Minimum Program: Social Labor

[Victus Mortuum]

Updated 12-13-10

The title should be changed to

BASIC PRINCIPLES: SOCIAL LABOR

So, in discussing the Basic Principles for the party-movement, the absolute minimum that must be accepted by all members, I have developed a relatively concrete outline of what I consider this should be. I'm looking for broad discussion of these principles from across the left, regardless of your 'tendency'.

The Basic Point:

The Social Labor aspect must be understood as:
a) The minimum worker-class independent ideology
b) The broadest pan-radical-left principles that can be organized around
c) The minimum means of establishing worker-class political power and hegemony

a) The minimum worker-class independent ideology
This means that the Basic Principles MUST be Basic Principles that distinctly represent the interests of the worker-class. It must be goals that represents the complete liberation of the overwhelming majority from the chains of an insignificant minority. It must be goals that physically and ideologically LIBERATES this group from that group and from the ideals of that group.

b) The broadest pan-radical-left principles that can be organized around
This means that the Basic Principles MUST be Basic Principles that DO NOT infinitely divide those who are on the side of the workers (that is, the radical left). We must move away from detailed -membership- programs and from historical -membership- programs as the basis for our MIC's. We should all be united in a single party-movement, regardless of how we see a particular historical figure or particular historical program. We can have those discussions within the movement. We must be as radical-left inclusive as possible.

c) The minimum means of establishing worker-class political power and hegemony
This means that the Basic Principles MUST be Basic Principles that transfers control of existing institutions (or to-come institutions) from a tiny minority to that of the overwhelming majority - to the worker-class - to the people. Control must no longer be theirs, else the objective is wholly undone.

The question is, what is the bare minimum that encompasses these things?

1) Obviously, the fundamental aspect of far-leftism is the call for worker's/people's control of the governing body and for the eventual abolition of the state - and not just empty 'democracy', but specifically what I have come to call radical democracy. The mechanism of democracy, not in the corrupt modern sense of election, but in the historical Aristotelian sense of lottery, of sortition, is what must be called for by all. We can no longer have talk of parliaments and congresses that are elected - money will always have its way in these systems. So, the primary demand must be the organization of governments according to radical democracy.

This satisfies being a worker-class independent ideology in that no other class is or will call for a demarchic governing system. Demarchy is an absolute minimum for worker-class/people's control of governing organizations - as elected representatives and delegates have consistently shown themselves to be organs of the investor-capitalists, and nothing more. This encompasses everything from municipalism to federalism to transnationalism within the organization and thus satisfies being pan-leftist.

2) But the demand upon governments cannot stop there. The 'state' governing bodies MUST be AT MINIMUM materially separated from the cooperate 'socioeconomic' governing bodies.
This demand, while fulfilling the minimal goal of wresting political power to the worker-class, allows for a diversity of views about how exactly this is to be done. Should the state continue to exist as a separate professional institution, under the radical-democratic control of the workers? Or should it wholly cease to exist as a professional, separate institution and be universalized in the hands of the people? Thus the gulf between 'marxists' and 'anarchists' is bridged - and can be discussed within a common framework and goal.

This satisfies the worker-class independent ideology by breaking clean the socioeconomic interests of the workers from the political interests of the ruling class and those that control the state institutions. It satisfies pan-leftism by accepting both sides of the historical 'state' argument. It also satisfies worker-class/people's control by materially distinguishing their ordinary socioeconomic interests and control from the state's interests and control.


Now, the general leftist critique of the economy boils down to the fact that all economic functions are handled by private economic dictators and oligarchs of sorts. The obvious solution is to call for the transformation of these functions into 'collective', radical-democratic functions. The abolition of these private economic dictators necessitates the creation of alternative mechanisms to do what they previously controlled - namely a) ownership/management and b) investment/economic development.

3) So, in exchange for private ownership and control businesses you have collective worker management of businesses. This encompasses views from market socialism (just having each business under the radical-democratic control of the workers) to National-Democratization programs to Community-Democratization programs to Council Communism to centrally-planned and locally-controlled to everything else on the far left. The discussion of exactly what form this would take can take place WITHIN this minimum accepted party-movement platform.

This satisfies the worker-class independent ideology because it advocates the destruction of the ruling investor-capitalist and managerial class by replacing their oligarchic owning and controlling functions with radical-democratic institutions. It satisfies pan-leftism by allowing for a broad range of interpretations of how exactly collective worker management would manifest itself. It also satisfies worker-class/people's control by obviously transferring control of these institutions to them.

4) The second function that must be replaced is their investment function, that is collectivization of the capital markets. The function of deciding how and in what direction the economy will grow. Obviously, this function would have to be a branch of the socioeconomic radically-democratic government. How exactly this mechanism would manifest itself would again be up for discussion. This encompasses some sort of timetable cycling loans or subsidies based on the radical-democratic board (market socialism), more planning-based systems like council communism or more centrally planned communisms, and the decentralized planning systems out there (parecon etc). Again, the discussion of how this would manifest itself, and at what tier (community, region, national, transnational) would be a discussion WITHIN the party-movement.

This satisfies the worker-class independent ideology because it advocates the destruction of the ruling investor-capitalist and managerial class by replacing their oligarchic investing and planning functions with radical-democratic institutions. It satisfies pan-leftism by allowing for a broad range of interpretations of how exactly radical-democratic investing/planning would manifest itself. It also satisfies worker-class/people's control by obviously transferring control of these institutions to them.

So, to summarize:

Social Labor as the minimum program of advocated change:
1. Organization of all governments according to the principles of radical democracy
2. The material separation of state government from regular socioeconomic government
3. Economic organizations must organize according to collective worker management
4. The radical-democratic socioeconomic government must take control of the capital markets


Thoughts? Better ways to word any of those 4? Suggestions on additions? Suggestions on removals?

[Die Neue Zeit]

We must move away from detailed -membership- programs and from historical -membership- programs. We should all be united in a single party-movement, regardless of how we see a particular historical figure or particular historical program.

So was my lack of originality in my Draft Program an unintentional weakness? It quotes Marx, Engels, Kautsky, etc. and is derived from at least five historical programs of similar format.


Obviously, the fundamental aspect of far-leftism is the call for worker's/people's control of the governing body and for the eventual abolition of the state - and not just empty 'democracy', but specifically what I have come to call radical democracy, and what others are calling a demarchic commonwealth (with demarchic commonwealth referring to a more specific system, and radical democracy presenting a minimal series of demarchic demands to be placed on any existing governing organization). The mechanism of democracy, not in the corrupt modern sense of election, but in the historical Aristotelian sense of lottery, of sortition, is what must be called for by all. We can no longer have talk of parliaments and congresses that are elected - money will always have its way in these systems. So, the primary demand must be the organization of governments according to radical democracy.

Comrade, if you mean that "commonwealth" refers to the bare minimum of the economic system, then "demarchic commonwealth" may be different from "radical democracy."

On the other hand, you yourself are referring to bare minimums re. the economic system. Both of us share the sortition model, so why still use "radical democracy" like the CPGB does re. its radical republicanism?


The 'state' governing bodies MUST be AT MINIMUM materially separated from the cooperate 'socioeconomic' governing bodies.
This demand, while fulfilling the minimal demand of wresting political power to the worker-class, allows for a diversity of views about how exactly this is to be done. Should the state continue to exist as a separate professional institution, under the radical-democratic control of the workers? Or should it wholly cease to exist as a professional, separate institution and be universalized in the hands of the people? Thus the gulf between 'marxists' and 'anarchists' is bridged - and can be discussed within a common framework and goal.

Indeed. It better facilitates the discussion regarding my security services in the DOTP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/security-forces-dotpi-t146182/index.html) thread, even though I didn't explicitly state this. I guess this is a side-effect.


you have radical-democratic ownership and control of businesses

Did you get my material re. "control"? Collective worker management is the best term, while another term to be used before worker-class rule also has "management" as the noun. It's an error of mine in the CSR pamphlet, but I won't go back and revamp that old pamphlet just because less than a dozen words are wrong.

Also, I think you focus a tad too much on the word "investor." Under today's capitalism, investment is but one of three markets (the others being labour and consumer goods + services).

[Victus Mortuum]

So was my lack of originality in my Draft Program an unintentional weakness? It quotes Marx, Engels, Kautsky, etc. and is derived from at least five historical programs of similar format.

Not at all from my perspective. I suppose I should distinguish here between a couple things. What I'm talking about is a base minimal set of goals that one must agree with to be a member of the pan-left party-movement. I'm not sure what to call that, though I've been calling this a 'minimal program' here.

This is, obviously, different from the minimum program in the sense of what you are aiming for in your programmatic work - being a set of immediate minimal demands for social proletocracy in particular.

Does that make sense, or am I misremembering these concepts in your wip?


Comrade, if you mean that "commonwealth" refers to the bare minimum of the economic system, then "demarchic commonwealth" may be different from "radical democracy."
I was using demarchic commonwealth as a reference to the governing system alone. Is this an incorrect usage? Is it meant to include the economic aspects as well?


On the other hand, you yourself are referring to bare minimums re. the economic system. Both of us share the sortition model, so why still use "radical democracy" like the CPGB does re. its radical republicanism?
I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase, perhaps?


Did you get my material re. "control"? Collective worker management is the best term, while another term to be used before worker-class rule also has "management" as the noun. It's an error of mine in the CSR pamphlet, but I won't go back and revamp that old pamphlet just because less than a dozen words are wrong.
Collective instead of my use of radical-democratic?
Management instead of control?
Fair enough, I can see why that usage would be beneficial, semantically. I'll change that for linguistic consistency. You're not implying any technical differences between my use of 'radical-democratic worker control' and your use of 'collective worker management', right?


Also, I think you focus a tad too much on the word "investor." Under today's capitalism, investment is but one of three markets (the others being labour and consumer goods + services).
Well, yes. There are capital markets, labor markets, and consumer markets.
I suppose I see the collectivization/radical-democratization of capital markets as the MINIMAL membership criteria, with labor and consumer markets being up for internal discussion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not at all from my perspective. I suppose I should distinguish here between a couple things. What I'm talking about is a base minimal set of goals that one must agree with to be a member of the pan-left party-movement. I'm not sure what to call that, though I've been calling this a 'minimal program' here.

This is, obviously, different from the minimum program in the sense of what you are aiming for in your programmatic work - being a set of immediate minimal demands for social proletocracy in particular.

The Draft Program isn't the Social-Proletocratic program at all. Part of the latter is found in the (self-)critique of that Draft Program, if you remember.

The minimum programs of Class-Strugglist Social Labour (don't forget the "class-strugglist" adjective) and Social Proletocracy are identical. It is the maximum programs where the two go their separate ways.


I was using demarchic commonwealth as a reference to the governing system alone. Is this an incorrect usage? Is it meant to include the economic aspects as well?

It appears we have a reverse usage somewhere for some reason (I view "radical democracy" as referring to governance alone, while "commonwealth" takes into account the economy). Part of the immediate minimum program calls for expropriating the banks. This is part of the economic section of the minimum program. This is a "commonwealth" idea (public management over the money supply).


I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase, perhaps?

If we both share the sortition model, then there's no need to use the word "democracy." Both of us aim for the Demarchic Commonwealth as the minimum before Social Proletocracy kicks in. Tony Benn the reformist said that "democracy" was mere "people power," while -archy refers more to rule.

[Victus Mortuum]

The Draft Program isn't the Social-Proletocratic program at all. Part of the latter is found in the critique of that Draft Program, if you remember.

The minimum programs of Class-Strugglist Social Labour (don't forget the "class-strugglist" adjective) and Social Proletocracy are identical. It is the maximum programs where the two go their separate ways.

Mmm, I see. My mistake. Still, I'm not talking about a program, I suppose, but a membership ideology criteria. I believe that is a much better term choice for my above, I think: Membership Ideological Criteria (MIC) (this is not a permanent concept, just to distinguish this from the program concept).


It appears we have a reverse usage somewhere for some reason (I view "radical democracy" as referring to governance alone, while "commonwealth" takes into account the economy).
I saw both as governance alone. "Radical democracy", when I use it, refers to a mechanism of governing an institution, regardless of the institution. And it seems that demarchic commonwealth is another term for the minimal system (encompassing the basic economic goals?)?


Part of the immediate minimum program calls for expropriating the banks. This is part of the economic section of the minimum program. This is a "commonwealth" idea (public management over the money supply).
Ah, I see. So the commonwealth has no bearing on the MIC, but rather is part of a proposed program for the party-movement. The MIC is the external ideology standard, the program is the internally agreed on current goals. Glad that is cleared up.


If we both share the sortition model, then there's no need to use the word "democracy." Both of us aim for the Demarchic Commonwealth as the minimum before Social Proletocracy kicks in. Tony Benn the reformist said that "democracy" was mere "people power," while -archy refers more to rule.
Ah, I see. I use 'radical democracy' instead of 'demarchy' for two reasons:
Primarily to the more specific nature of the demands on a radical-democratic institution as opposed to the general concept of sortition based in demarchic institutions.
Secondly, I use the phrase 'radical' added to democracy in reference to the fact that it is getting back to the 'root' (radical's etymology) of democracy (as originally conceived until the word's corruption - Aristotle being the most obvious example).

Did you see my edit in the above post where I asked about the specifics of collective worker management?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mmm, I see. My mistake. Still, I'm not talking about a program, I suppose, but a membership ideology criteria. I believe that is a much better term choice for my above, I think: Membership Ideological Criteria (MIC) (this is not a permanent concept, just to distinguish this from the program concept).

Why not go with my "Basic Principles" term?


Ah, I see. So the commonwealth has no bearing on the MIC, but rather is part of a proposed program for the party-movement. The MIC is the external ideology standard, the program is the internally agreed on current goals. Glad that is cleared up.

I think you might wish to re-read Chapter 5. The expropriation of the banks isn't stated in the Basic Principles, but "expropriating ruling-class political power" is. The section just after the Basic Principles discusses a framework for the DOTP, but expropriation of the banks isn't listed there.

This highest form of class-strugglist democracy – continuous with the advocacy of ancient democracy as the rule by, of, and for the working poor in those times – achieves a minimum program of the following minimum demands, additional political demands, and key socioeconomic demands...

[Again, the program format in the Chapter 5 section on the Demarchic Commonwealth is different from "The Democracy Question." Perhaps I should apologize for feeding the confusion.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Collective instead of my use of radical-democratic?
Management instead of control?
Fair enough, I can see why that usage would be beneficial, semantically. I'll change that for linguistic consistency. You're not implying any technical differences between my use of 'radical-democratic worker control' and your use of 'collective worker management', right?

Collective worker management refers strictly to the economic sphere. Here is where "control" breaks down. Please PM me if you wish to get the link to my heavy-handed critique of "workers control."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's just recap where misunderstandings in terms can arise by starting with the list of terms used:

Class Strugglism
Social Labour
Collective Worker Management
Demarchic Commonwealth
Proletarian-Not-Necessarily-Communist
Radical Democracy

1) Social Labour is a very specific form of Collective Worker Management. It goes against private property, for example.

2) What Demarchic Commonwealth and Radical Democracy have in common is being Proletarian-Not-Necessarily-Communist (the three features outlined by Marx and Engels for the program of a proper "proletarian party").

3) Already, though, Radical Democracy adopts aspects of Collective Worker Management. On its own, the Demarchic Commonwealth may or may not do this, depending on how far the PNNC sympathizes with the communist mode of production.

[Victus Mortuum]

Why not go with my "Basic Principles" term?

I think you might wish to re-read Chapter 5. The expropriation of the banks isn't stated in the Basic Principles, but "expropriating ruling-class political power" is. The section just after the Basic Principles discusses a framework for the DOTP, but expropriation of the banks isn't listed there.

This highest form of class-strugglist democracy – continuous with the advocacy of ancient democracy as the rule by, of, and for the working poor in those times – achieves a minimum program of the following minimum demands, additional political demands, and key socioeconomic demands...

[Again, the program format in the Chapter 5 section on the Demarchic Commonwealth is different from "The Democracy Question." Perhaps I should apologize for feeding the confusion.]

DOH! *facepalm* Yeah, Basic Principles is what I'm referring to, haha. The term completely slipped my mind. Scratch the whole MIC thing, I'll go fix that *editing original post again*

I wish I could Edit thread names, I would replace Minimal Program with Basic Principles...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, try posting draft topics in the RevMarx usergroup first before posting it in Theory. ;)

[Victus Mortuum]

Fair enough, haha. I'm just really messing up these terms, it seems. I've interpreted them a different way than others it seems. I think you need some more concrete definitions of those words than you have above, though. If you want them to be -less- confusing, their meanings need to be crystal clear and concrete.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DOH! *facepalm* Yeah, Basic Principles is what I'm referring to, haha. The term completely slipped my mind. Scratch the whole MIC thing, I'll go fix that *editing original post again*

I wish I could Edit thread names, I would replace Minimal Program with Basic Principles...

Your arrangement of "Basic Principles" is different from mine.

Actually, none of my minimum-four Basic Principles (Class Strugglism, Social Labour, Transnational Emancipation, Partyism) includes the laundry list of "The Democracy Question" beyond the "ruling-class political power" remark in Transnational Emancipation. This facilitates debate and unity with well-meaning broad economists.

[penguinfoot]

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

[Lyev]

OPer; I know you said you wanted the title changed, but isn't a minimum program composed of small reforms that leave capitalist social relations intact? You list as your third demand workers' control; this doesn't seem very achievable under capitalism. Capitalism is defined by the antithesis to worker control. Could you expand on this? Maybe I have misunderstood you here. Thanks

EDIT: don't worry, OP, my question has been dealt with.

[Zanthorus]

...isn't a minimum program composed of small reforms that leave capitalist social relations intact?

The minimum programme does leave capitalist social relationships intact. But as for 'small reforms', that's a bit contentious. Certainly, the minimum programme of the Parti Ouvrier drafted by Marx was not composed of 'small reforms', it was a programme for working-class political power and a Commune-type state (The programme even quotes one of the laws passed by the Paris Commune). The Erfurt programme's minimum section contains similar demands, but Kautsky instead theorised the minimum as the completion of the unfinished tasks of the bourgeois revolution, and this led to misinterpretations and a lot of the later rejections by Trotskyists and Left-Communists of the minimum and the embracement of the 'transitional' or of only the maximum programme.

[Tower of Bebel]

OPer; I know you said you wanted the title changed, but isn't a minimum program composed of small reforms that leave capitalist social relations intact? You list as your third demand workers' control; this doesn't seem very achievable under capitalism. Capitalism is defined by the antithesis to worker control. Could you expand on this? Maybe I have misunderstood you here. Thanks
The minimum progrogramme is a programme for the preparation of the alternative to capitalism. Capitalist social relations remain intact as long as there are no alternative social relations. Workers' control is partially achievable in the form of cooperatives, the creation of genuine workers' parties and democratic unions. In revolutionary situations soviets come on top of that.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This means that the Basic Principles MUST be Basic Principles that DO NOT infinitely divide those who are on the side of the workers (that is, the radical left). We must move away from detailed -membership- programs and from historical -membership- programs as the basis for our MIC's. We should all be united in a single party-movement, regardless of how we see a particular historical figure or particular historical program. We can have those discussions within the movement. We must be as radical-left inclusive as possible.Isn't demarchy a detail? Almost all aspects of the program you consider up for discussion, but demarchy isn't. It must be "called for by all." And since so many people don't agree with demarchy, I don't see how it can possibly be as "radical-left inclusive" as possible.


Obviously, the fundamental aspect of far-leftism is the call for worker's/people's control of the governing body and for the eventual abolition of the state - and not just empty 'democracy', but specifically what I have come to call radical democracy. The mechanism of democracy, not in the corrupt modern sense of election, but in the historical Aristotelian sense of lottery, of sortition, is what must be called for by all. We can no longer have talk of parliaments and congresses that are elected - money will always have its way in these systems. So, the primary demand must be the organization of governments according to radical democracy.How is money supposed to "always have its way" without any capitalists?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You list as your third demand workers' control; this doesn't seem very achievable under capitalism. Capitalism is defined by the antithesis to worker control.

Not really. "Control" is quite achievable under bourgeois auspices. Only when combined with planning, organization, and leading/directing do conflicts arise.


Isn't demarchy a detail? Almost all aspects of the program you consider up for discussion, but demarchy isn't. It must be "called for by all." And since so many people don't agree with demarchy, I don't see how it can possibly be as "radical-left inclusive" as possible.

Many people don't even know what it is, but a lot of activists will probably just go along with this insistence and focus on activist stuff (if not external political issues).

[black magick hustla]

communists dont have minimum program we are defacto maximalists

[Zanthorus]

The ICC claims not to have a minimum programme but their publications on the problems of the period of transition would tend to suggest otherwise.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Many people don't even know what [demarchy] is, but a lot of activists will probably just go along with this insistence and focus on activist stuff (if not external political issues).

Doesn't this strike you as a problem? Shouldn't a minimum programme be based on what we know in common, rather than what most of us might be willing to ignore in common?
If you expect a focus on "activist stuff" why not make that sort of engagement the basis of a minimum programme, instead of an obscure demand that is a great distance from being put into practice?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a hard question to answer. The problem is that the current level of political education is so low that some form of programmatic elitism is necessary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/educate-educate-agitate-t143439/index.html).

Internally organizing the party-movement based on random selection would make eyes wide open in curiosity for sure.

Hardcore activists would probably need only two paragraphs to accept the demarchic paradigm, both for internal organization and political program. They're less aware of any potential academic arguments in favour of elections and against random selection.

[Victus Mortuum]

Your arrangement of "Basic Principles" is different from mine.

Actually, none of my minimum-four Basic Principles (Class Strugglism, Social Labour, Transnational Emancipation, Partyism) includes the laundry list of "The Democracy Question" beyond the "ruling-class political power" remark in Transnational Emancipation. This facilitates debate and unity with well-meaning broad economists.

I see this as not an arrangement of all of the basic principles, but rather a (proposed) clear definition of the basic principle 'social labor'. I do remember that you had written this in your wip:

"Therefore, the second basic principle around which to unite is the systemic establishment of collective worker management (i.e., planning, organization, direction, and control) and responsibility over an all-encompassing participatory economy – free from surplus labour appropriations by any elite minority, from dispossession of the commons and more in the form of private ownership relations over productive and other non-possessive property, from all forms of debt slavery, and from all divisions of labour beyond technical ones (overspecialization) – as a very realistic but basic means to end the exploitation and alienation of human labour power in productive labour and of
humanity as a whole."

But that seems much less...pan-leftist definition. But perhaps you disagree?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I think you're alluding to the problem with the word "collective" back in my stakeholder co-management thread:


I'm looking for something less than systemic collective worker management - where "worker" tackles class, "systemic" refers to the economic system, and "collective" addresses participants by workers in other economic units as suppliers and consumers (which "workplace democracy" doesn't) but also gets past market relations (which "workers self-management" doesn't).

I would say that "collective" definitely addresses the first part (suppliers and consumers). To what extent it addresses the second part... may be open for debate? :confused:

P.S. - LOL, now I know where I may have been a wee bit too redundant ("systemic... all-encompassing"), but any edit of this and more semantics will have to come later in the holidays. :lol: ;)

[Kiev Communard]

By the way, Die Neue Zeit, what do you think about David Laibman "democratic coordination" scheme? - http://gesd.free.fr/laibman.pdf

It is basically evolving around the notion of combination of decentralised decision-making and centralised coordination within the framework of participatory economy, and seems more feasible that, for instance, Parecon, to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are so many models out there. EDIT - I like what Laibman said in his paper about different models:


Different models can and should be developed, but we ought to acknowledge that no single model or individual prospective is likely to grasp something as vast as a re-conceived socialism in its entirety, and that the tasks of synthesis of elements from the various perspectives will undoubtedly come onto the agenda farther down the road.

I understand comrade Cockshott's model the best, and the parecon model a distant second (the word "participatory" and the fetish for councils).

Maybe you can compare Albert-Hahnel, Laibman, and Devine for me? All the theorists engaged with one another here, for example:

http://www.scienceandsociety.com/contents_spr02.html

P.S. - Re. Devine, the part I got out of him was the divide between the functional/technical division of labour and the "social" division of labour, plus the need to scrap the latter via rotation around five or so job categories.

[RED DAVE]

That's a hard question to answer. The problem is that the current level of political education is so low that some form of programmatic elitism is necessary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/educate-educate-agitate-t143439/index.html).

Internally organizing the party-movement based on random selection would make eyes wide open in curiosity for sure.

Hardcore activists would probably need only two paragraphs to accept the demarchic paradigm, both for internal organization and political program. They're less aware of any potential academic arguments in favour of elections and against random selection.Rarely have I en****ered such unapologetic condenscension towards the working class. I don't tink you've got the sense or the politics to be embarrassed by what you write.

Have you ever been involved in a working class movement, DNZ, like, maybe a rank-and-file group or even a union?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

That was a comment made by one working-class person to another, thank you very much (i.e., not petit-bourgeois or other non-worker "Student Left" types), on how more educated workers should interact with less educated workers. Did you even post comments in that linked thread?

[RED DAVE]

That was a comment made by one working-class person to another, thank you very much (i.e., not petit-bourgeois or other non-worker "Student Left" types), on how more educated workers should interact with less educated workers. Did you even post comments in that linked thread?With all due respect, I don't give a shit if it was written to Trotsky by Lenin; it's still condescending as hell. I am constantly amazed that your notion of the working class is so completely abstract as to be virtually nonexistent as a group of living people and not as a collection of structures.

RED DAVE