Also, I find it interesting that you say "we" will take reforms. We will support reforms would be understandable, however to say that we will take reforms seems to indicate that you are only too happy to make decisions for the working class.


We do not believe the worse things are the better. That is a slogan of the Ultra-Left.

More pathetic slander. Either provide evidence of your assertion (that the slogan of the 'ultra-left' believe is "worse things are better") or retract your statement and apologise.


My loyalty is to my class. I'd rather live in a social democratic bourgeoisie rule than a fascist one.

Your loyalty to your class shows itself very clearly when you back the social democratic bourgeoisie.


And if you don't think reforms lead to revolution you are shooting yourself in the foot. It is only through the struggle to gain reforms does the working class know what it can do.Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The offensive and defensive struggle of the working class for it's immediate economic interests is both the school and the vehicle of revolution. The communist left accordingly support the working class in all of it's struggles as a class.

Where I would diverge is in your conclusion. I don't believe "reforms lead to revolution" because I don't believe real reform is possible today. I think the ICC has expressed this better than I can in their pamphlet "Unions against the Working Class":


The workers’ resistance under decadent capitalism can no longer escape the following two alternatives. Given the system’s drive for self-preservation, either the working class must accept the containment of its struggles within a purely economic terrain, thereby condemning its struggles to a total impasse since capitalism can no longer grant any meaningful economic reforms, or the working class must assert itself resolutely as a power in its own right.

[...]

There is no longer any possibility of conciliation between capital and labour. Their fundamental antagonism is, under decadent capitalism, pushed to its final limits. That is why any real working class struggle must inevitably and immediately pose itself as a political and revolutionary struggle.

[...]

Does this mean that the working class must abandon its economic struggles ... ? No, that point of view is not revolutionary. The proletariat is a class, a group of people who are defined according to economic criteria (i.e. the position they occupy in the process of production). Therefore to extol the virtues of abandoning its economic struggle means concretely to ask the working class to either abandon any struggle and remain passive in the face of its exploitation, or to immerse itself in all kinds of ‘non-class-based’ struggles [...]

Only people who have never understood why the working class is a revolutionary force can arrive at such a conclusion. [...] Like all revolutionary classes in history, the proletariat is led to destroy the ruling system only because its defence of its immediate interests objectively forces it to do so. And like any class, the proletariat’s interests are fundamentally economic. It is because the destruction of the capitalist system is the only way the working class has of avoiding ever - increasing degradations in its living conditions that its struggle for an improvement in its economic situation becomes a struggle for the destruction of the system itself.

The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is not, then, the negation of the economic nature of its struggle but the result of its total understanding of the reality of that struggle. In consciously embracing the political nature of its daily economic struggle, in deepening it to the point of fin*ally destroying the bourgeois state and establishing communist society, the proletariat never abandons its defence of its economic interests. Rather the proletariat takes upon itself all the meaning and all the consequences of that struggle. [...]

What the proletariat must abandon is not the economic nature of its struggle (an impossibility in any case if it is to fight as a class), but all its illusions in the future possibilities of successfully defending its interests, even its most immediate ones, without leaving the strictly econom*ic framework of struggles and without consciously adopting a political, global and revolutionary understanding of its struggle. Faced with the inevitable short-term failure of its defensive struggles under decadent capitalism, the class must conclude that it isn’t that these struggles are useless, but that the only way of making them useful to the proletarian cause is to understand them and consciously transform them into moments of learning and preparation for struggles which are more generalised, more organised, and more conscious of the inevitability of the proletariat’s final confrontation with the system of exploitation. In the era of capitalism’s decline, when the communist revolution is on the historical agenda, the effectiveness of the every day struggles of the working class can no longer be measured, or understood, in immediate terms. Their effectiveness can only be understood within the world historic perspective of the communist revolution.


We do not reject a minimum wage, we do not reject Unemployment insurance, we do not reject pensions, or an 8 hour work day, if you reject those reforms under capitalism you are siding with the bourgeoisie and not your own class.

I think the question to ask here is are these real reforms and where have they been born out in practice?


The bourgeoisie are only repressive when change threatens their rule.

Only!? Quite the contrary, capitalism survives today only by attacking the working class.


When change threatens their rules, when the working class have demanded too much for the bourgeoisie to handle and they aren't willing to bow down, that's when you see fascism and that's when you see a revolutionary change.

On this much I think we can find some common ground.

EDIT: I think it's important to make a distinction between reform in general and regulation. I think your post ignores this distinction.

[DancingLarry]

There's different types and even different meanings of "regulation". Just for one example, here's the article Demoradical vs. Demoliberal Regulation (http://www.metamute.org/en/demoradical-vs-demoliberal-regulation) by Alex Foti.

[robbo203]

Is economic regulation of private corporations by the government preferable to a system where no such regulation exists? If there were regulation, the capitalist economy could perhaps keep off economic collapse and prolong the revolution. On the other hand, if there were no regulation at all, it would be probable that a brutal tyranny of capital would result. A third way to think about it is to not go either way. Let the bourgeoisie do whatever, the working class will overthrow whichever system that is in place.

So, I'm not sure which one would benefit the revolution best, but tending towards being neutral. Any inputs?


This is false choice. We do NOT have to chose between one form of capitalism or another. This is what always seems to happen., however. The workers movement gets sucked (suckered) into supporting capitalism on the pretext that one way of managing capitalism is little more preferable - or a little less brutal - than another. This only serves to indefinitely postpone an alternative to capitalism

[Pogue]

The fact is we are 100% in favour of elevating the position of the working class, both materially and socially under any system.

We do not want our brothers and sisters to suffer, under any system, including capitalism, so if that means reforms, we will take reforms. We do not believe the worse things are the better. That is a slogan of the Ultra-Left. My loyalty is to my class. I'd rather live in a social democratic bourgeoisie rule than a fascist one.

And if you don't think reforms lead to revolution you are shooting yourself in the foot. It is only through the struggle to gain reforms does the working class know what it can do. And it is through our dedicated struggle for the working class for reforms that the working class will follow us to revolution.

It is not reform or revolution. Its both.

We do not reject reforms, we reject reformism. We do not reject a minimum wage, we do not reject Unemployment insurance, we do not reject pensions, or an 8 hour work day, if you reject those reforms under capitalism you are siding with the bourgeoisie and not your own class. We do reject that capitalism will be rid of its injustices through simply reformism, we also reject class collaboration, and selling out.

Maybe you follow the slogan the worse things are the better things are. But it is a luxury of those not in the struggle to ask for those, the working class will spill no blood for "your" revolution, when you stand by those who betray us or preach apathy to their political and economic attacks apon our class. The working class will reject you and they will never follow you.

The bourgeoisie are only repressive when change threatens their rule. When change threatens their rules, when the working class have demanded too much for the bourgeoisie to handle and they aren't willing to bow down, that's when you see fascism and that's when you see a revolutionary change.

I'm saying that as an anarchist I tend to have demands beyond 'Nationalise stuff' which would equate to a neo-liberal government/state assuming control instead of the workers. So its not what I advocate, and thus I wouldn't callf ro it because it doesn't solve the problem.

[Charles Xavier]

I think Marx answered this best through sarcasm. And I would like to make a quick correction, the Bourgeoisie does attack the workers at all times, not just when changes threatens their rule.

Okay the quote,

“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

“If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised. Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles."

-Marx (Political Indifferentism, 1873)

[ZeroNowhere]

I think Marx answered this best through sarcasm. And I would like to make a quick correction, the Bourgeoisie does attack the workers at all times, not just when changes threatens their rule.

Okay the quote,

“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!

“If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised. Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles."

-Marx (Political Indifferentism, 1873)
This generally doesn't answer the problem. The focus is on the struggle, and the power it was attributed to unite and strengthen the working class, whereas the reform being given not only helps a section of the working class, but also serves to fix, that is, freeze, the struggle for it. So basically, the point was an obligation to support struggles that increase the strength, unity and consciousness of the working class, but our aim is not to win or reject reforms, as communism, rather than reforms or immiseration, is our aim. Of course, M+E also saw those reforms as leading to the proletariat continuing struggle, therefore building consciousness and strength until they destroy private property altogether. However, turning the fight into purely one focused on winning reforms isn't an especially healthy experience. Just to spite rs2k, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
So, in conclusion, our role lies not in simply fighting for reforms, which are given to freeze working class struggle, but to fight in order to keep the candle burning and melt the ice, and support working class struggles that lead to increased consciousness, unity and strength of our class, as while regulation may be better for the workers, its purpose is to end struggles, and they are soon enough picked away at if this succeeds. Therefore, the struggle for concessions is important, whether successful or not, and the result takes a backseat.


I don't believe "reforms lead to revolution" because I don't believe real reform is possible today.
Yes, of course they don't. However, when it comes to 'real reform', the ICC never seems to be able to come up with a comprehensive definition of this. Also, one of their most stated examples, the decrease in the working day, was done due to increase in productivity. This still applies, of course. For example, in Belgium from 1960 to 1973, there was an 11% decrease in the work day, due to the fact that workers could, in 1973, make the same amount of products in 43% less of the time compared to 1960. The purpose of the shortening was the increasing intensification of labour, and therefore of the increased profitability of it. As Marx said in Capital:
"Given that any animal force's capacity for action is inversely proportionate to the time during which it is active, at certain limits one gains in efficiency what one loses in duration (...) The enormous impulse that the shortening of the working day gives to the development of mechanical systems and to cost-cutting obliges the worker also, by making more of an effort, to provide greater activity over the same period and thus to condense the work to a degree that he would never have been able to reach without this shortening.
"There is no doubt that the tendancy of capital to save itself by the systematic intensification of labour and to transform every perfectioning of the mechanical system into a new means of exploitation must lead to the point where a further reduction in working hours becomes inevitable."

So basically, it was done to increase profits, rather than because it was some mystical ascendant period of capitalism that meant that the workers could have more of an effective protest. Also, since 1914, the work day has still decreased. Back when the reform was granted, they were still working 5 or 6 days a week without too many holidays, IIRC. Now there are more, and therefore a decrease in the working day again, surely a 'real' reform? Also maternity leave, etc. Also, would the EU working directive count as a 'real reform'? Generally, ICC dicussions on the topic of 'real reforms' tend to break into discussions of 'reality' and 'duration', and, hell, I don't see why one would proclaim that only economic reforms are 'real', whatever the fuck that means.

[Charles Xavier]

If you are worried that reforms will make the Working class compliant, I tell you capitalism will make sure they aren't. Whether it be through crisis or imperialist wars. Capitalism is a system of inequality and crisis. The working class will always be thrown into struggle until socialism.

[TheCagedLion]

So some people actually prefer no change to some positive change?

Following the revleft standard, wouldn't that classify as reactionary?

[swirling_vortex]

As much as I hate greedy bureaucrats getting their grubby hands into our problems, the current state of capitalism is improved compared to the one from the 1800s, where there was no form of compensation and people had to work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. While we should all be cautious of the federal government promising change, that doesn't mean we should give up the fight on essential services like universal health care. If we choose revolution over reform all the time, then our message isn't going to go anywhere and nothing gets accomplished.

[DancingLarry]

If we choose revolution over reform all the time, then our message isn't going to go anywhere and nothing gets accomplished.

OTOH, if you choose reformism over revolution all the time, you end up exactly where we are now, without either. With no threat, even one veiled and backgrounded, of revolution, then there is NO reason in the world for the bourgeoisie to concede even the tiniest reform that doesn't immediately and substantively advance their own class interests.

[Devrim]

Yes, of course they don't. However, when it comes to 'real reform', the ICC never seems to be able to come up with a comprehensive definition of this. Also, one of their most stated examples, the decrease in the working day, was done due to increase in productivity. This still applies, of course. For example, in Belgium from 1960 to 1973, there was an 11% decrease in the work day, due to the fact that workers could, in 1973, make the same amount of products in 43% less of the time compared to 1960. The purpose of the shortening was the increasing intensification of labour, and therefore of the increased profitability of it. As Marx said in Capital:
"Given that any animal force's capacity for action is inversely proportionate to the time during which it is active, at certain limits one gains in efficiency what one loses in duration (...) The enormous impulse that the shortening of the working day gives to the development of mechanical systems and to cost-cutting obliges the worker also, by making more of an effort, to provide greater activity over the same period and thus to condense the work to a degree that he would never have been able to reach without this shortening.
"There is no doubt that the tendancy of capital to save itself by the systematic intensification of labour and to transform every perfectioning of the mechanical system into a new means of exploitation must lead to the point where a further reduction in working hours becomes inevitable."

So basically, it was done to increase profits, rather than because it was some mystical ascendant period of capitalism that meant that the workers could have more of an effective protest. Also, since 1914, the work day has still decreased. Back when the reform was granted, they were still working 5 or 6 days a week without too many holidays, IIRC. Now there are more, and therefore a decrease in the working day again, surely a 'real' reform? Also maternity leave, etc. Also, would the EU working directive count as a 'real reform'? Generally, ICC dicussions on the topic of 'real reforms' tend to break into discussions of 'reality' and 'duration', and, hell, I don't see why one would proclaim that only economic reforms are 'real', whatever the fuck that means.

I am not sure what you are really arguing here. Yes the ICC says that permanent significant economic reforms are impossible in the present period. I think that is true, and I don't think that there can be any real argument about it. In my opinion it is one of the most anal things that we do say.


Also, since 1914, the work day has still decreased. Back when the reform was granted, they were still working 5 or 6 days a week without too many holidays, IIRC. Now there are more, and therefore a decrease in the working day again, surely a 'real' reform?

Has it? I remember being involved in a strike back in the 80s when I was working in London. At the time we worked a six day 43 hour week. We won a six day 41½ hour week.

So firstly despite all of the talk about how everyone has an eight hour day, this is just a lie.

As for the permanence of these reforms when won, let's look to the French example;


Between 1936 and 1938 the Popular Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_%28France%29) enacted a law mandating 12 days (2 weeks) each year of paid vacation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacation) for workers, and a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matignon_Accords_%281936%29) limiting the work week to 40 hours, excluding overtime. The Grenelle accords (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accords_de_Grenelle) negotiated on May 25th and 26th in the middle of the May 1968 crisis, reduced the working week to 44 hours and created trade union sections in each enterprise.

So it was reduced to 40 hours in 1938 and then reduced to 44 hours in 1968. It sounds like something out of 1984.

The reality is of course that whatever gains workers make are attacked by the bosses as soon as the chance arises.


This still applies, of course. For example, in Belgium from 1960 to 1973, there was an 11% decrease in the work day, due to the fact that workers could, in 1973, make the same amount of products in 43% less of the time compared to 1960. The purpose of the shortening was the increasing intensification of labour, and therefore of the increased profitability of it.

So yes the rate of exploitation of course increases. This is necessary as the rate of profit falls. But what is the length of the working day in Belgium today? There is a balance between time worked and quality of work done. When you work 14 hour shifts the quality of your work is pretty poor by the end. Of course the bosses what to optimise this.

There was an interesting discussion though at the recent conference of the ICC section in Turkey. Some sympathisers who had been invited to the conference, and who in my opinion are quite influenced by Trotskyism, raised the question of transitional demands. There was a discussion on this topic and when asked to give an example of what they thought a transitional demand was today, they said that we should call for a six hour five day week with no loss in pay. Do you think this type of reform is possible?

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

I am not sure what you are really arguing here. Yes the ICC says that permanent significant economic reforms are impossible in the present period. I think that is true, and I don't think that there can be any real argument about it. In my opinion it is one of the most anal things that we do say.
My main problem here is with the argument that the reductions in the working day were due to some kind of 'ascendant' period of capitalism.
Another issue I have is the ICC claiming that the rise of state capitalism in the USSR (the specific form of heightened state control), etc, was somehow due to capitalism entering its decadent phase. I mean, the only possible link one could find here is the fact that WWI was a major cause of the two revolutions, but I don't think that one could argue that the reason that the transitional government didn't leave the war was due to capitalism being decadent, so the link seems somewhat manufactured. Also, the government was most certainly authoritarian during the period of 'ascendance', perhaps even more so in places, for example, practices enforcing segregation of blacks and whites, and most other legislation involving blacks, and relationships between them and whites. Then there's the things about art in the decadent period, which, as I have already said, does not only resemble an excessive amount of economic determinism, but is also a load of crap.
There's also stuff like saying that the decadent phase of capitalism is a phase of proletarian revolution ('era of social revolution', was it?) and such, even though there haven't been any ('revolution' implies success) (I realize that the ICC would probably disagree on this, but even they would only acknowledge what, one?), and there were more uprisings during the beginning of capitalism. Then there's this, "The zenith of a society constitutes its limit. It corresponds in effect to that period wherein men are best able to obtain the maximum development of their material wealth given the existing level of technology, and the presence of certain social relationships. It is this degree of development which marks a certain stopping point." It should at least be reworded, since I'm hoping that the ICC don't proclaim that the maximum development of material wealth took place in 1914. There's also the apparent ignoring of the Panic of '73 and crisis of 1890 to 1900. And hell, far from capital being willing and able to hand out reforms, we had the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the Homestead Strike, and the Pullman Strike.
Also, your idea is neither provable nor disprovable, it would seem. Can you name a permanent reform? Presumably the ICC has a crystal ball. If not, then what measure of time is used to indicate the 'reality' of a reform? If there is one, then isn't it completely arbitrary? And then there's the even more obvious subjective factor of 'significance'. I generally would think that a theory intended to be objective would be less subjective.


The reality is of course that whatever gains workers make are attacked by the bosses as soon as the chance arises.
This isn't really new, and I don't see how this only begun after or around 1914. Hell, even back in 1848, M+E pointed out, "Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers." Of course, some socialists seem to have not really thought about the second sentence (see all of the talk here about how socialists should be 'fighting for reforms', and the crap raised by some Trots elsewhere about how socialists are the 'best reformists', as opposed to the 'best fighters').


When you work 14 hour shifts the quality of your work is pretty poor by the end. Of course the bosses what to optimise this.
Well, yes, the main motivation behind the decreasing working day was to increase productivity, and therefore the rate of exploitation.


So it was reduced to 40 hours in 1938 and then reduced to 44 hours in 1968. It sounds like something out of 1984.
:D
That is brilliant. I wonder if Obama'll ever be able to beat that (though the liberals will most certainly be cheering louder than me if he does).
This also confirms that prose on Wikipedia is more exciting than Orwell's.
I wonder what will happen with France's current 35-hour week legislation.


Has it? I remember being involved in a strike back in the 80s when I was working in London. At the time we worked a six day 43 hour week. We won a six day 41½ hour week.
Well, of course. Hell, the UK government even got out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/02/business.worklifebalance) of the EU working time directive for a 48 hour week. Though, if I recall correctly, there has certainly been an increase in paid holidays (at least in developed countries) since 1914.


There was a discussion on this topic and when asked to give an example of what they thought a transitional demand was today, they said that we should call for a six hour five day week with no loss in pay. Do you think this type of reform is possible?
When it comes to 'transitional demands', as well as 'minimum programs', I think that they're a load of bollocks in general. But then again, I'm a De Leonist, so I suppose that I should be saying something that wasn't obvious.
Anyways, is it possible? Well, now, probably not. Hell, only around 28% of service sector workers work 30 hours or less, I believe. If it were possible, it wouldn't be a good 'transitional demand', presumably. Then again, it's not an especially original idea, really, Kellogg's already done it, "The efficiency and morale of our employees is so increased, the accident and insurance rates are so improved, and the unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight." Ford's statements on reducing work time was similar, though with a different reduction, "Now we know from our experience in changing from six to five days and back again that we can get at least as great production in five days as we can in six, and we shall probably get greater, for the pressure will bring better methods."
For now, the day seems to be relatively optimum for most capitalists, and during the crisis some capitalists are even trying the oldest trick in the book, that is, increasing work time to increase the rate of exploitation. I doubt that a 6 hour work day would survive a crisis if implemented soon. Certainly, it's less major and obviously beneficial in terms of productivity than, say, the reducing of the working day from working people to death, so I wouldn't see it being implemented any time soon.

I suppose that I shall end on a Frank Girard (RIP) quote: "But the SLP in the U.S., the SPGB in England, and the Left Communists elsewhere did not oppose reforms and reformism on the basis of whether capitalism had the capacity to grant reforms but rather because they recognized the motives of the capitalists and the reformers: to buy labor peace and a more stable work force."

[Devrim]

My main problem here is with the argument that the reductions in the working day were due to some kind of 'ascendant' period of capitalism.

I think that what you have done is taken an example of what we consider to be a general tendency, and turned it into a rule. Of course part of the reason for reductions in the working day was actually to increase the level of exploitation. That isn't all that there was to it though.


Another issue I have is the ICC claiming that the rise of state capitalism in the USSR (the specific form of heightened state control), etc, was somehow due to capitalism entering its decadent phase. I mean, the only possible link one could find here is the fact that WWI was a major cause of the two revolutions, but I don't think that one could argue that the reason that the transitional government didn't leave the war was due to capitalism being decadent, so the link seems somewhat manufactured.

I don't think that the thing about state capitalism is specific to the USSR. We argue that there was a general tendency towards state capitalism, I think that this can be seen in countries as varied as the US under the 'New Deal', Hitler's germany, and Stalin's Russia.


Also, the government was most certainly authoritarian during the period of 'ascendance', perhaps even more so in places, for example, practices enforcing segregation of blacks and whites, and most other legislation involving blacks, and relationships between them and whites.

But then we never said that it wasn't.


Then there's the things about art in the decadent period, which, as I have already said, does not only resemble an excessive amount of economic determinism, but is also a load of crap.

You don't have to hold those sort positions on art to be in the ICC. The section in the ICC platform on decadence is quite short. Read it and see if there is anything you disagree with:
http://en.internationalism.org/node/608
ICC members hold very differing ideas about art 'under decadence' including mine, which is that I am not interested enough to even talk about it.


There's also stuff like saying that the decadent phase of capitalism is a phase of proletarian revolution ('era of social revolution', was it?) and such, even though there haven't been any ('revolution' implies success) (I realize that the ICC would probably disagree on this, but even they would only acknowledge what, one?), and there were more uprisings during the beginning of capitalism.

This is an interesting point. I think that the working class evolving the weapon of the mass strike and creating workers' councils opens the revolutionary period. You could date that to about the turn of the century (1904-5?).

This happened at the same time that capitalism had reached the point where its drive for imperialist expansion no longer only brought it into conflict with people with much lower levels of war technology, but directly with the other major imperialist powers.

The fact that the workers had developed their new lessons though only means that revolution is possible, not inevitable.


Also, your idea is neither provable nor disprovable, it would seem. Can you name a permanent reform? Presumably the ICC has a crystal ball. If not, then what measure of time is used to indicate the 'reality' of a reform? If there is one, then isn't it completely arbitrary? And then there's the even more obvious subjective factor of 'significance'. I generally would think that a theory intended to be objective would be less subjective.

But then you have elevated it to a 'theory' whereas I just think that it one, quite basic idea, which is nearly so banal that it is a truism.

Just to touch on a couple of your other points:


I wonder what will happen with France's current 35-hour week legislation.


The 35 hours was the legal standard limit, after which further working time was to be considered overtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime). The law has since been substantially weakened and exceptions have become established.

Well that didn't come as a surprise, really.


Well, of course. Hell, the UK government even got out (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/02/business.worklifebalance) of the EU working time directive for a 48 hour week. Though, if I recall correctly, there has certainly been an increase in paid holidays (at least in developed countries) since 1914.

Which I would say is very much covered by your argument about the need to decrease hours in order to increase production.


I suppose that I shall end on a Frank Girard (RIP) quote: "But the SLP in the U.S., the SPGB in England, and the Left Communists elsewhere did not oppose reforms and reformism on the basis of whether capitalism had the capacity to grant reforms but rather because they recognized the motives of the capitalists and the reformers: to buy labor peace and a more stable work force."

When is this from. I would imagine Frank said this in the late 60s.

Devrim