Bill Ayers

[ComradeAV]

would do you think of Bill Ayers? Do you consider him a traitor to the radical/revolutionary cause or as a true comrade? Also what do you comrades think of van jones, true communist or just a confused liberal?

[KurtFF8]

Are you actually an employee of the Glenn Beck show?

[Proukunin]

I think Bill Ayers was more amateur than more of the other world revolutionaries and communists. While he was in the weathermen group, and Weather Underground especially, they didn't have a mass movement of workers and youth. I just believe that is one of the first main aspects of trying to make revolution work successfully. I also think they were more anarchistic rather than Marxist. :thumbup1:

[ComradeAV]

Are you actually an employee of the Glenn Beck show?

Lol, no. Dont worry I am not some sort of spy for the right-wing reactionaries. I am just asking to see what revolutionary generally think of van jones and bill ayers.

[The Douche]

I think they were both revolutionaries once and turned away for liberalism. Kind of like neocons who were once Trotskyists.

[Martin Blank]

would do you think of Bill Ayers? Do you consider him a traitor to the radical/revolutionary cause or as a true comrade? Also what do you comrades think of van jones, true communist or just a confused liberal?

Disaffected petty bourgeois who were never really revolutionaries in the first place, and are now where they always belonged: firmly in the arms of the corporatist Democratic Party.

[The Douche]

Disaffected petty bourgeois who were never really revolutionaries in the first place, and are now where they always belonged: firmly in the arms of the corporatist Democratic Party.

You really think people who come from non-proletarian backrounds can't be revolutionaries? Or perhaps I've misunderstood you.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the thing with bill ayers van jones and all these real and possible former communists is this.

they work for obama. they are no longer revolutionary. jones is out but now hes sitting pretty on formerly being in the white house.

i watch glenn beck every day to know what bullshit hes gonna bring up. and this is the first time that name has been put up here (to my surprise)

these people glen beck makes targets of are all of the old 60s movement. does this mean they are bad? no.

people in my party were active in the 60s in 70s in the anti-war movement. but gues what. they STILL ARE. unlike these fools who either work for NGOs or the white house.

[gorillafuck]

Are you actually an employee of the Glenn Beck show?
That actually crossed my mind, haha. A Leninist just joined and is asking about two former radicals who work for Obama or The Democratic Party now, both of them people that Glenn Beck has in the past specifically attacked as proof of Obama being a far left conspirator.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

i watch glenn beck every day
Wait, wut.
I was about to quote this a thousand times, but I figured that's a reason for a warning. :lol:

TBF, these are reasonable questions for someone new to the movement because you hear a lot about these guys from the right (see: Glenn Beck).

They're just liberals trying to have a radical-edge to keep the younger generation interested in politics and supportive of Obomba.

[Rusty Shackleford]

me watching that show has definitely hit the quality of my posts. but i live up to my name.


*dons tin hat*


anyways.


yes, it is fair to wonder whether they are revolutionaries today. but the simplest and most plain answer is... no.

whats important about the former 60s radicals is that they were once radical, they now have or had major positions in NGOs and in the government. they are pretty accomplished oddly enough.

but the theory that they are trying to collapse the system vis "cloward and piven" is ridiculous.

[Martin Blank]

You really think people who come from non-proletarian backrounds can't be revolutionaries? Or perhaps I've misunderstood you.

Certainly not if they can go back to that class after playtime is over.

[Red Commissar]

He's a bogeyman.

[Tablo]

would do you think of Bill Ayers? Do you consider him a traitor to the radical/revolutionary cause or as a true comrade? Also what do you comrades think of van jones, true communist or just a confused liberal?
He had shit politics and still does. Something I think that plagued the whole student movement back then was poorly thought through politics.

[TC]

the thing with bill ayers van jones and all these real and possible former communists is this.

they work for obama. they are no longer revolutionary. jones is out but now hes sitting pretty on formerly being in the white house.

Ayers never worked for Obama...neither does Jones anymore...


I actually sort of know Bill Ayers (enough to form a personal opinion) and think a number of things as a result (though I wont post details on a public forum), but as a public figure I think his politics remain excellent politics both for the situation he found himself in in the 60s and 70s, and for the contemporary situation (and he has remained a revolutionary socialist).

I've been to a Van Jones speech, - he is very impressive as a progressive speaker, and he does the work of moving people leftwards without being explicitly marxist, which is sometimes necessary work.

[ComradeAV]

me watching that show has definitely hit the quality of my posts. but i live up to my name.


*dons tin hat*


anyways.


yes, it is fair to wonder whether they are revolutionaries today. but the simplest and most plain answer is... no.

whats important about the former 60s radicals is that they were once radical, they now have or had major positions in NGOs and in the government. they are pretty accomplished oddly enough.

but the theory that they are trying to collapse the system vis "cloward and piven" is ridiculous.

Farnces Piven I believe was interviewed on democracy now, she denied having revolutionary standings, she stated that she was just a democrat. So that comment itself tells me she is not sincere.

[KurtFF8]

Disaffected petty bourgeois who were never really revolutionaries in the first place, and are now where they always belonged: firmly in the arms of the corporatist Democratic Party.

In what sense is Bill Ayers "firmly in the arms of the corporatist Democratic Party"?

[S.Artesian]

I knew Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins, Jeff Jones, Bernadine Dohrn-- worked with them in sds, broke with them over RYM 1-Weatherman.

Yeah we can call Bill disaffected petty bourgeois who then falls back into the arms of his disaffected family, and that might make someone feel more secure in his or her own "authentic" "proletarianism," but all that is is a self-aggrandizing pose not unlike the pose taken by Ayers and his comrades, substituting ideological criteria for historical, social context and programmatic activity.

The degeneration, fractionalizing, and implosion of sds, epitomized by the Weatherman, was the result of the peaking of the radical student movement which origin was in the stabilization of capitalism after WW2, the change in the composition and organization of the "traditional" working class after the incorporation of the industrial union bureaucracies into the established apparatus for keeping order.

At the same time, migration of African-Americans from the Southern rural areas into the cities and industrial and government employment triggered the civil-rights against the "obsolete" restrictions of black labor imposed by Jim Crow.

That movement was the source for the student movement. The FSM in Berkeley was staffed, organized, led by students who had participated in civil rights actions in the South, and in California against the discrimination of African-Americans. Those initially attracted to sds were attracted on the basis of its forthright confrontation of the structures, rather than the simple ideology, of racism in the US.

Now the failure of sds, a failure at its peak, was the "failure," in part of that same civil rights movement to grasp apprehend recognize that the roots of its struggle and its future were and would be determined by the role and prospects of black labor in the US.

Despite all the radicalism of Stokely's and H. Rap's "black power," of the Panthers' self defense, no transition was made to the emancipation of black people as being the issue of the emancipation of black labor connected to the issue of the emancipation of laborers as a class--- except in the instance of the DRUM-LRBW movement centered in Detroit.

We have in Ayers and the Weathermen another iteration in the tradition of radical populism, with allowances made for the proclaimed adherence to "Marxism" of agrarian based revolutions in China, the "third world" [which of course were experiencing post WW2 increased investment of capital and modest industrialization disrupting their own tenuous relations between city and countryside].

So were Ayers et al "sincere" revolutionists? Sure, not that matters in the scheme of things. They were radical elements who acted on their actual detachment from class struggle by taking it to the max. "American Narodniks" might be an apt definition. However, this transition from radical revolutionist to tacit accommodation is hardly limited to students, those privileged, of a "non-proletarian" origin.

The history of revolutionaries, and of working class struggle is filled with individuals and movements who follow this same course, plus or minus the "armed struggle."

Would anybody care to dismiss Aguinaldo and the struggle he led against first Spain and then the US in the Philippines as "petit-bourgeois, eventually returning to its fold"?

You want to dismiss them, Ayers et al., as "never real revolutionists, who are now back in the arms of where they always belonged"? You can do that, but that is substituting an ideological evaluation based on abstraction of class struggle from the actual historical context. And it certainly lacks an appreciation for what the civil rights movement, and sds, represented, struggled to accomplish, did and did not do "warts and all."

Full disclosure: Before Miles gets up on his high horse pulling his proletarian cart, I come from a "lower middle-class" background, lucky enough to go to college, met Ayers and co., split, worked in Detroit with sds, split when they decided to join YAWF-WWP, went to work for a railroad as a brakeman and wound up as the chief of operations for a railroad, discharging my obligations to the bourgeoisie to ensure safety and efficiency on the railroad as their officer/manager/agent in charge, for which I was highly compensated [although mere peanuts if we break it down by the hour], and even fired union employees who risked their own, or the safety, of others. Did that without blinking an eye, having seen the results of others blinking their eyes and turning their heads.

EDIT: PS, haven't kept up on Ayers politics, but my ex-wife tells me that he is not "within the Democratic Party." Now Tom Hayden, there's a guy who most definitely is and makes me want to puke-- just as much as Carl Davidson does.

[Jose Gracchus]

Certainly not if they can go back to that class after playtime is over.

What does this really mean in practice? I mean do we have quotas or voting rules and rules for who counts are revolutionary proletarians and how they keep control of organizations and movements? Where do we draw lines? I think I've followed your posts too much to think you mean this, but it sounds to me you feel like privileged background students are outside liberatory struggles? Could you clarify?

[GPDP]

PS, haven't kept up on Ayers politics, but my ex-wife tells me that he is not "within the Democratic Party." Now Tom Hayden, there's a guy who most definitely is and makes me want to puke-- just as much as Carl Davidson does.

Oy, tell me about it. Back when I used to follow ZNet almost religiously, you couldn't go past the comments section of an article criticizing Obama without bumping into good old Carl Davidson, a supposed Marxist-Leninist, chastising the author for his foolishness in talking ill about Obama and his "movement" in the face of the evil scary Tea Party. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of such comments were levied at Paul Street, by far ZNet's most consistent critic of Obama.

How does such an experienced self-proclaimed Marxist come to find himself flying into the welcoming arms of the Democrats? I think Davidson said it best when he said he was "getting too old."

[syndicat]

i agree to some extent with S. Artesian's comments. "American Norodnik" is a reasonable tag. I was also around back then, but in L.A. Didn't know of any weather people in the local sds. I had several friends who were an anarchist tendency in SDS, expelled by the Stalinists in '68. they joined "The Resistance", a late '60s anarcho-syndicalist group. i learned about anarcho-syndicalism from them. RU and PL were the dominant groups in the local sds. after the split in '69 i worked with the Progressive Labor Party controlled rump of SDS for awhile. but i found most student MLs of that era to be so arrogant they were hard to take. at the time i attributed this to their sense of entitlement from their privileged origins.

they rankled my class sensibility. i grew up in the working poor. my mother was a single parent, a clerical worker. when i was a kid we lived with my grandmother. she was a milliner who worked in hat making factories in the L.A. garment district. my wayward father was a blue collar worker, an electrician who worked in shipyards along the west coast.

i believe their "middle class" sense of entitlement was also a reason for the attraction of leninism in that era. it emphasizes learning a theory...what students like to do, and emphasizes the leading role of an intellectual party vanguard, people who will manage the movement. now, what are students from the middle class trained by universities to do? to become professionals and managers, people who will be entitled to make the decisions because of their superior educations.

this doesn't mean that people who are "proletarian" are automatically sources of wisdom. the working class has the potential to be a socially progressive movement because it can only win and liberate itself by building a movement based on solidarity, and an internal alliance among the various oppressed groups who make it up.

the radical left of that era was overwhelmingly a student based milieu. and it was lacking in any kind of healthy relationship to the working class. in the '30s there had been an organic intellectual radical left layer in the American working class, nutured during decades of militant struggles from the late 1800s to the 1930s. but this indigenous radical working class layer was largely destroyed or disappeared after world war 2.

a key feature of the radicalization of the '60s/70s era was, as Artesian points out, the struggle against the actual forms of racism in American society. in the late '60s there were ghetto rebellions in many cities. beginning in the '40s the planter/agribiz elite in the south had begun mechanizing, to force more blacks to migrate away, because they believed it was only a matter of time til they won the right to vote, and in many counties and towns blacks were a majority back then. so there was a mass migration of 5 million African-Americans to northern and westerrn cities. but agricultural laborers were not trained in skills that were in demand in an urban labor market, and that was added to race discrimination. so there was a vast problem of structural unemployment in the ghettoes. Artesian makes the good point that there needed to be a link between black labor and demands for justice by the black population. in Detroit there were the revolutionary unions but not much of this occurred elsewhere.

so there was a tendency for many activists of color in that period to focus on community organizing rather than workplace organizing, given the huge numbers of unemployed people in ghettos. hence the orientation of the Black Panther Party.

at the same time there was the racism and conservatism that was still entrenched in various parts of the union bureaucracy...itself a symptom of what had happened to the labor movement after WW2. so you had a lot of young radicals, especially from middle class origins, who took the view that the white working class was hopelessly bought off by racism and imperialism. this of course is a counsel of despair, but I believe Weather underground went down that deadend route.

on the other hand, there were also large parts of the radical student based left that recognized the problem of a lack of implantation in the working class, and this led to the emphasis on "colonizing" and thousands pursued that direction. at that time i was highly sympathetic to this direction. after all i was a revolutionary syndicalist, so building a grassroots, militant solidarity based labor movement is central to me.

Weather underground's political influences also can be found in the guerrillaist third world Marxist Leninist parties. in reality their politics were authoritarian and Stalinist. and their substitutionism fits in with this.

[S.Artesian]

I agree pretty strongly with every point Syndicat makes in his post.

[Martin Blank]

Full disclosure: Before Miles ... fap, fap, fap,...

I guess I should be flattered that S.Artesian takes everything I say on here much more seriously than I do. I can't wait to see what he does when I actually post something serious on this three-ring circus.

[Martin Blank]

What does this really mean in practice? I mean do we have quotas or voting rules and rules for who counts are revolutionary proletarians and how they keep control of organizations and movements? Where do we draw lines? I think I've followed your posts too much to think you mean this, but it sounds to me you feel like privileged background students are outside liberatory struggles? Could you clarify?

I work with a lot of people from non-proletarian backgrounds. I've found many of them to be decent people; others I've found to be as valuable as a screen door on a submarine. Regardless, though, I see no reason to have either type in a proletarian organization. They are, as Marx put it, an adulterating element. That's the line drawn for me, and for the organization to which I belong.

[S.Artesian]

I guess I should be flattered that S.Artesian takes everything I say on here much more seriously than I do. I can't wait to see what he does when I actually post something serious on this three-ring circus.

I don't take what you say seriously, I take your ignorance about what you say seriously.

[Jose Gracchus]

I work with a lot of people from non-proletarian backgrounds. I've found many of them to be decent people; others I've found to be as valuable as a screen door on a submarine. Regardless, though, I see no reason to have either type in a proletarian organization. They are, as Marx put it, an adulterating element. That's the line drawn for me, and for the organization to which I belong.

In practice? What are proletarians? Where do you the draw the line between proletarians and ostensibly wage-labor bureaucrats, coordinators, petty bourgeois? Income? Some version of "we know it when we see it?" Do you ask recruits how much money Mom and Dad make? I'm serious. In practice, most importantly in a mass organization, one that could in principle encompass a majority of the national population? How would you make the distinction? Would there be no role for intellectuals developing political economy, various public policy science? Would all these things be restricted to proletarian 'originating' elements? I mean seriously, I wish to know what systemic means there would be to making sure bourgeois elements could not and would not enter the party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In practice? What are proletarians? Where do you the draw the line between proletarians and ostensibly wage-labor bureaucrats, coordinators, petty bourgeois? Income? Some version of "we know it when we see it?" Do you ask recruits how much money Mom and Dad make? I'm serious. In practice, most importantly in a mass organization, one that could in principle encompass a majority of the national population? How would you make the distinction? Would there be no role for intellectuals developing political economy, various public policy science? Would all these things be restricted to proletarian 'originating' elements? I mean seriously, I wish to know what systemic means there would be to making sure bourgeois elements could not and would not enter the party.

I wrote a chapter on class relations in my older pamphlet. In actual fact, comrade Miles is more flexible on the definition of "proletarian" than I am.

I'm pretty sure one part of the filtering process is asking the prospective candidate about his job occupation, not so much his income.

Re. intellectuals: depends on which "intellectual" you're referring to. There are working-class intellectuals and there are also non-worker intellectuals, most notably tenured profs with subordinate research staff.

[S.Artesian]

Perhaps we can deal with the concrete, rather than abstract definitions. Specifically the "concreteness" of Miles pseudo-"proletarianism" is connected to his ignorant assertions about Bill Ayers:


Disaffected petty bourgeois who were never really revolutionaries in the first place, and are now where they always belonged: firmly in the arms of the corporatist Democratic Party. Well, clearly not only can "non-proletarians" not belong to Miles' "party" but they can't be "real revolutionaries." Doesn't matter what they advocate-- like revolution and expropriation of the ruling class; doesn't matter what they do-- organize and lead demonstrations, protests, confrontations with that ruling class. It just doesn't matter.

And Miles caps his ideological cake with this cherry:-- "firmly in the arms" of the Democrats when in fact Ayers was not, and is currently not, flogging for the Democrats.

"Proletarian" "roots" or "status" is not supposed to be a license for ignorance, superficiality, or the inability to understand or evaluate the historical forces, significance, and limitations to social movements.

[ComradeAV]

Perhaps we can deal with the concrete, rather than abstract definitions. Specifically the "concreteness" of Miles pseudo-"proletarianism" is connected to his ignorant assertions about Bill Ayers:

Well, clearly not only can "non-proletarians" not belong to Miles' "party" but they can't be "real revolutionaries." Doesn't matter what they advocate-- like revolution and expropriation of the ruling class; doesn't matter what they do-- organize and lead demonstrations, protests, confrontations with that ruling class. It just doesn't matter.

And Miles caps his ideological cake with this cherry:-- "firmly in the arms" of the Democrats when in fact Ayers was not, and is currently not, flogging for the Democrats.

"Proletarian" "roots" or "status" is not supposed to be a license for ignorance, superficiality, or the inability to understand or evaluate the historical forces, significance, and limitations to social movements.

I very much agree with what you have said. In fact, you should also mention to miles, that one of the greatest revolutionaries in history,vladimir lenin, was a lawyer. Also I would technically consider myself to be well off compared to most proletarians. My dad makes 60,000 a year and they can afford to send me to college, I consider that a luxury.

[Ocean Seal]

would do you think of Bill Ayers? Do you consider him a traitor to the radical/revolutionary cause or as a true comrade? Also what do you comrades think of van jones, true communist or just a confused liberal?
I believe that they were both just liberals.

qJ9zPySHbuY
My opinion of the weather underground is this.

And Van Jones doesn't have a communist bone in his body. Glenn Beck just has absolutely no regard for the truth so everyone including Barack Obama is a communist.

[S.Artesian]

And the Panthers endorsed black capitalism, and put Huey's picture on a dollar bill on the cover of their newspaper. And Bobby Rush, I believe, became a Democrat congressional rep. And Bobby Seales I believe joined or endorsed some Democrat group. And the Panthers in Oakland endorsed the Democrat Ron Dellums. And so what?

Does this mean the Panthers, due to "non-proletarian" origins, or even orientation, were once and future liberals? Does this mean that all the struggles against repression, and the repression itself, and the waning of the movement as the bourgeoisie met and broke the strike waves peaking in 1974 were immaterial to the course, direction taken by the radical groups at that time?

[S.Artesian]

In fact, you should also mention to miles, that one of the greatest revolutionaries in history,vladimir lenin, was a lawyer.

And not just Lenin. There's Lunacharskii, Preobrazhensky, Bukharin etc etc etc. And Rosa Luxemburg-- with her doctorate;

The issue isn't the individual origins of the individual, but the interaction of the individuals with the class; with the class developing its organizations of a" class-for-itself."

The organization has to b proletarian in its make-up, interactions, connections, program, tactics, strategy-- means and ends, but as the self-emancipation of the proletariat entails the self-emancipation from being the proletariat, I think we might give more weight to program, analysis, and activity rather than circumstances of birth or employment. Just my opinion....

[DaringMehring]

Ok, but Lenin, or Trotsky, for example, while being petit-bourgeois in origin, dedicated their whole lives to the proletarian revolution. They had worked with workers, given speeches to them, heard them speak, and so on, for decades. They had totally immersed themselves in that milieu.

Lenin "was a lawyer" --- but did he spend much if any time trying cases for money, getting rich off of it, and hobnobbing with the bourgeoisie?

Trotsky "was the son of a landowner" --- but did he sit around running the family farm, charging rents, and looking for a rich bride?

No!

Do we need such people who do spend all their time in bourgeois circles, as part of our workers revolution? No. The proletariat has to lead, and if enough "adulterating elements" are present then it won't be a proletarian revolution, and will go off on some petit-bourgeois track (compromise, terrorism, state capitalism, etc.)

Having everything based on what "analysis" a person has, means, a free ticket to anybody, from any class, no matter how disconnected to workers, to come in to "lead and enlighten." That can't be allowed. Sure there has to be scope for sympathetic petit bourgeoisie to join up, provided they go the Lenin-Trotsky route or at least make an effort along those lines, but you can't say that class should count for nothing in trying to make a working class revolution.

[blake 3:17]

Bill Ayers has done some really good work around progressive education. He's a way more positive figure than when he was terrorist.

[S.Artesian]

Bill Ayers has done some really good work around progressive education. He's a way more positive figure than when he was terrorist.

That's very true-- starting way back in his University of Michigan with a children's free school in Ann Arbor.

[S.Artesian]

=
Do we need such people who do spend all their time in bourgeois circles, as part of our workers revolution? No. The proletariat has to lead, and if enough "adulterating elements" are present then it won't be a proletarian revolution, and will go off on some petit-bourgeois track (compromise, terrorism, state capitalism, etc.)

Having everything based on what "analysis" a person has, means, a free ticket to anybody, from any class, no matter how disconnected to workers, to come in to "lead and enlighten." That can't be allowed. Sure there has to be scope for sympathetic petit bourgeoisie to join up, provided they go the Lenin-Trotsky route or at least make an effort along those lines, but you can't say that class should count for nothing in trying to make a working class revolution.

Of course nobody said to give carte blanche to those who spend all their time in bourgeois circles. Nobody said to give a free ticket to anybody from any class, or make the determination simply on analysis. And nobody said class should count for nothing in trying to make a working class revolution.

What was said that the simple-minded reductionism that says "non-proletarian" origin means once and future liberal is basically just that--simple-minded, and...an ideological cover for pumping out incorrect information-- i.e. Ayers being firmly in the arms of the Democratic Party.

[Jose Gracchus]

Perhaps we can deal with the concrete, rather than abstract definitions. Specifically the "concreteness" of Miles pseudo-"proletarianism" is connected to his ignorant assertions about Bill Ayers:

Well, clearly not only can "non-proletarians" not belong to Miles' "party" but they can't be "real revolutionaries." Doesn't matter what they advocate-- like revolution and expropriation of the ruling class; doesn't matter what they do-- organize and lead demonstrations, protests, confrontations with that ruling class. It just doesn't matter.

And Miles caps his ideological cake with this cherry:-- "firmly in the arms" of the Democrats when in fact Ayers was not, and is currently not, flogging for the Democrats.

"Proletarian" "roots" or "status" is not supposed to be a license for ignorance, superficiality, or the inability to understand or evaluate the historical forces, significance, and limitations to social movements.

I disagree, actually. The working class is much more materially and subjectively mature as a class, despite a historical low in militancy by the American proletariat, than in 1917. Furthermore, pointing out the coordinators or petty bourgeois or whatever you wish to call the middling figures or intelligenty from Russia who often led or dominated workers' organizations and the workers' movements doesn't make a case for it, more likely a case against it.

In any case, I asked for clarification because I'm genuinely interested. I know DNZ's stance on this issue, clearly and unambiguously laid out. My major qualm is simply this: a lack of substantive basis for applying his distinctions in policy, this ends up sounding like mystifying beliefs that if we just keep the party blue collar enough that will be some panacea... I wish to know what we define as proletarian. This is clearly a significant question, considering that there are Marxists and anarchists who consider small, especially rural property holders and tenant-peon farmers/farm laborers to be part of the revolutionary classes. I know he says his party includes revisionist pro-party "anarcho-syndicalists". So how exactly does he in practice keep the party clear of non-revolutionary entities. I also am curious because I do think there's a role for class traitors/fellow travelers, especially spetsy in areas of say, political economy. I don't know Mr. Cockshott's "background" (is this a Marxian or robust class analysis criteria?) is, but I surely wouldn't keep him locked out if we were to host a symposium on the workers' economy if his dad was a successful physician. I do think a degree of ecumenism should remain in the revolutionary movement, though in all cases subordinated to revolutionary class rank-and-file elements. I think DNZ's "worker-only vote" is a decent model, though perhaps hard to bureaucratically keep precise in practice. I wish to compare, contrast, and evaluate Miles' definition of "proletarian" and the "how" of keeping non-revolutionary-class elements out of the revolutionary movement "driver's seat".

[Ocean Seal]

And the Panthers endorsed black capitalism, and put Huey's picture on a dollar bill on the cover of their newspaper. And Bobby Rush, I believe, became a Democrat congressional rep. And Bobby Seales I believe joined or endorsed some Democrat group. And the Panthers in Oakland endorsed the Democrat Ron Dellums. And so what?

Does this mean the Panthers, due to "non-proletarian" origins, or even orientation, were once and future liberals? Does this mean that all the struggles against repression, and the repression itself, and the waning of the movement as the bourgeoisie met and broke the strike waves peaking in 1974 were immaterial to the course, direction taken by the radical groups at that time?
No it doesn't. But far be it from me to defend the Weather Underground because their views do not reconcile with our socialist agenda. And no, it wasn't because of their non-proletarian origin.

[S.Artesian]

I disagree, actually. The working class is much more materially and subjectively mature as a class, despite a historical low in militancy by the American proletariat, than in 1917. Furthermore, pointing out the coordinators or petty bourgeois or whatever you wish to call the middling figures or intelligenty from Russia who often led or dominated workers' organizations and the workers' movements doesn't make a case for it, more likely a case against it.

In any case, I asked for clarification because I'm genuinely interested. I know DNZ's stance on this issue, clearly and unambiguously laid out. My major qualm is simply this: a lack of substantive basis for applying his distinctions in policy, this ends up sounding like mystifying beliefs that if we just keep the party blue collar enough that will be some panacea... I wish to know what we define as proletarian. This is clearly a significant question, considering that there are Marxists and anarchists who consider small, especially rural property holders and tenant-peon farmers/farm laborers to be part of the revolutionary classes. I know he says his party includes revisionist pro-party "anarcho-syndicalists". So how exactly does he in practice keep the party clear of non-revolutionary entities. I also am curious because I do think there's a role for class traitors/fellow travelers, especially spetsy in areas of say, political economy. I don't know Mr. Cockshott's "background" (is this a Marxian or robust class analysis criteria?) is, but I surely wouldn't keep him locked out if we were to host a symposium on the workers' economy if his dad was a successful physician. I do think a degree of ecumenism should remain in the revolutionary movement, though in all cases subordinated to revolutionary class rank-and-file elements. I think DNZ's "worker-only vote" is a decent model, though perhaps hard to bureaucratically keep precise in practice. I wish to compare, contrast, and evaluate Miles' definition of "proletarian" and the "how" of keeping non-revolutionary-class elements out of the revolutionary movement "driver's seat".

I'm not clear with what you are disagreeing. I am not in any way shape or form and advocate of "vanguard" parties, of "bring class consciousness" from the outside to the "masses."

My point is that the Bolsheviks [at the time of the Russian Revolution] were "organically" connected to the working class, more deeply connected, and trusted after July 1917 than any other party, by the workers through the workers own participation in their own organizations of class struggle-- the factory committees, the district soviets, etc., and that there wasn't any pedigree checking, DNA testing to make sure you were of "pure blood." [Obviously I am not accusing Miles or anyone of being an advocate for "proletarian eugenics. I am using an analogy].

I didn't say there wasn't any discipline, any requirements, but such discipline such requirements of the Bolshevik Party at its peak [whether we think that is short-lived or long-lived] were programmatic, were of content and that word "praxis," and not background.

If we're talking about small farmers or peasants as revolutionary classes, then my answer is "yes and no" which of course is very helpful in getting this sorted out.

Yes, because there hasn't been a successful revolution [or probably an unsuccessful one either] than hasn't included, or mishandled, an agrarian revolt [US Civil War excepted because I don't think that counts as full revolution-- anyway, no peasant war there since there was no peasantry].

At the same time, there hasn't been an agrarian revolt since what? 1873? -- actually, let's say 1868-1878 when the first Cuban uprising against Spain was contained-- that has successfully captured power, or could maintain that power on its own [does anyone think China's revolution or Vietnam's would have succeeded absent the existence of the fSU?].

However, I have an abiding affection for the Left-SRs [nostalgia for something I've never experienced], and I sure as hell wouldn't want to keep a Zapata out of a workers' revolutionary organization or government.

[S.Artesian]

No it doesn't. But far be it from me to defend the Weather Underground because their views do not reconcile with our socialist agenda. And no, it wasn't because of their non-proletarian origin.

OK, if I understand you correctly. Nobody's asking you to defend the Weather Underground. I just don't think we can attribute subsequent developments to an individual's, or individuals', social origin

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagree, actually. The working class is much more materially and subjectively mature as a class, despite a historical low in militancy by the American proletariat, than in 1917. Furthermore, pointing out the coordinators or petty bourgeois or whatever you wish to call the middling figures or intelligenty from Russia who often led or dominated workers' organizations and the workers' movements doesn't make a case for it, more likely a case against it.

In any case, I asked for clarification because I'm genuinely interested. I know DNZ's stance on this issue, clearly and unambiguously laid out. My major qualm is simply this: a lack of substantive basis for applying his distinctions in policy, this ends up sounding like mystifying beliefs that if we just keep the party blue collar enough that will be some panacea... I wish to know what we define as proletarian.

Comrade, I didn't say anything about having a "blue collar" culture. :confused: For me, there are manual workers, clerical workers, and professional workers.

Macnair's take is the most open one:


The ‘working class’ here means the whole social class dependent on the wage fund, including employed and unemployed, unwaged women ‘homemakers’, youth and pensioners. It does not just mean the employed workers, still less the ‘productive’ workers or the workers in industry. This class has the potential to lead society forward beyond capitalism because it is separated from the means of production and hence forced to cooperate and organise to defend its interests. This cooperation foreshadows the free cooperative appropriation of the means of production that is communism.

But already in Capital or one interpretation of it, according to comrade Zanthorus in a recent post or chat, unproductive labour isn't really wage labour. There's the fiction of wage labour, but it's not real wage labour. :confused:

If so (and I don't think that's the case because my Ch. 2 framework states that unproductive labour is in wage labour before it differentiating that from productive labour), that then raises the question of productive labour within each of the three main segments of the modern proletariat mentioned above.

With that question, there's Marx's take (adding surplus value), my take (contributing to the development of society's labour power and capabilities, both quantitatively and qualitatively), and Cockshott's take (workers consumption bundle).

For immediate political purposes re. voting membership, I am OK with Macnair's definition, which is the same as Miles's definition. I wrote something about "should it be resolved that [unproductive labour is] actually not part of the proletariat itself" especially because of the "should" part. I welcome debate.


This is clearly a significant question, considering that there are Marxists and anarchists who consider small, especially rural property holders and tenant-peon farmers/farm laborers to be part of the revolutionary classes.

Industrial farm workers and other farm workers are proletarians. Small tenant farmers and sharecroppers aren't. Even in my Caesarism commentary ( ;) ), their politically and not socially revolutionary potential is limited to the Third World. I know you think my interpretation of Parenti is weird, but their political potential to work with the proletariat in their own separate organizations (or as non-voting members of proletarian ones) lies in Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and Peasant Patrimonialism (sandwiching against bourgeois plutocracy).


I know he says his party includes revisionist pro-party "anarcho-syndicalists". So how exactly does he in practice keep the party clear of non-revolutionary entities.

It goes back to partyism as stated in the Basic Principles. Only those class-strugglist anarchists who agree with "organizing permanently and on the political and even culturo-demographic basis of workers-only, transnational “partyness” – distinct from and opposed to all non-worker parties, all class-conciliationist parties, their individual coalitions, and their combined hegemony" are allowed in.

The Basic Principles also mention the petit-bourgeoisie as a separate class, so there's no wiggle room for trying to say that small tenant farmers and sharecroppers are somehow "working class(es)" and thus eligible to vote:

Economic radicalism from the petit-bourgeoisie, ranging from radical equality of opportunity through equal private ownership relations over all productive and other non-possessive property, all the way to equality in outcomes regardless of need [...]


I also am curious because I do think there's a role for class traitors/fellow travelers, especially spetsy in areas of say, political economy. I don't know Mr. Cockshott's "background" (is this a Marxian or robust class analysis criteria?) is, but I surely wouldn't keep him locked out if we were to host a symposium on the workers' economy if his dad was a successful physician.

He's a working-class intellectual. From what I know he, unlike Leo Panitch, doesn't have subordinate research staff. He writes his works by himself or in relatively equal collaboration with others. From what I know, many if not most physicians today are professional workers (EDIT: if we count nurses and physician assistants). :confused:

Macnair thinks he's out and out petit-bourgeois (he isn't), but whether he's a coordinator or not depends on whether he's got subordinate research staff on hand.

The likes of Panitch wouldn't be "locked out," just not made eligible to vote.


I do think a degree of ecumenism should remain in the revolutionary movement, though in all cases subordinated to revolutionary class rank-and-file elements. I think DNZ's "worker-only vote" is a decent model, though perhaps hard to bureaucratically keep precise in practice. I wish to compare, contrast, and evaluate Miles' definition of "proletarian" and the "how" of keeping non-revolutionary-class elements out of the revolutionary movement "driver's seat".

Miles is on the same page. He's OK with non-worker intellectuals as "honorary members" or having some other non-voting membership status.

[KC]

I spent a day with Bill a year or two ago when he drove up from Chicago to speak. He's a pretty down to earth guy, fun to hang out with. While I think he's toned down his politics a bit I don't see how anyone could call him firmly in line with the Democrats and be taken seriously.

[Jose Gracchus]

Comrade, I didn't say anything about having a "blue collar" culture. :confused: For me, there are manual workers, clerical workers, and professional workers.

Macnair's take is the most open one:

I like this definition. It is succinct and it captures the social relations of labor and capital.


But already in Capital or one interpretation of it, according to comrade Zanthorus in a recent post or chat, unproductive labour isn't really wage labour. There's the fiction of wage labour, but it's not real wage labour. :confused:

If so (and I don't think that's the case because my Ch. 2 framework states that unproductive labour is in wage labour before it differentiating that from productive labour), that then raises the question of productive labour within each of the three main segments of the modern proletariat mentioned above.

What is 'unproductive labor' defined as in this interpretation of Marx?


With that question, there's Marx's take (adding surplus value), my take (contributing to the development of society's labour power and capabilities, both quantitatively and qualitatively), and Cockshott's take (workers consumption bundle).

What's "workers' consumption bundle" mean? How in principle do you actually determine this in practice? What kind of workforces and social groups and strata will you actively recruit in? If a single man, dressed casually walks into the party office, and says I want to join. What will you ask him? Via what process or mechanism is your or their models realized in evaluating potential membership into voting full-members?


For immediate political purposes re. voting membership, I am OK with Macnair's definition, which is the same as Miles's definition. I wrote something about "should it be resolved that [unproductive labour is] actually not part of the proletariat itself" especially because of the "should" part. I welcome debate.

Okay. Still curious on definition and realization of "unproductive labor" as a scrutinizing criteria. Also, so is this realized by asking potential members their income and show it is predominantly from wages?


Industrial farm workers and other farm workers are proletarians. Small tenant farmers and sharecroppers aren't. Even in my Caesarism commentary ( ;) ), their politically and not socially revolutionary potential is limited to the Third World. I know you think my interpretation of Parenti is weird, but their political potential to work with the proletariat in their own separate organizations (or as non-voting members of proletarian ones) lies in Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism and Peasant Patrimonialism (sandwiching against bourgeois plutocracy).

What is "Patrimonialism" and "Democratism" mean in this context, precisely?


It goes back to partyism as stated in the Basic Principles. Only those class-strugglist anarchists who agree with "organizing permanently and on the political and even culturo-demographic basis of workers-only, transnational “partyness” – distinct from and opposed to all non-worker parties, all class-conciliationist parties, their individual coalitions, and their combined hegemony" are allowed in.

Understood.


The Basic Principles also mention the petit-bourgeoisie as a separate class, so there's no wiggle room for trying to say that small tenant farmers and sharecroppers are somehow "working class(es)" and thus eligible to vote:

Economic radicalism from the petit-bourgeoisie, ranging from radical equality of opportunity through equal private ownership relations over all productive and other non-possessive property, all the way to equality in outcomes regardless of need [...]

What's the full statement?


He's a working-class intellectual. From what I know he, unlike Leo Panitch, doesn't have subordinate research staff. He writes his works by himself or in relatively equal collaboration with others. From what I know, many if not most physicians today are professional workers. :confused:

I'm very certain Albert and Hahnel would call them coordinators. They have privileged position in the local division of labor, monopolizes profitable and valuable skills for a high income and authority over other workers (nurses, physician assistants, etc.), and usually are in terms of wealth comparable to many small businessmen.


Macnair thinks he's out and out petit-bourgeois (he isn't),

Who is 'he'? Himself or Cockshott?


but whether he's a coordinator or not depends on whether he's got subordinate research staff on hand.

Depending on how you interpret Albert and Hahnel's criteria, arguably all professionals with authority over other workers in their immediate area of operations are coordinators, not proletarians.


The likes of Panitch wouldn't be "locked out," just not made eligible to vote.

This is what I was basically getting at. Okay this is a good criteria and system.


Miles is on the same page. He's OK with non-worker intellectuals as "honorary members" or having some other non-voting membership status.

Gotcha.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers. Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Wheen, Francis. Karl Marx: A Life.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is 'unproductive labor' defined as in this interpretation of Marx?

What's "workers' consumption bundle" mean? How in principle do you actually determine this in practice?

Warning: There's a lot of math in the link below.

Hunting Productive Work (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0404/att-0028/01-unprod.pdf) by Paul Cockshott and Dave Zachariah

Cockshott's paper was written to critique Marx's definition. The basic contrast is the public-sector teacher and the private-sector factory worker in arms trade production. According to Marx, the former is unproductive and the latter productive.


What kind of workforces and social groups and strata will you actively recruit in? If a single man, dressed casually walks into the party office, and says I want to join. What will you ask him? Via what process or mechanism is your or their models realized in evaluating potential membership into voting full-members?

A good interview would be one of the steps. As I said, he can be asked about his current and past job occupations, just like interviewees for a job are asked about past experience. He can also be asked about what kind of income he derives on the side.


Also, so is this realized by asking potential members their income and show it is predominantly from wages?

I'm sure there would be no need to ask for raw numbers, unlike banks these days asking for income before they consider opening savings and other regular banking accounts (not even credit accounts)! :cursing:

On the problem of unproductive labour, numbers are superfluous if he says he works for a luxury yacht manufacturing company. According to Cockshott, that's unproductive (not entering the workers consumption bundle at all). Where it gets tricky is the working poor person working multiple jobs: According to Cockshott, the Wal-Mart floor "associate" ( :rolleyes: ) performs unproductive labour. According to me, though, that person is a clerical worker and I'd use qualitative stuff to show that his work contributes just enough to the development of society's labour power and capabilities.


What is "Patrimonialism" and "Democratism" mean in this context, precisely?

In the old liberal republican thinking, it's "monarchy" and "democracy." By "monarchy," I mean the literal Greek and not a hereditary figure. Julius Caesar was a dictator for democracy.

The urban petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World leans towards democratism (such as communal power). According to Macnair's critique of Permanent Revolution, the peasantry leans towards "patriarchalism, the setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality whether it's of Lenin or Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe."

The simultaneous use of both is an acknowledgment that the Benign Tyrant model never works, but also that, until the Third World proletariat has "won the battle of democracy," democratism and absolutism need to be partners in the war against plutocracy/oligarchy and its masked form, the Liberal Republic. Just note, for example, the kind of authoritarianism FDR would have needed to stamp out the bourgeois opposition cry of "states rights" (bourgeois federalist shit) against pro-labour reform.

Go see my RevLeft album. :D


What's the full statement?

It's the part that denounces philanthropism, regulatory states, welfare states, Scientific Management, and conspiracism, to name a few, just before asserting class self-emancipation.


I'm very certain Albert and Hahnel would call them coordinators. They have privileged position in the local division of labor, monopolizes profitable and valuable skills for a high income and authority over other workers (nurses, physician assistants, etc.), and usually are in terms of wealth comparable to many small businessmen.

My definition of coordinator is different from Albert-Hahnel (they include both productive and unproductive labour such as big-money lawyers). Oh, I see you're referring to physicians (relations with nurses and assistants). I stand corrected.


Who is 'he'? Himself or Cockshott?

Macnair thinks he himself (Macnair) is petit-bourgeois.

[blake 3:17]

His blog is pretty good: http://billayers.wordpress.com/

As I mentioned in the Mark Rudd thread, it's kind of amazing that the Weatherpeople have managed to actually keep principles and do good work in the post-terrorist experience. Some have done great work around AIDS, Latin America, prisoners justice, basic good lefty work. It also helped that even under Reagan and Bush I, there were pretty powerful social movements and interesting counter hegemonic projects.

I suppose the direction they took was a pretty full commitment with no looking back til they got busted and totally worn out.

[Sasha]

dont forget that some WU are still (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilbert_%28activist%29) in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Alice_Clark) jail, the ones that worked together with the BLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) in the M19CO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_19_Communist_Organization) most notabily, you might also politicly disagree with those organisations but the charge that all just had an brief stint in radical politics and then picked up their cozy priviliged academic live is an clear mistruth.

[Red Bayonet]

Narodnici who don't get killed, caught, or hoist by their own petards grow old, get swell jobs as university proffessors, and write memoirs about how revie they were in their youth.