Maybe the Left should demand MORE public-sector cuts

[Proletarian Ultra]

This would be a great opportunity to:


Purge rightist and junta-collaborators from the civil service, military, judiciary and universities.
Disestablish the Orthodox Church.
End expensive saber-rattling with Macedonia and Turkey; seal treaties of peaceful cooperation.
Shrink the standing army; form workers' militias.
Replace middle managers with workers' councils.
Dismantle the repressive apparatus against immigrants and national minorities.

Budget problem solved, I think.

[Argument]

Remove the privileges given by the state to the capitalists.

There, that's better. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The question here is one of productive vs. unproductive state labour. I oppose cuts for productive services like teaching, but the unproductive civil services in most neoliberal countries are quite bloated.

[vyborg]

This is so ingenuous to be frankly reactionary.
As long as capitalist have power they will cut schools, hospitals, public services...who thinks otherwise lives on another planet.
So any discussion about cut to privileges and demagogic speech like this are crap

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is quickly becoming my favorite Marx quote:


The [Paris] Commune made the catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditure--the army and the officialdom.

Like DNZ said, whenever people bring up "the government is living beyond its means" as an argument for breaking public unions and slashing wages and cutting services I always reply: great, fire all the cops. It quickly takes the argument away from the "government can't manage money" argument made by the media to a argument about what are the real priorities of the state and ruling class and how these are not aligned with our priorities (or at least the priorities of most regular workers).

[Honggweilo]

The coast guard and lower ranking militairy is taking the side of the working-class movement of greece. Veeeery unwise to allienate them in an escalated sitaution like this. See the benefits of leftist lower cadre support (mostly conscripts or desperate wage-labourers) in the Portuguese Carnation Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_das_For%C3%A7as_Armadas) and the Bolivarian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt).

[Dimentio]

This is so ingenuous to be frankly reactionary.
As long as capitalist have power they will cut schools, hospitals, public services...who thinks otherwise lives on another planet.
So any discussion about cut to privileges and demagogic speech like this are crap

And the public sector was just here when the human race was first conceived in the plains of Africa three million years ago? Don't be silly now, capitalists need a public sector, especially in terms of education.

[Honggweilo]

And the public sector was just here when the human race was first conceived in the plains of Africa three million years ago? Don't be silly now, capitalists need a public sector, especially in terms of education.
designed according to their cultural hegemonic standards ofcourse (see the EU bologna accords on higher education, for "knowledge economy" based on meritocracy and class background). Working-class education in a capitalist society will be run on only essentials and on the lowest most productive cost possible, creating obedient workers just educated enough to press a button but not educated enough to think critically and benefit society as a whole. Also uncontrolled capitalism tends to destroy social fabric in favor of short-term profits, which will eventually lead to authorian controlled capitalists forms like keynianism or fascism to sustain its long term existance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is quickly becoming my favorite Marx quote:

Like DNZ said, whenever people bring up "the government is living beyond its means" as an argument for breaking public unions and slashing wages and cutting services I always reply: great, fire all the cops. It quickly takes the argument away from the "government can't manage money" argument made by the media to a argument about what are the real priorities of the state and ruling class and how these are not aligned with our priorities (or at least the priorities of most regular workers).

When you have lots of obscene regulations like a lot of parking regulations, there are just too many public employees (police and others) out there doing ticketing work. Either that, or the work is contracted out to some private firm. I can understand ticketing for speeding, but ticketing for truck stoppage and/or parking violations in the course of running a business? [There are safety issues, but sometimes the rules are deliberately violated for expediency if there are no safety issues.]

[S.Artesian]

The question here is one of productive vs. unproductive state labour. I oppose cuts for productive services like teaching, but the unproductive civil services in most neoliberal countries are quite bloated.


I oppose EVERYTHING the bourgeoisie do. Marx wrote "not a farthing for this government" is "the first principle of this party." Because I oppose everything the bourgeoisie do, that does not mean I automatically support the reverse of what they do. They close a military base, I'm not for reopening a military base. I'm for abolishing all bases and the military.

They layoff cops, I'm not for hiring cops; I'm for abolishing the cops.

The bourgeoisie want to "cut" "inefficient public employment." Bullshit. They don't give a shit about efficient, inefficient when it comes to public services. If they did they would spend more money on public health care, sanitation, rather than close hospitals. If they did, they would close prisons, provide free daycare to working parents, after school programs of real interest for older children, and better working conditions across the board, as better working conditions, and things like daycare have been shown to have dramatic positive impacts on productivity, employee attendance, reduced medical claims, etc.

[fabiansocialist]

This is so ingenuous to be frankly reactionary.
As long as capitalist have power they will cut schools, hospitals, public services...who thinks otherwise lives on another planet.
So any discussion about cut to privileges and demagogic speech like this are crap

Quite right. "Public sector cuts" always mean cuts to essential services like schools, health care, libraries, etc. Never cuts to the subsidies and services that the state provides to capital.

[fabiansocialist]

And the public sector was just here when the human race was first conceived in the plains of Africa three million years ago? Don't be silly now, capitalists need a public sector, especially in terms of education.

Times change. Capital these days can live comfortably with a starving and uneducated army of proles. Just as in the so-called "third world." Capital needs a different kind of public sector to the one presently existing. And without armed protest, it will get it.

[Bitter Ashes]

It's all moot anyway. The state will only ever do what the IMF tells them to. The other day there was thousands of people outside chanting "Thieves!" and prepared to try storm the parliment to have thier voices heard. Even then, against thier own personal safety, the members of parliment ignored the thousands outside and pushed through the austerity measures.

Either they've got total confidence in the police to protect them (wishful thinking), they can't see any other way out (ignorance), or they're more scared of what the IMF will send if they disobey (defeatism). Either way, when they're prepared to push this stuff through, despite the possibility of bieng torn apart by several thousand angry folks outside, I think we can gauruntee that you're not going to get anything useful from the parliment. At best, they might try make some kind of token gesture to try pacify the workers.

[Palingenisis]

Either they've got total confidence in the police to protect them (wishful thinking), they can't see any other way out (ignorance), or they're more scared of what the IMF will send if they disobey (defeatism). Either way, when they're prepared to push this stuff through, despite the possibility of bieng torn apart by several thousand angry folks outside, I think we can gauruntee that you're not going to get anything useful from the parliment. At best, they might try make some kind of token gesture to try pacify the workers.

What makes you think that the American, French, German and British Army are not standing by to invade Greece to stop it "sinking into anarchy"?

[pranabjyoti]

The coast guard and lower ranking militairy is taking the side of the working-class movement of greece. Veeeery unwise to allienate them in an escalated sitaution like this. See the benefits of leftist lower cadre support (mostly conscripts or desperate wage-labourers) in the Portuguese Carnation Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_das_For%C3%A7as_Armadas) and the Bolivarian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt).
I suggest better include them in the public and worker militia and use them to train the people and workers. Pretty simple solution.

[pranabjyoti]

What makes you think that the American, French, German and British Army are not standing by to invade Greece to stop it "sinking into anarchy"?
Probably that will mean inviting "anarchy" to their own soil. So far, the conditions of all the countries mentioned above isn't very stable. Would they like to make another IRAQ on European soil.

[KurtFF8]

^Exactly, the US can't really even afford to invade Iran right now. Due to lack of public support, military overstretch, etc. There's no way in hell military intervention in Greece is on the table.

Although I'm sure the DoD would gladly call up BlackWater if it thought that would help

[Boru]

^Exactly, the US can't really even afford to invade Iran right now. Due to lack of public support, military overstretch, etc. There's no way in hell military intervention in Greece is on the table.

Although I'm sure the DoD would gladly call up BlackWater if it thought that would help

Any military intervention is more likely to occur from within the Greek military itself, not from foreign forces.

[Black Sheep]

Wtf people, there is no revolution happening, fucking relax.
There are massive protests and anti-IMF sentiments, yeah. But nothing revolution-like.

Truth be told, the 5/5 tragedy shocked and slapped most fence sitters on the face.

Another reichstag,when it was most needed.

[Devrim]

The question here is one of productive vs. unproductive state labour. I oppose cuts for productive services like teaching, but the unproductive civil services in most neoliberal countries are quite bloated.

It is not at all the task of socialists to argue for the state to cut workers jobs whether they are 'productive' or not.


When you have lots of obscene regulations like a lot of parking regulations, there are just too many public employees (police and others) out there doing ticketing work.

There are a lot of things that are obscene in this world, but I would hardly classify parking regulations amongst them. Traffic wardens are workers, and we can point to examples of them in recent years struggling to maintain jobs and conditions.


I can understand ticketing for speeding, but ticketing for truck stoppage and/or parking violations in the course of running a business? [There are safety issues, but sometimes the rules are deliberately violated for expediency if there are no safety issues.]

Yes, heaven forbid that anything gets in the way of commerce.

After arguing that people should hang protesters over to the police, you are now supporting the idea of job cuts. I don't see what these sort of politics have to do at all with a working class or socialist perspective.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is not at all the task of socialists to argue for the state to cut workers jobs whether they are 'productive' or not.

The distinction between productive and unproductive wage labour is also the difference between who is proletarian and who isn't:

Hunting Productive Work (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf)

Basically, a proletarian is someone who's in the wage labour system, who produces surplus value / directly or indirectly sustains the workers consumption bundle through work performed (see paper above, contrasting between, say, work in a privately-owned arms industry and work in publicly-owned nurseries - the former is unproductive, the latter is productive) / contributes to the development of society's labour power and capabilities - and then has no significant-influence ownership or factual control over the means of production.

[Sorry for that long sentence there.]

The rhetorical question is: Then that means not advocating cuts in police forces (assuming you consider police officers to be workers) and replacing judges with sovereign commoner juries? :glare:

[Devrim]

[Sorry for that long sentence there.]

I am not really interested in any long sentences that justify cutting workers' jobs, or handing protesters over to the police as you have recently been doing.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now look who supports the police, in labour activity. :glare:

Oh, and don't misquote me re. "protesters."

[Devrim]

Now look who supports the police, in labour activity. :glare:

Well, no I didn't. You edited that sentence about the Police in there after I started my reply. I hadn't even seen it.


Oh, and don't misquote me re. "protesters."

Yes, you said had over protesters to the Police. You may have slandered them too by calling them 'hooligans', which is exactly what the State and the Stalinists are doing, but it is very clear what you meant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Demonstrators marching in protest of the government aren't hooligans.

General strike participants aren't hooligans.

Many insurrectionist anarchists aren't hooligans.

Next?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The distinction between productive and unproductive wage labour is also the difference between who is proletarian and who isn't:

Hunting Productive Work (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf)

Basically, a proletarian is someone who's in the wage labour system, who produces surplus value / directly or indirectly sustains the workers consumption bundle through work performed (see paper above, contrasting between, say, work in a privately-owned arms industry and work in publicly-owned nurseries - the former is unproductive, the latter is productive) / contributes to the development of society's labour power and capabilities - and then has no significant-influence ownership or factual control over the means of production.

[Sorry for that long sentence there.]

The rhetorical question is: Then that means not advocating cuts in police forces (assuming you consider police officers to be workers) and replacing judges with sovereign commoner juries? :glare:

About a third of the US economy is in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate). This is largely parasitic, these industries don't add a lot of value. I worked at a call center for 3 years as a telephone fund raiser. It was/is a parasitic industry but I was/am definitely a part of the working class.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Is there a disticntion between workers involved in productive industries contributing to the consumption bundle and those in industries which do not?

I am not challenging your definition but I feel this is important. As I mentioned the FIRE sector in the US is huge. In addition the public relations industries, which provides a mediationary role important in capitalist society to provide an illusion of connectedness, is very important and a multi-billion dollar industry in the US. This includes advertising, "news" media, political campaigns, entertainment.

How these sectors are regarded I think should be important in socialist strategy.

BTW I know I need a new avatar, I'm looking.

[Fietsketting]

Demonstrators marching in protest of the government aren't hooligans.

General strike participants aren't hooligans.

Many insurrectionist anarchists aren't hooligans.

Next?

You shown your true colours already. Shame on you.

[S.Artesian]

The distinction between productive and unproductive wage labour is also the difference between who is proletarian and who isn't:

Hunting Productive Work (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf)

Basically, a proletarian is someone who's in the wage labour system, who produces surplus value / directly or indirectly sustains the workers consumption bundle through work performed (see paper above, contrasting between, say, work in a privately-owned arms industry and work in publicly-owned nurseries - the former is unproductive, the latter is productive) / contributes to the development of society's labour power and capabilities - and then has no significant-influence ownership or factual control over the means of production.

[Sorry for that long sentence there.]

The rhetorical question is: Then that means not advocating cuts in police forces (assuming you consider police officers to be workers) and replacing judges with sovereign commoner juries? :glare:


Right, it means we don't support the bourgeoisie cutting police forces, firefighters, hospital staff, EMTs, tax clerks, schoolteachers-- anything. We don't support what the bourgeoisie do to serve their own purposes.

The difference between productive and unproductive is determined by capitalism, not by the workers themselves. Your proposal isn't for abolishing capitalism based on the necessity of reproducing unproductive labor, but for abolishing the incomes of the workers themselves. That's some fucking Marxism you got going there, DNZ. Remind me not to call myself a Marxist if that's what you call yourself.

We point out the economic reasons for those austerity actions and work towards the abolition of that economy and the entire bourgeois repressive apparatus of police and military.

Your position is precisely analogous to that of the libertarians who want to do away with "government bureaucracies" that represent nothing but a drain on "wealth creation" by "entrepreneurs."

The bourgeoisie want to "cut" state expenditure? That's bullshit as the rallying around the TARP. TALF, and the newborn euro 750 billion guarantee program proves.

You want to line up with the right wing petit bourgeoisie who find in "government" a code word [at least in the US] for regulation, taxes, blacks [African-Americans being favorably represented in government employment as the equal opportunity practices are better enforced], "liberals," etc? Well go right ahead and line up over there.... on the right. Don't tell us how fucking revolutionary it is, how socially democratic it is, how rational it is, or any of that other bullshit that gets smeared around to cover the reactionary essence of your argument.

[S.Artesian]

About a third of the US economy is in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate). This is largely parasitic, these industries don't add a lot of value. I worked at a call center for 3 years as a telephone fund raiser. It was/is a parasitic industry but I was/am definitely a part of the working class.

Your numbers are a bit off. Services, not including government expenditures, account for 50% of US GDP. Financial services and insurance account for about 7-8% of GDP. Real estate for another 10% [prior to the 2008 implosion].

And yes, you are definitely part of the working class when you work in those sectors.

[Die Neue Zeit]

About a third of the US economy is in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate). This is largely parasitic, these industries don't add a lot of value. I worked at a call center for 3 years as a telephone fund raiser. It was/is a parasitic industry but I was/am definitely a part of the working class.

In the definition of "proletarian" above, even butlers and housemaids (unless working for a cleaning agency) aren't proletarians.

Simplification of class relations? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relationsi-t73419/index.html?)

However, the class they belong to should be part of a proletariat-led class coalition that also includes the proper lumpenproletariat (illegal prostitutes, rank-and-file gangsters, etc. as opposed to unemployables and beggars).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right, it means we don't support the bourgeoisie cutting police forces, firefighters, hospital staff, EMTs, tax clerks, schoolteachers-- anything. We don't support what the bourgeoisie do to serve their own purposes.

Of the list of jobs you mentioned, only police forces and perhaps tax clerks aren't productive. Firefighters perform a maintenance function. Hospital staff help reproduce productive labour. Schoolteachers are, well, akin to job trainers.

You forgot to mention the overpaid civil service fat cats ("bureaucrats").


The difference between productive and unproductive is determined by capitalism, not by the workers themselves. Your proposal isn't for abolishing capitalism based on the necessity of reproducing unproductive labor, but for abolishing the incomes of the workers themselves. That's some fucking Marxism you got going there, DNZ. Remind me not to call myself a Marxist if that's what you call yourself.

Not at all. One of my directional measures calls for an obligation upon all to perform some sort of productive labour. Also, productive labour <> socially necessary labour.


Services, not including government expenditures, account for 50% of US GDP. Financial services and insurance account for about 7-8% of GDP. Real estate for another 10% [prior to the 2008 implosion].

And yes, you are definitely part of the working class when you work in those sectors.

Again, there are productive services and unproductive services. Less known is that there is also productive manufacturing and unproductive manufacturing (even private arms industry, which doesn't enter the working-class consumption bundle).

[Devrim]

Of the list of jobs you mentioned, only police forces and perhaps tax clerks aren't productive.

So behind all of your waffling about 'productive/non-productive labour you are now proposing job cuts in tax offices as well as amongst traffic wardens.

This from somebody who advocates hanging protesters over to the police too.

You are a disgrace.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

So behind all of your waffling about 'productive/non-productive labour you are now proposing job cuts in tax offices as well as amongst traffic wardens.

This from somebody who advocates hanging protesters over to the police too.

I said "and perhaps tax clerks aren't productive." Tax auditors are needed to punish tax evasion. Greece would be crazy to cut these ranks.

Traffic wardens? You should know that they're not the same as police officers.

Oh, and do us all the courtesy of not misquoting me! :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are a disgrace.

Devrim

No, you're a political disgrace for giving cover to non-worker demographics which do nothing but smash small-shop windows for the pleasure of their own testosterone, all the while indulging in your sectarianism by opposing the political struggle of workers organized around the "voluntarist" Greek left (sorry Nic, but this is for your "anti-left" remark).

[Devrim]

Oh, and do us all the courtesy of not misquoting me! :rolleyes:

It is not misquoting Obviously the 'g' instead of 'd' is a typo.

You advocate cuts in what you consider non-productive sectors:


The question here is one of productive vs. unproductive state labour. I oppose cuts for productive services like teaching, but the unproductive civil services in most neoliberal countries are quite bloated.

You advocate handing over demonstrators to the police:


Vyborg's suggested tactic is commendable for being more preventative (threats to beat the living shit out of hooligans), but in case hooligans have penetrated worker protests, they should be beaten up and then handed over.

There is a word for people who advocate things like this.


No, you're a political disgrace for giving cover to non-worker demographics which do nothing but smash small shop windows for their pleasure of own testosterone, all the while indulging in your sectarianism by opposing the political struggle of workers organized around the "voluntarist" Greek left (sorry Nic, but this is for your "anti-left" remark).

I haven't 'given any cover' to those sort of actions. Actually I think they are non-productive and offer no perspective whatsoever.

The difference between me and you is that I don't advocate turning people over to the cops.

Devrim

[S.Artesian]

Not at all. One of my directional measures calls for an obligation upon all to perform some sort of productive labour. Also, productive labour <> socially necessary labour.




All that's fine and jim dandy, Jacob, but you're missing the main point, the only point, the class point-- that when the bourgeoisie are calling for cuts of "unproductive" civil servants, their meaning and definition of unproductive is different than yours...and theirs is the one that counts since they, not you, are in power.

When you engage with in this tete-a-tete with the purveyors of austerity you might think you're hoisting their petard against them, but you're hoisting your petard against you-- you are using your theoretical Marxism to mimic, ape, and monkey [that's an ape with a tail, aping and tailing at the same time]the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie want to reduce government expenditures? No, they do not, they want to reassign expenditures in specific ways; that's why the calls for austerity fall upon wages, regulatory costs, pensions, health benefits, and not upon the bailouts; not upon the compensation paid to investment bankers handling pension funds. etc.

We are not in this struggle to save the bourgeoisie money, reduce their tax burden, or make capitalism a more productive capitalism.

Marx wrote years ago that "not a farthing for this government" is the "first principle of our party." That's the only position we need ever take on the bourgeoisie's budgetary matters.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is not misquoting Obviously the 'g' instead of 'd' is a typo.

You advocate cuts in what you consider non-productive sectors

Look at those who "Thanked" me for what I said. All I said was "but the unproductive civil services in most neoliberal countries are quite bloated."

For example, I quoted an article that says Russia's bureaucracy today is in fact larger than the Soviet bureaucracy ever was, despite all the privatization.

This phenomenon is shared by Western countries themselves.

So, to ask you: What is a "civil service"? [In mainstream language, teachers, firefighters, etc. are excluded.]


You advocate handing over demonstrators to the police

Smashing small-shop windows for the pleasure of your own testosterone is not a "demonstration," unlike protest attempts to storm parliament.


I haven't 'given any cover' to those sort of actions. Actually I think they are non-productive and offer no perspective whatsoever.

The difference between me and you is that I don't advocate turning people over to the cops.

Devrim

I think this is going so far out of topic that another thread is needed on this. I started one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bourgeoisie want to reduce government expenditures? No, they do not, they want to reassign expenditures in specific ways; that's why the calls for austerity fall upon wages, regulatory costs, pensions, health benefits, and not upon the bailouts; not upon the compensation paid to investment bankers handling pension funds. etc.

We are not in this struggle to save the bourgeoisie money, reduce their tax burden, or make capitalism a more productive capitalism.

Marx wrote years ago that "not a farthing for this government" is the "first principle of our party." That's the only position we need ever take on the bourgeoisie's budgetary matters.

I agree with you completely on the last two sentences. Actually, the more popular phrase was Wilhelm Liebknecht's "not one man, not one penny."

However, whatever happened to holders of public office not receiving more than an average skilled worker? :rolleyes:

Staff budgets can be cut in one of two ways: wage cuts per staff and staff layoffs. "Average skilled worker's wages" is in fact a wage cut.

[S.Artesian]

I agree with you completely on the last two sentences. Actually, the more popular phrase was Wilhelm Liebknecht's "not one man, not one penny."

However, whatever happened to holders of public office not receiving more than an average skilled worker? :rolleyes:

Staff budgets can be cut in one of two ways: wage cuts per staff and staff layoffs. "Average skilled worker's wages" is in fact a wage cut.

So when the proletariat's in power, that's how the proletariat will administer its dictatorship.

The bourgeoisie is in power now and we don't offer them a penny, and we offer them no support when they want to take pennies away the better to inflict austerity on the bulk of society.

[IndependentCitizen]

Sorry if I'm thread digging, and causing a nuisance. I was browsing your forums when I came across this thread.

Your answer to military action is not what you actually suggested, infact something a little more sinister than military action from those countries.

You see, the European Union has already got a unit that specialises in civil disobedience. It's called the European Gendamerie Force - http://www.eurogendfor.org/.

The EU supposedly has a plan to merge the EU members into one country, just like the United States of America, just the United States of Europe. They've already considered forming their own military.

Regards,

IC.

[Ocean Seal]

This would be a great opportunity to:


Purge rightist and junta-collaborators from the civil service, military, judiciary and universities.
Disestablish the Orthodox Church.
End expensive saber-rattling with Macedonia and Turkey; seal treaties of peaceful cooperation.
Shrink the standing army; form workers' militias.
Replace middle managers with workers' councils.
Dismantle the repressive apparatus against immigrants and national minorities.

Budget problem solved, I think.
Cutting down the finance sector is more important than any of those cuts.
-1000 Executive Bonuses
x
30,000,000
=
30,000,000,000

Plus the problem with cutting public sector jobs as you propose that the government will never do exactly as you wish. They will do what is convenient for itself and for its bourgeoisie lobbyists.

[Bitter Ashes]

Cutting down the finance sector is more important than any of those cuts.
-1000 Executive Bonuses
x
30,000,000
=
30,000,000,000

Plus the problem with cutting public sector jobs as you propose that the government will never do exactly as you wish. They will do what is convenient for itself and for its bourgeoisie lobbyists.
Globalised world sadly. They'll just move to somewhere where the working class has less spine.