IWW and compatability with Marxist parties

[bellyscratch]

I'm just wondering if it is conceivable to be in the IWW and some sort of Marxist party at the same time. I know the IWW is based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, but it is not officially an anarchist organisation so to speak.

Say if I did come around to joining a Marxist party, what problems am I likely to come across?

I don't see myself as either Marxist or anarchist, but basically see myself as somewhere overlapping both ideologies. To be effective am I going have to go down one path or the other?


If you haven't already grasped it, I'm heading into a bit of confusion at the moment :rolleyes:

[Pogue]

I'm just wondering if it is conceivable to be in the IWW and some sort of Marxist party at the same time. I know the IWW is based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, but it is not officially an anarchist organisation so to speak.

Say if I did come around to joining a Marxist party, what problems am I likely to come across?

I don't see myself as either Marxist or anarchist, but basically see myself as somewhere overlapping both ideologies. To be effective am I going have to go down one path or the other?


If you haven't already grasped it, I'm heading into a bit of confusion at the moment :rolleyes:

Heres where our constitution deals with this:



c) No member of the Industrial Workers of the World shall be an officer of a trade or craft union or political party.....Exceptions may be made by the branches to allow unpaid officers of political parties to become members.




16. Political Parties: The Regional Organizing Committee shall not seek to build links with any political party or anti-political sect or organization save that branches or groups of the union may co-ordinate activities with any organization sympathetic to the broad aims of the Union.


To what ends would you want to be in a party and the IWW? Do you envisage some sort of joint political-industrial strategy or would you be in the Wobs for what it could give you as a worker and you also want a party for the political element?

Explicitly anarcho-syndcialist organisations have much the same rules. Many marxists see our unions as tools they can use/hijack for their own purposes, especially the Wobs, so we have to be ready to avoid becoming some form of front group.

[Colonello Buendia]

The IWW isn't organised along explicitly anarchist lines. the key tenet of IWW theory is that there should be one big Union covering all areas of employment. this means that if one sector is attacked all other areas can go on strike. this is embodied by the slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" this makes a general strike easier.
So long as you agree with the preamble:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.




There are however some sections who don't appreciate non anarchos, they take a more dogmatic CNT spain approach on things.


In conclusion join up if you agree with the above.

[Invariance]

Originally Posted by IWW Constitution
c) No member of the Industrial Workers of the World shall be an officer of a trade or craft union or political party.....Exceptions may be made by the branches to allow unpaid officers of political parties to become members. Yet, what about this (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7320)?
Sheridan betrays his own workers

In this article, Manny Neira reports and personally comments on the dispute between IWW and NUJ Scottish Parliamentary workers, and the MSPs who employed them.
As Christmas approaches, eleven workers at the Scottish Parliament face broken contracts and unemployment in the new year, courtesy of self-proclaimed champions of the Scottish working class, Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne.

They are both MSPs, Sheridan being the only candidate for the Scottish Socialist Party elected when the parliament was founded in 1999, and Byrne one of five more who joined him after the second election in 2003.

Their party has been torn by a bitter dispute, centred around Sheridan's leadership, and a legal action he took against the News of the World when the paper made allegations about his private life. The rancour ended in Sheridan and Byrne's resignation from the SSP, and their founding of a new party called Solidarity.

This is recounted by way of background: the IWW has taken no side between these groups, and their members are clearly entitled to align themselves as they choose.
What they are not entitled to do, however, is make their parliamentary staff pay the price. The SSP group of six MSP's originally employed thirteen workers, promising them work until the next election in 2007 on wages paid from their pooled parliamentary allowances. Sheridan and Byrne have now withdrawn their support from this fund, and though two of the workers have switched employment to the new group, there is not enough money left to pay the remaining eleven for the rest of their contracts.
They are therefore placed in an impossible position: forced to choose between having their employment transferred to the new group against their will, and losing their jobs over a political split they did not precipitate. Meanwhile, Sheridan and Byrne now fund their parliamentary work with money taken straight from the pockets of the workers they themselves employed.

Five of the workers are members of the Industrial Workers of the World, while others are members of the National Union of Journalists, and though both unions have written to Sheridan and Byrne on these workers' behalf, so far neither have made any offer to honour their agreements.

The four remaining SSP MSPs - including Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie who are also members of the IWW - have expressed their full support for the workers whose future hangs in the balance, and are also attempting to intervene with Sheridan and Byrne, and the Scottish Parliament itself, which facilitated the withdrawal of payments: but so far equally without result.

The IWW has made it clear that it takes no interest in the political differences between the MSPs: but is demanding that it should not be resolved at the expense of the workers they collectively employed. This report has focused on Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne because these are the MSPs who are withholding payment. However, the workers' claim is against them all: and it is difficult to avoid the observation that any politician claiming to represent working people would do well to first treat their own workers fairly.

The IWW had parliamentarians of the SSP and the workers they employed? In other words, they had both bosses and workers in the IWW?

[Pogue]

I've heard about that case before. It all occured before I joined and I'm not active in Scotland so I don't know much about it, but I'll find out what that was all about. All I know is what the constitution says, and I agree with the constitution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But it's not always followed. There are a lot of opportunists and reformists in the IWW that will wrangle and squirm their way around until they find a loophole or exception that allows this sort of thing.

To answer the original question, you can belong to a party and the IWW at the same time - as long as the party allows it.

I belonged to the IWW until recently. Others belonging to "Marxist" parties have as well. AFAIK, a few still do.

[Pogue]

But it's not always followed. There are a lot of opportunists and reformists in the IWW that will wrangle and squirm their way around until they find a loophole or exception that allows this sort of thing.

To answer the original question, you can belong to a party and the IWW at the same time - as long as the party allows it.

I belonged to the IWW until recently. Others belonging to "Marxist" parties have as well. AFAIK, a few still do.

I haven't met any of these people.

[x359594]

In the US many Wobs belong to the Socialist Party USA. Previous posts have clarified the IWW's relationship to political parties very succinctly.

[thejambo1]

the IWW is not affiliated to any parties or groups so you can join and be a member of a marxist party,its not a problem, so dont fret about it.

[Magdalen]

c) No member of the Industrial Workers of the World shall be an officer of a trade or craft union or political party.....Exceptions may be made by the branches to allow unpaid officers of political parties to become members.

It would appear that this rule is inconsistently applied at the very least. The only IWW member I've spoken to in Dundee was a member of the SSP and the French 'Communist' Party. However, I've met people who have observed that the IWW in Glasgow is an incredibly rigid and sectarian organisation. I guess the make-up of the IWW varies from branch to branch.

[Pogue]

It would appear that this rule is inconsistently applied at the very least. The only IWW member I've spoken to in Dundee was a member of the SSP and the French 'Communist' Party. However, I've met people who have observed that the IWW in Glasgow is an incredibly rigid and sectarian organisation. I guess the make-up of the IWW varies from branch to branch.

Certainly. But I still feel obliged to look into it. Because I'm only active in London I can't talk for other groups.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In the US many Wobs belong to the Socialist Party USA.

Which tells quite a lot.


I haven't met any of these people.So? What does that have to do with anything?

I haven't met any people that praise the foot reading reincarnation of Jesus Christ and the Buddha, but they still exist (http://www.oddee.com/item_67909.aspx).

The proof is in the pudding.

It's obvious that such people exist. That's why things happen as they do. It's also a big part of why the IWW is what it is today.

[Pogue]

So? What does that have to do with anything?

I haven't met any people that praise the foot reading reincarnation of Jesus Christ and the Buddha, but they still exist (http://www.oddee.com/item_67909.aspx).

The proof is in the pudding.

It's obvious that such people exist. That's why things happen as they do. It's also a big part of why the IWW is what it is today.

I was saying I haven't met any such people. You've said you have.

I don't see how this proves they exist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How else do you think Scottish MPs were allowed to remain in the IWW?

[Pogue]

How else do you think Scottish MPs were allowed to remain in the IWW?

I'd have to ask the Scottish members their motivations with regards to this.

[Forward Union]

I'm just wondering if it is conceivable to be in the IWW and some sort of Marxist party at the same time. I know the IWW is based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, but it is not officially an anarchist organisation so to speak.

Say if I did come around to joining a Marxist party, what problems am I likely to come across?

I don't see myself as either Marxist or anarchist, but basically see myself as somewhere overlapping both ideologies. To be effective am I going have to go down one path or the other?

You can be in the IWW and a marxist party with the exceptions that El Quico added.

The original IWW in the UK had a dual card agreement with the old Communist partys NSSN back in the early 1900s!

[Forward Union]

How else do you think Scottish MPs were allowed to remain in the IWW?

I know there are members of the Scottish National Party in the IWW, but I don't know any MPs (!) Scottish MPS don't count anyway :lol:

[x359594]

Which tells quite a lot...It's also a big part of why the IWW is what it is today.

What does it tell? Also, can you describe, in detail, the nature of the part to which you refer? These assertations aren't self-evident.

[bellyscratch]

To what ends would you want to be in a party and the IWW? Do you envisage some sort of joint political-industrial strategy or would you be in the Wobs for what it could give you as a worker and you also want a party for the political element?


I'm not saying I definatley want to be in a political party, but just want to see the general attitudes that exist if I saw it as something I wanted to do or if it would be worthwhile being in both as a strategy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To what ends would you want to be in a party and the IWW? Do you envisage some sort of joint political-industrial strategy or would you be in the Wobs for what it could give you as a worker and you also want a party for the political element?

Explicitly anarcho-syndcialist organisations have much the same rules. Many marxists see our unions as tools they can use/hijack for their own purposes, especially the Wobs, so we have to be ready to avoid becoming some form of front group.

Thanks for pointing out the historical bankruptcy of pure syndicalism (and anti-party politics in general) by quoting the IWW's constitution, by the way. :)

I think that class-strugglists should consider "entering" the woefully apolitical IWW and International Workers Association / AIT in droves to drive the pure syndicalists towards more clandestine syndicalist groups.

[Pogue]

Thanks for pointing out the historical bankruptcy of pure syndicalism (and anti-party politics in general) by quoting the IWW's constitution, by the way. :)

I think that class-strugglists should consider "entering" the woefully apolitical IWW and International Workers Association / AIT in droves to drive the pure syndicalists towards more clandestine syndicalist groups.

I don't think I did that but your the freak who wants to restrict abortions and ally with fascists so when did I ever expect anything coherent from you.

I'm not a 'pure syndicalist' by the way and many Wobs are. We view the IWW in a fundamentally different way from alot of Wobs before us did.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the US many Wobs belong to the Socialist Party USA. Previous posts have clarified the IWW's relationship to political parties very succinctly.

All the IWW members I have met have basically said that there is no problem with belonging to the IWW as well as another group.

I think the IWW could play a big role in the near-future. Organizing places like Starbucks is fucking fantastic and just as the CIO was able to organize industrial workers in the 30s, an IWW helping to organize service workers I think could help revitalize the entire labor movement and revitalize industrial unionism too.

Business-unionism has lead us to such a bad place basically we are back to a point not unlike the times when the IWW was originally formed. I still think it is important for radicals to organize within the existing trade unions if that exists in their workplace, but the IWW can potentially show other workers in practice what solidarity, militancy, and independance can achieve.

[Colonello Buendia]

It would appear that this rule is inconsistently applied at the very least. The only IWW member I've spoken to in Dundee was a member of the SSP and the French 'Communist' Party. However, I've met people who have observed that the IWW in Glasgow is an incredibly rigid and sectarian organisation. I guess the make-up of the IWW varies from branch to branch.
I'm involved with IWW Glasgow myself and I would say that while the members are primarily anarchists, there isn't any attempt to make non anarchists feel uncomfortable.

[Colonello Buendia]

I don't think I did that but your the freak who wants to restrict abortions and ally with fascists so when did I ever expect anything coherent from you.

I'm not a 'pure syndicalist' by the way and many Wobs are. We view the IWW in a fundamentally different way from alot of Wobs before us did.


Ignore him, he just likes to use the words he learns from reading communist books while the rest of us actually do stuff

[Manzil]

A friend of mine is an IWWer yet has been involved with the US Greens and, via his college, even the Democrats (I don't understand either). If there are restrictions I've not seen them enforced particularly rigidly...

[Magdalen]

I'm involved with IWW Glasgow myself and I would say that while the members are primarily anarchists, there isn't any attempt to make non anarchists feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps I've been misinformed, I don't have any first hand experience of your Glasgow branch.

[redarmyfaction38]

I'm just wondering if it is conceivable to be in the IWW and some sort of Marxist party at the same time. I know the IWW is based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, but it is not officially an anarchist organisation so to speak.

Say if I did come around to joining a Marxist party, what problems am I likely to come across?

I don't see myself as either Marxist or anarchist, but basically see myself as somewhere overlapping both ideologies. To be effective am I going have to go down one path or the other?


If you haven't already grasped it, I'm heading into a bit of confusion at the moment :rolleyes:
iww will accept you as a member regardless of being communist or socialist rather than anarchist.
they really don't have a problem with it, honestly, they are good comrades, i don't always agree with them, but i understand what they are trying to do and create and they have a proud history.....
talk to them.

[Devrim]

I think that class-strugglists should consider "entering" the woefully apolitical IWW and International Workers Association / AIT in droves to drive the pure syndicalists towards more clandestine syndicalist groups.
Jacob, do you know anything at all about the AIT? Most of it's member organizations are not unions but small anarchist propoganda groups.
Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

All the more easier for, ahem, "entry." ;)

[Forward Union]

All the more easier for, ahem, "entry." ;)

I think the idea that the IWW should join the AIT is ridiculous. It's not Anarcho-Syndicalist for one thing. But more importantly, it's a-political nature is literally integral to it's overall praxis (base unionism and dual carding), which I see as an incredibly important tool in the class struggle in Britain.

[genstrike]

Regarding the OP: I don't see why it wouldn't be a problem as long as you aren't an officer in the party.





I think that class-strugglists should consider "entering" the woefully apolitical IWW and International Workers Association / AIT in droves to drive the pure syndicalists towards more clandestine syndicalist groups.

You know, as a wob, I would be concerned about this kind of entryist wrecker behavior if I thought for a second you did anything other than be ridiculously pedantic on the internet and would actually go through with it.

[Bitter Ashes]

This is from the 2008 BIROC constitution. I havent been sent the newest version yet as it only got updated a few weeks ago sorry.

16. POLITICAL PARTIES
The Regional Organizing Committee shall not seek to
build links with any political party or anti-political sect
or organization save that branches or groups of the
union may co-ordinate activities with any organization
sympathetic to the broad aims of the Union.So, on a group and branch level the IWW is very willing to work with parties. It's just that the ROC doesnt grant special treatment to non-Wobblies who are part of a political party.

Furthermore, membership is open to everyone, so long as they are not employers. You sign a declaration when you join stating that you are a worker and not an employer when you join. Obviously, that's not foolproof, but I cant imagine too many Wobblies wanting to go sluthing in the bushes to check up on all thier members. If you're a Wobbly then you've got an equal say to anyone else in how things are run regardless of where your motivations are drawn from.

It does suprise me to see that there is not a bigger membership actualy, as I do see the IWW as a great tool for uniting both the leftists and the working class behind a common banner and actualy offer practical and tangible solutions to overthrowing capitalism, which as far as I'm aware, seems to be unique in this day and age.

[Colonello Buendia]

Perhaps I've been misinformed, I don't have any first hand experience of your Glasgow branch.
It's possible, or maybe I haven't noticed the bias

[Forward Union]

It does suprise me to see that there is not a bigger membership actualy

Part of the problem is that it's seen as an Anarchist organisation by many dedicated and militant trade unionists, who would otherwise join. It needs to be made clear; the IWW is not Anarchist, never has been and never wil be. We need to pro-actively distance it from Anarchism aesthetically. I mean, while I very much like the Red and Black flag, it's not appropriate for the IWW. We are non-political and have a specific strategy that does not involve political unionism.

That said I don't see the IWWs politics as being at odds with Anarchism, or Marxism for that matter, and I am really glad the IWW has such a large Anarchist membership!. If people want a fighting union, they should participate in the IWW regardless of their specific views on this or that matter. It's an industrial union for all workers, not a political one for anarcho whatevers (The IWW has historically had very strong links with the Leninist left btw) I am simply concered that it's seen as exclusively Anarcho, and so would encourage more Marxist trade unionists to participate.

I was glad that the Wob bloc on the March 28th demo ditched the Anarcho-look as well, though I am not sure we should stay with the multi-colour look. I am also glad it showed the strength it did. We owned the demo imo, reflecting our massive growth over the last few years.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/973/n5673167022265238131880.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/n5673167022265238131880.jpg/)

[Forward Union]

Perhaps I've been misinformed, I don't have any first hand experience of your Glasgow branch.

Get some :cool:

[thejambo1]

i must admit i wasnt overly fond of the pastel flags,we had them at the edinburgh mayday march,they were a bit too fey for me.:(

[mikelepore]

The problem with the IWW is they foresee the day when the workers' industrial organization will take possesion of the means of production, while the capitalists will still be the legal owners, so that the capitalists will have the power of the police and the army to suppress the workers. The IWW constitution doesn't get into a discussion of the scenario, but IWW leaflets, pamphlets and newspaper articles make the argument that a general strike will be a sufficient means to prevent suppression of the workers by the state. That is quite a huge assumption, but it is stated as a fact. The Marxist position, of course, is that the workers must have their own delegation in control of the state, the capitalists will no longer be the legal owners of the industries, and then if law enforcement does anything it will be for the workers and against the capitalists. The IWW leaves a hole here in their theory.

[Bitter Ashes]

The problem with the IWW is they foresee the day when the workers' industrial organization will take possesion of the means of production, while the capitalists will still be the legal owners, so that the capitalists will have the power of the police and the army to suppress the workers. The IWW constitution doesn't get into a discussion of the scenario, but IWW leaflets, pamphlets and newspaper articles make the argument that a general strike will be a sufficient means to prevent suppression of the workers by the state. That is quite a huge assumption, but it is stated as a fact. The Marxist position, of course, is that the workers must have their own delegation in control of the state, the capitalists will no longer be the legal owners of the industries, and then if law enforcement does anything it will be for the workers and against the capitalists. The IWW leaves a hole here in their theory.
Ah, you're seeming to miss the fundamental aspect of the IWW here. The constitution is universal, everything else is totaly decentralised and decieded by the members of the individual groups, even to the extent of by-laws for those groups. The only restriction is that it does not go against the constitution.

So, if one branch publishes a leaflet saying the stuff you've seen, then all that indictates is, if the constitution doesnt say otherwise, is that particular branch's members have voted in agreement to those leaflets.

Of course, all that could change with the changes in membership. If a tonne of Trotskyists joined an IWW branch then suddenly it behaves like a Trotskyist branch. In theory, the IWW could even go mainstream if a reformist majority entered it. So, it can swing around pretty radically due to its flexability.

So, my best advice to you is that if you dont like how the IWW is operating... join up and get involved in the debates and voting of how it runs. So long as the constitution is upheld, then you're perfectly welcome to do that. This is the beauty of direct democracy, anyone can get involved and make a change. :)

Anyway, seeing as though what you've stated is not actualy IWW "doctorine" (we dont have any as I've explained above), I will wont derail the debate by defending the ideoligies of individual Wobblies. :)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The problem with the IWW is they foresee the day when the workers' industrial organization will take possesion of the means of production, while the capitalists will still be the legal owners, so that the capitalists will have the power of the police and the army to suppress the workers. The IWW constitution doesn't get into a discussion of the scenario, but IWW leaflets, pamphlets and newspaper articles make the argument that a general strike will be a sufficient means to prevent suppression of the workers by the state. That is quite a huge assumption, but it is stated as a fact. The Marxist position, of course, is that the workers must have their own delegation in control of the state, the capitalists will no longer be the legal owners of the industries, and then if law enforcement does anything it will be for the workers and against the capitalists. The IWW leaves a hole here in their theory.
And the problem with what you call the Marxist position (I wouldn't call it that, plenty of Marxists have more sense) is that it presumes that "law enforcement" and "the state" are completely neutral bodies that'll just do whatever the legally elected government wants, and not behave in the way they did in Spain 36, Chile 73, or any of the other countries where the state's launched coups against democratically elected governments (like Honduras 09, for instance). And that it presumes that the "delegation of workers" in control of the state will carry on being workers like anyone else, and not develop interests of their own, like they always do. I'm not a syndicalist, but syndicalism does look pretty level-headed and sensible when compared to your ahistorical idealism.

[mikelepore]

And the problem with what you call the Marxist position (I wouldn't call it that, plenty of Marxists have more sense) is that it presumes that "law enforcement" and "the state" are completely neutral bodies that'll just do whatever the legally elected government wants, and not behave in the way they did in Spain 36, Chile 73, or any of the other countries where the state's launched coups against democratically elected governments (like Honduras 09, for instance). And that it presumes that the "delegation of workers" in control of the state will carry on being workers like anyone else, and not develop interests of their own, like they always do. I'm not a syndicalist, but syndicalism does look pretty level-headed and sensible when compared to your ahistorical idealism.

Before you judge which proposals are ahistorical, beware of the common error of trying to draw conclusions from military coups in cases when structures of governments didn't already have a firm foundation of control of the military by civilian elected offices, or cases where the national leader left pro-capitalist officers in control of the military and failed to replace them all before moving against capitalist property, or cases where the workers failed to organize into a single industrial union for all workplaces. To support your thesis you would need to cite only instances when individual members of police or military agencies spontaneously acted against the workers after their commanding officers at all high levels as well as low levels had instructed them that their assignments were to go elsewhere and do something else.

[mikelepore]

Ah, you're seeming to miss the fundamental aspect of the IWW here. The constitution is universal, everything else is totaly decentralised and decieded by the members of the individual groups, even to the extent of by-laws for those groups. The only restriction is that it does not go against the constitution.

So, if one branch publishes a leaflet saying the stuff you've seen, then all that indictates is, if the constitution doesnt say otherwise, is that particular branch's members have voted in agreement to those leaflets.


I think that idea is quite absurd. When there are sound theoretical reasons for determining in advance that some strategies would lead to the workers being victorious in a revolution, while certain other strategies would lead to the workers being defeated and suppressed -- to leave the determination of strategy up to local chapters, instead of developing a uniform understanding of which path is required for victory !?!

[mikelepore]

what you call the Marxist position (I wouldn't call it that, plenty of Marxists have more sense)

There are no Marxists who would say that it doesn't matter whether supporters of capitalism are elected to political office or whether people from a Marxist party are elected to political office.

[Bitter Ashes]

I think that idea is quite absurd. When there are sound theoretical reasons for determining in advance that some strategies would lead to the workers being victorious in a revolution, while certain other strategies would lead to the workers being defeated and suppressed -- to leave the determination of strategy up to local chapters, instead of developing a uniform understanding of which path is required for victory !?!
There's the constitution, still which is uniform. That's the stuff that was so important that it could not be compromised on.

However, you're not able to say why there is weakness in allowing local branches and industry branches make thier own descions. Is it disorganised? Maybe sometimes it is. It's a small price to pay for the gauruntee of no corruption, real worker empowerment, direct democracy and indeed decentralisation is a very valid strategy for making the organisation very difficult to wipe out without catching every single member, rather than just removing the leadership and leaving the members floundering.

As I said though, why not join and see if your arguement is strong enough to convince a majority, in which case you could change the constitution. I doubt you'd succeed tbh, but at least you'd know that your voice had been heard and direct democracy prevailed.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Before you judge which proposals are ahistorical, beware of the common error of trying to draw conclusions from military coups in cases when structures of governments didn't already have a firm foundation of control of the military by civilian elected offices, or cases where the national leader left pro-capitalist officers in control of the military and failed to replace them all before moving against capitalist property, or cases where the workers failed to organize into a single industrial union for all workplaces. To support your thesis you would need to cite only instances when individual members of police or military agencies spontaneously acted against the workers after their commanding officers at all high levels as well as low levels had instructed them that their assignments were to go elsewhere and do something else.
Of course nothing like your fairytale has ever actually happened anywhere, so I was looking for the closest comparisons available. And you still haven't explained why you think the "delegation of workers" elected to Parliament wouldn't behave exactly like every other "delegation of workers" who've ever been elected, and gone on to constitute a new ruling class.

There are no Marxists who would say that it doesn't matter whether supporters of capitalism are elected to political office or whether people from a Marxist party are elected to political office.
O RLY (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/2009/326/correspondence)?

lections and parliament have long ceased to be an arena in which the working class can express its interests, and the groups of the ‘extreme left', by trying to inject new life into these institutions, provide further proof that they are actually the extreme left of capitalism's political machinery...

As workers are beginning to turn away from voting Marxists should be encouraging such abstention while at the same time appealing to the independent political activity of workers as workers rather than be flailing around on a doomed project of trying to resurrect parliamentary politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Should be encouraging spoilages" and not abstentions. It should be made clear to everybody that workers are getting more disillusioned, and abstentions don't organize workers around expressing this explicitly.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

"Should be encouraging spoilages" and not abstentions. It should be made clear to everybody that workers are getting more disillusioned, and abstentions don't organize workers around expressing this explicitly.
I don't really care about spoilages vs. abstentions, as long as you have enough sense to agree that not all Marxists see the class struggle as a process of getting nice Marxist politicians elected to the bourgeois parliament or presidency.

[Bitter Ashes]

Lets look at somethign else as well.

Everyone needs a union. As we've seen, the mainstream unions consistantly seek to protect themselves, or even the employers and the workers come last. The IWW's structure means that union branch cannot behave in a way that the majority of members do not agree with. So, even if you wish to dismiss the importance of uniting the working class across all borders by using unionisation, the IWW remains undeniably the best choice for workers.

There really is no excuse not to join! :lol:

[mikelepore]

And you still haven't explained why you think the "delegation of workers" elected to Parliament wouldn't behave exactly like every other "delegation of workers" who've ever been elected, and gone on to constitute a new ruling class.

Such assurance isn't necessary to know what should be done. Society is going to have holders of elected political office in any event, because you're not going to persuade 100 percent of the people not to run for office or to vote. That leaves exactly two possibilities: office holders who openly promise to support capitalism and suppress the workers, and office holders who say that they support the workers' revolutionary goals but there's always a possibility that they might be lying. Obviously the latter is the only rational choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

[mikelepore]

However, you're not able to say why there is weakness in allowing local branches and industry branches make thier own descions. Is it disorganised? Maybe sometimes it is. It's a small price to pay for the gauruntee of no corruption, real worker empowerment, direct democracy and indeed decentralisation is a very valid strategy for making the organisation very difficult to wipe out without catching every single member, rather than just removing the leadership and leaving the members floundering.

Allowing locals to "make their own decisions" is an incredulous way to put it, when the debate is about whether the working class should adopt the civilized strategy of using political process, which will make the transformation of society occur as peacefully as possible, or whether the working class should adopt the strategy of beginning solely with physical force, which will surely get thousands and perhaps millions of workers killed.

It's not "their own decision." You can't have a peaceful socialist revolution in Minneapolis, Minnesota while you have a violent socialist revolution in St. Paul, Minnesota. It can't happen that way.


As I said though, why not join and see if your arguement is strong enough to convince a majority, in which case you could change the constitution. I doubt you'd succeed tbh, but at least you'd know that your voice had been heard and direct democracy prevailed.

I wasn't just born yesterday. This argument with the IWW has been going on continuously since 1907. Did you read "As to Politics" by De Leon?

http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/as_to_politics.pdf

[Bitter Ashes]

Allowing locals to "make their own decisions" is an incredulous way to put it, when the debate is about whether the working class should adopt the civilized strategy of using political process, which will make the transformation of society occur as peacefully as possible, or whether the working class should adopt the strategy of beginning solely with physical force, which will surely get thousands and perhaps millions of workers killed.

It's not "their own decision." You can't have a peaceful socialist revolution in Minneapolis, Minnesota while you have a violent socialist revolution in St. Paul, Minnesota. It can't happen that way.
I'd doubt it'd happen like that, but even if it did, what's the problem? It'd be like a checkerboard strike. You'd put it down in one place and it'd spring up in another spurred on by the oppression witnessed elsewhere. Besides, we've yet to see any good results from totaly violent or totaly peacefull revolution, maybe the answer is in the mix?

My personal opinion is that you could lay seige to capitalism through general striking and mass occupations of workplaces. If the only food and equipment bieng produced is bieng distributed solely to workers, then the reactionaries cant erm.. react! They probably would try to seize a truckload of food here and there, but at the end of the day, they'll be outnumbered heavily and wont be able to seize enough produce to keep the thirsty war-machine going. If they broke the occupation somewhere, then simply refuse to work in a workplace that is supplying the reactionaries. This is something that everyone could do and most likely, once it begins, would require no central leadership to co-ordinate whatsoever. meanwhile, if any local branches wanted to take up arms as militia to protect workers and thier assets, then they'd be welcome to. Again, no central leadership required. If another branch wanted to try bargin with the reactionaries, then they could try that too and when it goes tits up the first time, then nobody else will try that one again I'm sure.

It's all perfectly reasonable.

I wasn't just born yesterday. This argument with the IWW has been going on continuously since 1907. Did you read "As to Politics" by De Leon?

http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/as_to_politics.pdf
Not read that one but I've had the gist of it described to me before. What's your point exactly? That we disagree with each other? Hell yes! And that's something to be welcomed, not condemned. The right to be objective may not be super-dooper-efficent, but it's freedom and that's more important! Blindly trusting a top-down leadership again is just asking for trouble.

So, your whole arguement for not joining is that we're not sheep to be herded, but free thinking individuals? Well, which one would you rather be?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Such assurance isn't necessary to know what should be done. Society is going to have holders of elected political office in any event, because you're not going to persuade 100 percent of the people not to run for office or to vote. That leaves exactly two possibilities: office holders who openly promise to support capitalism and suppress the workers, and office holders who say that they support the workers' revolutionary goals but there's always a possibility that they might be lying. Obviously the latter is the only rational choice.

Obviously the latter are more dangerous. With the former you know where you stand.

Allowing locals to "make their own decisions" is an incredulous way to put it, when the debate is about whether the working class should adopt the civilized strategy of using political process, which will make the transformation of society occur as peacefully as possible, or whether the working class should adopt the strategy of beginning solely with physical force, which will surely get thousands and perhaps millions of workers killed.

It's not as if violence and running for office are the only two options. Would you call going on strike "physical force"?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Marxist position, of course, is that the workers must have their own delegation in control of the state, the capitalists will no longer be the legal owners of the industries, and then if law enforcement does anything it will be for the workers and against the capitalists. The IWW leaves a hole here in their theory.

That position has nothing to do with Marx.

He very clearly pointed out that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

[mikelepore]

Would you call going on strike "physical force"?

No, not a strike. But, as the Preamble points out, we want to "do away with capitalism" and "take possession of the means of production." If the workers try to do that while the capitalists still control the government, the capitalists will get thousands of police, armed with everything from bayonets to bazookas to flame throwers, and more weapons they haven't even invented yet, to attack the workers. Therefore, to say "take possession of the means of production", but also to knowingly allow the capitalists by default to retain control of the elected legislatures and executive offices, because a workers' party isn't even trying to challenge them over that control, is the same as saying to go directly to physical force.

Since the working class is the vast majority, and since a classless society can't be established until a majority want it, the revolutionary program has to be to use the political process to officially transfer ownership of the means of production to the Industrial Union.

***

"The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both." -- De Leon

[mikelepore]

That position has nothing to do with Marx.

He very clearly pointed out that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."


"Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."

-- Marx, Sept. 8, 1872 speech at the Hague

***

"Universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of society. The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent."

-- Marx, article in New York Daily Tribune, Aug. 25, 1852

***

"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its general interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself more independent in regard to society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class."

-- Engels, _Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy_

***

"The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations."

-- Rosa Luxemburg, _The Socialisation of Society_

***

"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes."

-- Karl Marx, Resolution on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties, The First International Working Men's Association, 1872

***

"As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand."

-- Engels, _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_

***

"And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness - if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far. In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings."

-- Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx, _The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850

***

"Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory."

-- Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850

***

"In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it; Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes; That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end - the abolition of classes;

-- Karl Marx, Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action as adopted by the London Conference of the International, 1871

[mikelepore]

What's your point exactly? That we disagree with each other? Hell yes! And that's something to be welcomed, not condemned. The right to be objective may not be super-dooper-efficent, but it's freedom and that's more important! Blindly trusting a top-down leadership again is just asking for trouble. So, your whole arguement for not joining is that we're not sheep to be herded, but free thinking individuals? Well, which one would you rather be?

The point is: Revolutionary strategy isn't a matter of individual preference like what color pants to wear.

There are some strategies that will lead to victory and some strategies that will lead to defeat, and therefore it's necessary to make an effort to list the reasons while some actions might be determined in advance to be workable, and other actions unworkable.

For the IWW to say that the subject of whether the workers need to take control of the state is only a personal issue, in the same category as religious affiliation, it's like saying it's only a matter of personal taste whether an airplane should have a supply of fuel, or whether a parachute should have cords attached, or whether an inflatable raft should be filled with air or with rocks .

This isn't a matter of personal taste. The question is: what actions are going to be associated with the process succeeding and with people surviving?

***

"Without political action, which places the social revolution in America upon the civilized plane of endeavoring to reach a peaceful trial of strength, the emancipation of the workers would be indefinitely postponed, and could then be reached only by wading through a massacre." -- Daniel De Leon, _As To Politics_, 1907

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You managed to dig up a bunch of quotes, but they don't do anything to support your reformist politics.


"Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."

-- Marx, Sept. 8, 1872 speech at the HagueHere, Marx argued that the working class could take power in certain places without resorting to force.

It doesn't say anything about the proletariat being able to seize the capitalist state and use it for its own ends.


"Universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of society. The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent."

-- Marx, article in New York Daily Tribune, Aug. 25, 1852Marx was arguing for universal suffrage as an advance under bourgeois rule.

He doesn't say anything about the proletariat seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.


"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its general interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself more independent in regard to society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class."

-- Engels, _Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German PhilosophyThis actually goes against your argument.

Engels was arguing that the state represents the ruling class.

It logically follows that the existing state must be destroyed and replaced with a new state if a new class is to take power.


"The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations."

-- Rosa Luxemburg, _The Socialisation of SocietyI think Rosa worded this poorly.

Still, she was arguing that the proletariat needs have state power, not that it can seize the capitalist state and use it for its own ends.


"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes."

-- Karl Marx, Resolution on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties, The First International Working Men's Association, 1872 This speaks of the need for the proletariat to organize itself independently of other classes and seize power.

It doesn't say anything about the working class seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.


"As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand."

-- Engels, _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the StateThis actually speaks of the limitations of bourgeois democracy.

It doesn't say anything about the working class seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.


"And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness - if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far. In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings."

-- Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx, _The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850
"Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory."

-- Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850Both of these quotes speak of the new avenues for education and agitation that bourgeois democracy offered over past systems. (This was a time and place when participation in elections offered access to large audiences that would be difficult or even impossible to reach through other means.)

It doesn't say anything about the working class seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.

In fact, it says the opposite.

"We must also note that Engels is most explicit in calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, he says, obviously taking account of the long experience of German Social-Democracy, is 'the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state.'

"The petty-bourgeois democrats, such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just this 'more' from universal suffrage. They themselves share, and instill into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage 'in the present-day state' is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization." - Lenin


"In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it; Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes; That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end - the abolition of classes;

-- Karl Marx, Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action as adopted by the London Conference of the International, 1871This speaks of the need for the proletariat to organize itself politically.

It doesn't say anything about the working class seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.

***

These quotes would have to be completely taken out of context and bent beyond recognition to be even remotely attached to the kind of reformist politics you promote.

On the other hand, Marx clearly stated that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

Every revolutionary worthy of the label has understood this truth since.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are some strategies that will lead to victory and some strategies that will lead to defeat, and therefore it's necessary to make an effort to list the reasons while some actions might be determined in advance to be workable, and other actions unworkable.

How many hundreds of years must pass before we determine that De Leon's strategy is "unworkable"?

[Communist]

How many hundreds of years must pass before we determine that De Leon's strategy is "unworkable"?

I think Leftists came to that conclusion around, say, the beginning of the 20th century (give or take a few years).
The vast majority of the tiny group of De Leonists that still exist can't even see his ideas are anarcho-syndicalist, much less unworkable.

[mikelepore]

You managed to dig up a bunch of quotes,

The purpose of the quotes was obvious. It had been claimed that this fundamental principle of Marxism, that the working class has to use the political process take the state out of the hands of the ruling class, wasn't expressed by Marx. I showed that it was.



but they don't do anything to support your reformist politics.

Oh, well, that's the end of your credibility. Once you lose it, it's gone for good.

It's crystal clear that I didn't say one single thing that could be possibly be construed as being reformist.

[mikelepore]

It doesn't say anything about the working class seizing the capitalist state and using it for its own ends.

That phrase that you keep writing over and over and over and over and over and over, you say it as though this ambiguous phrase has a single and unambiguous meaning, and you say it as thought it applies somehow to me. Wrong on both counts.

[mikelepore]

Here is a summary of the principles that were proven by De Leon, and the story of how the IWW abandoned the workable program for achieving workers' control of industry.

You can't go on having a government that says the industries rightfully belong to the capitalists, and at the same time have the workers seize the means of production. If these two incompatable things were to coexist, they would have to clash immediately, in the form of a violent government repression of the workers.

Therefore, the IWW position, as amended in 1908, that the industrial union organization that intends to seize the means of production has no need take any official position about what form of government or law shall exist, is not a tenable position. The IWW position, that whether workers choose to vote Democratic, Republican, Nazi, Conservative, Liberal or Socialist is merely a personal choice like religious affiliation, and that the revolutionary industrial union should not make any recommendations at all in the matter, is not a tenable position.

The political state is a weapon that is held by the ruling class and used to subjugate the workers. It is necessary for the revolutionary working class movement to take the weapon out of the hands of the ruling class, by means of a political party competing for control of elected political offices.

In the U.S., although this doesn't apply to the political structures of some countries, the violent agencies of the state, the police and the military, receive all of their orders either from elected offices or from appointees of elected offices. Therefore the continuation of these agencies in their role as oppressors of the working class, including that oppressive role on the day when a revolution will be led by the industrial union, occurs only because working class people are indoctrinated to vote to continue their own oppression. The industrial union that intends to seize the means of production has to inject itself into the field of politics and take these positions of political power out of the hands of the capitalist class. In no other way will it be possible for the workers to take possession of the means of production and not be massacred in large numbers by the state.

De Leon demonstrated these points as clearly as anyone could possibly demonstrate them, but nevertheless in 1908 the IWW fell under the control of the sect that called for a revised policy to take no position on whether elected political offices should be left in the hands of supporters of capitalism. The 1905 version of the IWW constitution that had urged the workers to "come together on the political as well as the industrial field" was amended in 1908 to delete the reference to political organization. Having been outvoted at the IWW convention, the Marxists, who supported the dual program of both political and industrial organization, although they had been among the primary founders of the IWW, then resigned from the IWW, and left the IWW entirely in the hands of those with the unworkable one-sided program.

[ZeroNowhere]

That position has nothing to do with Marx.

He very clearly pointed out that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."
Which also has no relevance to what Mike was saying, as I do not recall him saying that the government machinery would be left unchanged. A destructive ballot is not laying hold of the ready-made state machinery and wielding it for the working class's own purposes.

@Mike: These quotes would also probably get the point across:

"That very measure opened out a new prospect to the working class. It gave them the majority in London and in all manufacturing towns, and thus enabled them to enter into the struggle against capital with new weapons, by sending men of their own class to Parliament. And here, we are sorry to say, the Trades Unions forgot their duty as the advanced guard of the working class. The new weapon has been in their hands for more than ten years, but they scarcely ever unsheathed it. They ought not to forget that they cannot continue to hold the position they now occupy unless they really march in the van of the working class. It is not in the nature of things that the working class of England should possess the power of sending forty or fifty working men to Parliament and yet be satisfied for ever to be represented by capitalists or their clerks, such as lawyers, editors, etc. More than this, there are plenty of symptoms that the working class of this country is awakening to the consciousness that it has for some time been moving in the wrong groove; that the present movements for higher wages and shorter hours exclusively, keep it in a vicious circle out of which there is no issue; that it is not the lowness of wages which forms the fundamental evil, but the wages system itself. This knowledge once generally spread amongst the working class, the position of Trades Unions must change considerably. They will no longer enjoy the privilege of being the only organisations of the working class. At the side of, or above, the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation of the working class as a whole.

"Thus there are two points which the organised Trades would do well to consider, firstly, that the time is rapidly approaching when the working class of this country will claim, with a voice not to be mistaken, its full share of representation in Parliament. Secondly, that the time also is rapidly approaching when the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages and short hours, and the whole action of Trades Unions as now carried on, is not an end in itself, but a means, a very necessary and effective means' but only one of several means towards a higher end: the abolition of the wages system altogether.

"For the full representation of labour in Parliament, as well as for the preparation of the abolition of the wages system organisations will become necessary, not of separate Trades, but of the working class as a body. And the sooner this is done the better. There is no power in the world which could for a day resist the British working class organised as a body."


-Engels, from 'Trades Unions' in 1881.


"I do not see what violation of the social-democratic principle is necessarily involved in putting up candidates for any elective political office or in voting for these candidates, even if we are aiming at the abolition of this office itself.

"One may be of the opinion that the best way to abolish the Presidency and the Senate in America is to elect men to these offices who are pledged to effect their abolition, and then one will consistently act accordingly. Others may think that this method is inappropriate; that’s a matter of opinion. There may be circumstances under which the former mode of action would also involve a violation of revolutionary principle; I fail to see why that should always and everywhere be the case."


-Engels, 1893 letter to Sorge.


As far as I recall, Engels' view on the subject was that in some countries tatics like that could and should be used, whereas elsewhere other tactics may be more efficient or plausible. So, for example, if one has a socialist US, and another country which is still capitalist, but with a socialist majority and ruled by a dictator, then armed struggle will quite likely be necessary, but it would also be quite plausible that it would be successful, unlike, say, defeating the US army in the US. This was actually quite similar to De Leon's view (armed insurrection would not be possible or preferable in the US, but in some countries such as France, it could be. This, of course, doesn't mean that it is in France at present), expressed here (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/1909_aug03.pdf).


It logically follows that the existing state must be destroyed and replaced with a new state if a new class is to take power.Engels also used the term 'refashioned' elsewhere, which I personally prefer. Marx was always crappy at being poetic.