Hoping for the collapse

[Tommy4ever]

Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

[Crimson Commissar]

Chaos is necessary for socialism to come to the west. In the third world socialism is very much possible in the current situation, but the situation in the west has made people apathetic, they simply don't care about anything other than their own lives. Only a huge collapse of society will make people turn to revolutionary socialism. So no, it's not wrong at all to have these thoughts.

[Tommy4ever]

But surely it is the socialists goal to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be. If we desire the collapse we want to make their lives worse so that our political goals can be met. That seems morally shady territory.

[ar734]

But surely it is the socialists goal to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be. If we desire the collapse we want to make their lives worse so that our political goals can be met. That seems morally shady territory.

I think it is only the workers who can make their lives better. Socialists can provide leadership but only if they learn to speak plain English (or German, Chinese, etc.) Socialists don't desire the collapse of anything. They desire that workers take control of the economic forces which control their lives. Workers are doing this in Germany, for instance. There workers make up about 50% of the boards of directors of major corporations, I believe. Of course, you could argue that WW II was necessary before this was possible. And who was responsible for that collapse?

If you think Hitler was a "socialist" take a look at The Communist Manifesto, German or 'True' Socialism. If that is not a dead on description of Hitler, I don't know what is.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

In reality, the system we live under is incredibly fragile--it could breakdown before our very eyes before we even notice it. Capitalism is far from indestructible. We think of it as a very strong system, but it is chaotic and is in turmoil all the time and this chaos will ultimately lead to change.

Take a look at the world around you, the wars, the poverty and the hunger for so many. We want the lives of all workers to be as good as they can possibly be, but the reality is that for most of them across the world, life is chaos and their economic situations are hellish right now. A collapse in, for example, the American economy, would have greater prospects for those oppressed people all around the world than the prospects offered by the current system. To desire an economic collapse in the west is a healthy thing to desire, what is the alternative? Hope that our conditions stay comfortable, as wage slaves, because we have it fairly easy compares to many others?

It is impossible to be a revolutionary without 'hoping' for the collapse of capitalism. It is the system we want to destroy, dismantle and do away with for good. I think the chaos of a revolution would be much better for the people than complacency in an unjust system is, the oppression that we live under now, to varying degrees across the world, is what we aim to do away with. If you have a moral concern with hoping for its' demise, then perhaps you are not as against it as you would like to be.

Also, it is important to recognize that communism is not about 'our political goals'. These are the goals that are necessary for humanity, they are not a selfish endeavor.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?
Yes, I do hope for that. Why would I, as a Communist, hope that all "stays well" in this current system? We want collapse. It would not be best for the workers if the Capitalist system was healthy(it's not). In fact, the "healthier" Capitalism is, the worse it is for the toilers all over the world. Hoping for the destruction of the present system is not the same as hoping for the workers to be destroyed along with it.

[Crimson Commissar]

But surely it is the socialists goal to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be. If we desire the collapse we want to make their lives worse so that our political goals can be met. That seems morally shady territory.
If their lives get better while remaining in the system of capitalism, it's just social democracy. Social democracy is not what we are fighting for, we are fighting for true socialism. The people will never rise up if they are already satisfied with capitalism. After all, why should a regular person risk their life fighting for an ideology they feel barely any connection to, when they already believe their life is good enough already? A collapse of capitalism would be the greatest thing that could happen right now. We should WANT the world to descend into poverty and oppression, because only in those conditions can revolution be achieved.

[Magón]

Far as I can tell, the collapse is already here, but it's not just some big, overnight thing. Although, that's possible too, and has happened before. (Great Depression) But I think this time, it'll go as it's going now, and slowly collapse.

[PhoenixAsh]

Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

Well...its human to wish bad things to happen. That doesn't necessarilly mean we truely want them to happen. we all do it at one time or another.

So yes...don't worry. It doesn't make you a bad person...its what makes you a person.

And on a personal note...so do I sometimes.

[Broletariat]

I think this topic is a little confusing. We all want Capitalism to collapse following in to a rise of Socialism (which is the only realistic scenario in which Capitalism would collapse). But we shouldn't desire for the material conditions of workers to get worse. "A hungry belly fights for food not freedom."

[ZeroNowhere]

But surely it is the socialists goal to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be. If we desire the collapse we want to make their lives worse so that our political goals can be met. That seems morally shady territory.
The interests of the workers are in political power. Higher wages accelerate the collapse by lowering the rate of profit, while lower wages are, well, lower wages, so it's not entirely clear what 'making the lives of the workers as good as they can possibly be' even entails. We are wholly in favour of working class struggle, and working class struggle, when successful, accelerates crises; but then, that doesn't matter, because we're not liberals.


But we shouldn't desire for the material conditions of workers to get worse. "A hungry belly fights for food not freedom."And in fighting for food, they would have to take to political action, ultimately. That's our immediate aim, not that they for some strange reason suddenly decide to overthrow capitalism. It doesn't matter whether they fight for freedom or not, their fighting for food is more important.

[Amphictyonis]

Declining material conditions in advanced capitalist nations is the only thing that will open workers up to socialist ideology en mass. "The struggle fighting for better conditions is what will spread class awareness" has been the mantra over the past century or so but I think that struggle has been co-opted by pro capitalist unions (at least in the USA). Me thinks it's going to take an almost complete breakdown of capitalism for the advanced capitalist nations to go socialist (again I can only speak for the USA).

If/when capitalism breaks down socialism won't just magically arise it's up to us to educate ourselves and the public as to what socialism actually is so it will be demanded/implemented via a mass movement/ revolution during capitalism's weakest point (a period of severe crisis).

[dasredtelephone]

while complete economic collapse would hurt the average worker, it is needed in my opinion. only then will people realize that they need to rise up. for this reason i wish for the collapse. i want to take to the streets with my comrades and better our future.

[Tommy4ever]

You all assume that things like mass unemployment, political turmoil and economic collapse will inevitably lead to socialism so the short term suffering is worth it. The problem is that all these things have no garuntee of turning Europe or America Red they just turn the impossible into the just about possible. So is it still just to wish for these hardships in the knowledge that they merely give you a chance of seeing the changes you crave?

[ZeroNowhere]

You all assume that things like mass unemployment, political turmoil and economic collapse will inevitably lead to socialism so the short term suffering is worth it. The problem is that all these things have no garuntee of turning Europe or America Red they just turn the impossible into the just about possible. So is it still just to wish for these hardships in the knowledge that they merely give you a chance of seeing the changes you crave?The 'change I crave' is the working class taking political action. That is a very likely result, yes. It's also what they'll have to do if they don't wish to die or suffer horribly. So I don't think that our ends are particularly far apart.

In any case, it'll happen anyway, so I don't see what all the hifalutin moral outrage is about.

[Dimentio]

Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

So Socialism would just spontaneously arise from the collapse of Capitalism, like the Bird Phoenix? Hardly likely.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This world is already collapsing around us, and only the desperate acts of policing hold it together. Rather than "hoping" for some future collapse, we must occupy the spaces of collapse that are constantly emerging. We must make crisis habitable - seize the ruins and create communism in them! Disasters are everywhere - we simply have to prevent the patching up of the cracks, to obstruct the "return to normal".
:cool:

[La Comédie Noire]

Well no, economic collapse and political turmoil is a horrible thing to go through, but I'd brave the storm in the hopes of building something better. But if it failed, well I don't know how kindly they'd treat political dissidents, all I know is no one wants to be a political martyr.

[Leninade]

Lots of people hope for *it* in a lot of different ways. This is surprisingly normal. Oh, some people are hoping the UFOs will show up or zombies will attack or Jesus will come back or the world will just fucking end, but it's always the same thing:

Something to shake them out of how boring their lives are. We're bored. We have unlimited entertainment and most of us have dependable jobs and all we want is something to shake us out of it. Anything. That's where fantasy lives.

You know it's true. You're driving around, going to school or work or to pick up the kids, and you kind of want a giant asteroid to come out of the sky and just ruin your whole day. You are, fundamentally, tired of this shit and short on direction - and you think nobody else is thinking this, but we all are. Maybe they thought about it in the Middle Ages with dragons and demons and whatnot.

Your problem is nothing specific. It would help if you took a vacation or built something awesome or learned how to do something new, but ultimately wanting everything to collapse is just a secret part of being human.

[ZeroNowhere]

Lots of people hope for *it* in a lot of different ways. This is surprisingly normal. Oh, some people are hoping the UFOs will show up or zombies will attack or Jesus will come back or the world will just fucking end, but it's always the same thing:

Something to shake them out of how boring their lives are. We're bored. We have unlimited entertainment and most of us have dependable jobs and all we want is something to shake us out of it. Anything. That's where fantasy lives.

You know it's true. You're driving around, going to school or work or to pick up the kids, and you kind of want a giant asteroid to come out of the sky and just ruin your whole day. You are, fundamentally, tired of this shit and short on direction - and you think nobody else is thinking this, but we all are. Maybe they thought about it in the Middle Ages with dragons and demons and whatnot.

Your problem is nothing specific. It would help if you took a vacation or built something awesome or learned how to do something new, but ultimately wanting everything to collapse is just a secret part of being human.No, see, if your pseudo-psychology were the underlying cause, we would oppose the overthrowing of capitalism.

[Broletariat]

Something to shake them out of how boring their lives are. We're bored. We have unlimited entertainment and most of us have dependable jobs and all we want is something to shake us out of it. Anything. That's where fantasy lives.
This is, in short, bullshit.

Not everyone is the privileged fabled "middle-class" that exists in America. Maybe you're a revolutionary because you're bored, but for some of us it's because it's a struggle for survival.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

No I don't hope for a collapse, I just know one will happen eventually because of the nature and inherent problems of the system. In fact, I hope people organize and overthrow the system before the next collapse (if we even make it through this one:lol:...:crying:).

I think the idea that busts make people radical and booms make people complacent doesn't hold up. I think the more decisive components of a radicalized population are how organized workers are and class consciousness. In the US in the 1930s, there was not much fight-back in the worst years of the depression. It wasn't until the economy began to recover that people fought back and then even more-so when the economy contracted again in the mid-30s. What made a difference was that labor struggles became more militant and began to win. Also the civil rights movement and anti-war movement happened during a "boom" cycle whereas the economic crisis of the 1970s, while initially leading to wildcat strikes and more labor struggles, also led to defeats for labor and increased conservativism among workers and unions.

For this reason, I think reforms (making life as good as possible) do have a constructive role in the worker's movement because if people fight and win, they will be more willing to continue fighting and demanding even more. People learn how to fight and lead themselves through these struggles and it also helps show people whose side the police, politicians, and liberals are really on. Of course, the important thing for radicals is that we see these reforms as a means to a greater-end, not a solution or an end in of themselves.

IMO, we are seeing this play out in North Africa now. Tunisia gave confidence to people in Egypt that they could act on long-standing anger and grievances and might actually cause the end of the regime. I think US pundits are right when they say that if Mubarak had offered to leave in September on the first or second day of the protests, people might have been satisfied... this is no longer the case because people have beaten his police thugs and felt their own power and are confident enough not to settle in the short-term (this will probably change though as the democracy movement doesn't have a clear alternative, but that's another story).

[Os Cangaceiros]

No I don't hope for a collapse, I just know one will happen eventually because of the nature and inherent problems of the system. In fact, I hope people organize and overthrow the system before the next collapse (if we even make it through this one:lol:...:crying:).

I think the idea that busts make people radical and booms make people complacent doesn't hold up. I think the more decisive components of a radicalized population are how organized workers are and class consciousness. In the US in the 1930s, there was not much fight-back in the worst years of the depression. It wasn't until the economy began to recover that people fought back and then even more-so when the economy contracted again in the mid-30s. What made a difference was that labor struggles became more militant and began to win. Also the civil rights movement and anti-war movement happened during a "boom" cycle whereas the economic crisis of the 1970s, while initially leading to wildcat strikes and more labor struggles, also led to defeats for labor and increased conservativism among workers and unions.

For this reason, I think reforms (making life as good as possible) do have a constructive role in the worker's movement because if people fight and win, they will be more willing to continue fighting and demanding even more. People learn how to fight and lead themselves through these struggles and it also helps show people whose side the police, politicians, and liberals are really on. Of course, the important thing for radicals is that we see these reforms as a means to a greater-end, not a solution or an end in of themselves.

IMO, we are seeing this play out in North Africa now. Tunisia gave confidence to people in Egypt that they could act on long-standing anger and grievances and might actually cause the end of the regime. I think US pundits are right when they say that if Mubarak had offered to leave in September on the first or second day of the protests, people might have been satisfied... this is no longer the case because people have beaten his police thugs and felt their own power and are confident enough not to settle in the short-term (this will probably change though as the democracy movement doesn't have a clear alternative, but that's another story).

What happened in Tunisia, Egypt (and to a somewhat lesser extent Algeria) was born of inflated food prices, hunger and unemployment, though.

I don't necessarily think that crisis = struggle for socialism, necessarily...it could devolve into a number of things, including a more liberal democracy or something darker (the Nazis rose to power partially because of the German government's inability to effectively manage capital). But I also don't buy the idea that "hungry people fight for food not freedom".

[Zanthorus]

I've come to believe that it's not even a question of what people are immediately fighting for, but the internal logic of the struggle itself. Struggles over higher wages or better working conditions may not immediately be demands for socialism, but through them the class develops collective solidarity, awareness and forms of organisation. Similarly, in periods of crises when the normal course of capital accumulation ceases, demands for more employment or wage rises necessarily point beyond the boundaries of the existing system and the struggle for those demands constitutes in essence a revolutionary struggle. As Marx wrote in The Holy Family, it is not a question of what any member of the proletariat or even the proletariat as a whole believes but what it is and will be compelled to do by it's very nature (Unless, as ZeroNowhere pointed out, it turns out that most workers enjoy suffering horribly).

I've gone through the whole 'it's not poverty and destitution that will compel the working-classes to act but 'socialist consciousness'' thing in my head a good few times but I've come to believe the only reason for thinking it is that it is self-assuring during the peaceful phases of capital accumulation when the working-class is accomodated to a certain extent within the system (At least, for those who have no grasp of capital's internal laws of motion). If I was living in Britain in the 70's for example I probably wouldn't even need to bother to contemplate it.

[Paulappaul]

Struggles over higher wages or better working conditions may not immediately be demands for socialism, but through them the class develops collective solidarity, awareness and forms of organisation.

Mere struggles for Higher wages and better working conditions as I have told you before, are no revolutionary thing. There is the fulfillment of victory, but that doesn't necessarily render any solidarity of class consciousness. Consider this, the Trade Union Movement in America is still in large part organized around crafts and thus little Solidarity is ever extended.

The Wage struggle and the Condition struggle can be conscious raising if it is directed in a revolutionary fashion, if it extends beyond the two. I think there is some great work coming out the Jimmy John's Workers' Union in that It wants the workplace. Those demands aren't fucking around. And not just for one of the restaurants in the Area, but for all the workers in the Area. It's not perfect, but that's some good solidarity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Similarly, in periods of crises when the normal course of capital accumulation ceases, demands for more employment or wage rises necessarily point beyond the boundaries of the existing system and the struggle for those demands constitutes in essence a revolutionary struggle.

Are you in agreement with Trotsky's characterization of "transitional" demands then? :confused:

[robbo203]

Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

Capitalism is not going to collapse. It is not going to implode. There is no internal mechanism that would make this happen. Some have tried demonstrate that there is a falling rate of profit and this will cause the system to grind to a halt. But this prediction has been thwarted, time and time again, by the action of Marx's famous counteracting tendencies. Since the early 19th century people have been confidently predicting capitalism would collapse. It hasnt happened and it wont happen. Forget about it.

There is an outstanding pamphlet published in 1932 by the SPGB called "Why Capitalism will not Collapse"

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf

The details may be dated but the argument is not.

The only way capitalism will come to an end is if a majority of workers decide to consciously replace with it non market-non statist-alternative. That, or the system is brought to an end by some external factor - a visiting comet from outer space, perhaps, or some catastophic world war

[bcbm]

the catastrophe is not coming it is already here

[robbo203]

the catastrophe is not coming it is already here

Capitalism may be "catastophic" in its consequences but the existence of a such consequences does not in itself signify that capitalism is about to "collapse". It is important to keep this distinction in mind. See my earlier post above...

[Zanthorus]

Are you in agreement with Trotsky's characterization of "transitional" demands then? :confused:

I wouldn't like to state any kind of position on a document that I've never read.

[Q]

I wouldn't like to state any kind of position on a document that I've never read.

The Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm).

[Q]

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?


But surely it is the socialists goal to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be. If we desire the collapse we want to make their lives worse so that our political goals can be met. That seems morally shady territory.

Both posts essentially start from an economistic perspective (like many other posters here btw). Zeronowhere already made the correct position that it is not the "goal of socialists to make the lives of the workers as good as they possible can be". The goal of socialists is to fight for working class self-liberation, which is an explicit political goal as it entails the transformation from a slave-class fit to obey, to a class of rulers over their own lives, their own community, their own workplace and, ultimately, their own society. As such a collective inevitable requires democratic demands, the realm of socialists is high politics, not economism.

Also, collapse within capitalism often leads to paralysis of the class movement, as people are afraid to lose their jobs in times of crisis. In times of (modest) growth we see a revival of struggle, as workers demand their share to compensate for the losses.

But ultimately the point is not to fight for higher wages, shorter working hours, etc. The point is to fight for political power as a class. This doesn't mean economic demands have no place at all in our demands, but such demands should help the working class to emancipate itself. For example: A shorter working week would help to free up time so workers can participate in the running of society.

The approach of most of the left is to do the exact opposite: democratic demands (such as the right of assembly or the freedom of expression) to help workers organise themselves to fight for higher wages. This is also economism as it only helps to upgrade the lead cage of wage slavery to a golden one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Right of assembly" is a liberal canard, comrade. Full, lawsuit enforced freedom of *class-strugglist* assembly and association for the proletariat and *certain* other non-bourgeois classes makes things much clearer.

[Amphictyonis]

No I don't hope for a collapse, I just know one will happen eventually because of the nature and inherent problems of the system. In fact, I hope people organize and overthrow the system before the next collapse (if we even make it through this one:lol:...:crying:).
Agreed.




I think the idea that busts make people radical and booms make people complacent doesn't hold up. I think the more decisive components of a radicalized population are how organized workers are and class consciousness.

No agreement here :) Workers are more likely to organize and struggle during periods of crisis when the capitalist class attacks workers even more than usual (in order to keep their profits in times of crisis). This is why, right now, we're seeing more possibilities around the globe during this current global crisis. The question is, in the USA, why aren't we hitting the streets?

[bcbm]

Capitalism may be "catastophic" in its consequences but the existence of a such consequences does not in itself signify that capitalism is about to "collapse". It is important to keep this distinction in mind. See my earlier post above...

the consequences of capitalism are not catastrophic, capitalism itself is the catastrophe and perhaps its most frightening element is its ability to carry on and deepen its own disaster. there will not be a collapse of capitalism but an escape from it.

[robbo203]

the consequences of capitalism are not catastrophic, capitalism itself is the catastrophe and perhaps its most frightening element is its ability to carry on and deepen its own disaster. there will not be a collapse of capitalism but an escape from it.


Not quite sure what you mean by this. Capitalism is a socio-economic system defined by certain structural features such as the existence of wage labour and commodity production. It is surely the way in which capitalism impacts on our lives - its systemic consequences - that are catastophic. Capitalism for instance leds to wars and large scale ecocide. These are consequences of how the system operates

BTW how do you propose to escape from capitalism? Do you not see the need to overthow it?

[bcbm]

yes and the socio-economic system* is a catastrophe because of its certain structural features and its impact on our lives. an escape would be a break from everything that continues and expands the catastrophe and the formation of a communism outside it.


*not just capitalism, per se, but the whole of the modern "desert" such as techniques of management and power, etc

[Amphictyonis]

Lets all bring out our copies of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and see where Lenin went wrong in his 'prediction' ;)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Was early imperialism the be all end all stage of globalization? I think not. When globalization is complete (the Middle East and parts of Africa being the last 'frontier' for establishing western markets) where will the market be able to expand into? Even so in Lenin's time the market wasn't totally intertwined as it is now. A crisis in the US wouldn't have devastated England or a crisis in France wouldn't have devastated the US as a crisis in China wouldn't have devastated South America but now that western markets are fully integrated we're truly seeing 'the highest stages of capitalism' that Lenin thought was taking place in his time. My two cents.

[robbo203]

For this reason, I think reforms (making life as good as possible) do have a constructive role in the worker's movement because if people fight and win, they will be more willing to continue fighting and demanding even more. People learn how to fight and lead themselves through these struggles and it also helps show people whose side the police, politicians, and liberals are really on. Of course, the important thing for radicals is that we see these reforms as a means to a greater-end, not a solution or an end in of themselves.story).


How do reforms lead on to a "greater end"? How does trying to mend capitalism square with trying to end capitalism?

Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that reformism - the enactment of policies and measures by the state - can actually work and that capitalism can actually be made to run in the interests of workers. To put it another way, suppose the reforms did not work (because they could not work) in a general sense from the standpoint of the workers and that the problems of the workers that the reforms were meant to address remained intact. What would this mean? It would mean according to the logic of your own argument that workers would still have to struggle for reforms even though such a struggle could never achieve what it set out to do. So basically you would be stuck on a treadmill foreever chasing after something that will forever remain beyond your reach


So how can being stuck on a treadmill lead on to something different - a revolutionary perspective? It seems to me the only you can do this is by coming off the reformist treadmill, by not advocating reforms.

If, on the other hand, the reforms you sought to implement were successful and capitalism could indeed to shown to work in the interests of wage labour one has to ask how this too would lead on to something greater. To the contrary, the workers would then surely be placated and coopted into the system completely. There would simply be no reason to want some "greater end". Capitalism had provided it.


That is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of your reformist proposal. Either way capitalism remains intact and the case for revolution is blunted and indefinitely postponed

[Amphictyonis]

How do reforms lead on to a "greater end"? How does trying to mend capitalism square with trying to end capitalism?

Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that reformism - the enactment of policies and measures by the state - can actually work and that capitalism can actually be made to run in the interests of workers. To put it another way, suppose the reforms did not work (because they could not work) in a general sense from the standpoint of the workers and that the problems of the workers that the reforms were meant to address remained intact. What would this mean? It would mean according to the logic of your own argument that workers would still have to struggle for reforms even though such a struggle could never achieve what it set out to do. So basically you would be stuck on a treadmill foreever chasing after something that will forever remain beyond your reach


So how can being stuck on a treadmill lead on to something different - a revolutionary perspective? It seems to me the only you can do this is by coming off the reformist treadmill, by not advocating reforms.

If, on the other hand, the reforms you sought to implement were successful and capitalism could indeed to shown to work in the interests of wage labour one has to ask how this too would lead on to something greater. To the contrary, the workers would then surely be placated and coopted into the system completely. There would simply be no reason to want some "greater end". Capitalism had provided it.


That is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of your reformist proposal. Either way capitalism remains intact and the case for revolution is blunted and indefinitely postponed

This is why breakdown/crisis theory is important to me (and others) since we do have so many concessions being won which has only made the working class docile in most advanced capitalist nations. It's a double edged sword- it's good we've won gains but at the same time it has pacified us over the decades. The thing is, there's more than one problem with capitalism. The crisis prone nature of the system, as we're experiencing now, makes it impossible for those gains to be maintained. Periods of crisis can be a sort of reset button on the struggle and they will get worse and worse as the global system becomes completley integrated. Fighting for gains is what spreads class awareness yes and western workers have gained some concessions but this is also passed onto the industrializing third world which is why a global movement is necessary. A good example was the Starbucks Union thread. Sure it's great Starbucks is being unionized but what about the workers who supply the coffee, the workers who work for various companies in South America? The losses Starbucks endures from being unionized will simply be passed onto the South American workers by Starbucks paying less money for their coffee supply.

[bcbm]

When globalization is complete (the Middle East and parts of Africa being the last 'frontier' for establishing western markets) where will the market be able to expand into?

green technology, some space exploration, private defense contractors, basically enough "smaller" enterprises to maintain a well protected, still economically active wealthy elite and a mass of more or less indentured servants with everyone else being left to fend for themselves/die

edit: "disaster capitalism" (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/04/climate-desk-climate-change-corporations)

[Amphictyonis]

green technology, some space exploration, private defense contractors, basically enough "smaller" enterprises to maintain a well protected, still economically active wealthy elite and a mass of more or less indentured servants with everyone else being left to fend for themselves/die
Yes this could happen if we keep on dropping the ball as capitalism declines :( Heck, all out fascism could take hold.

[bcbm]

i wouldn't say fascism, just a continued evolution of modern techniques of power. i mean the reality that exists today would make the fascists green with envy

[robbo203]

This is why breakdown/crisis theory is important to me (and others) since we do have so many concessions being won which has only made the working class docile in most advanced capitalist nations. It's a double edged sword- it's good we've won gains but at the same time it has pacified us over the decades. The thing is, there's more than one problem with capitalism. The crisis prone nature of the system, as we're experiencing now, makes it impossible for those gains to be maintained. Periods of crisis can be a sort of reset button on the struggle and they will get worse and worse as the global system becomes completley integrated. Fighting for gains is what spreads class awareness yes and western workers have gained some concessions but this is also passed onto the industrializing third world which is why a global movement is necessary. A good example was the Starbucks Union thread. Sure it's great Starbucks is being unionized but what about the workers who supply the coffee, the workers who work for various companies in South America? The losses Starbucks endures from being unionized will simply be passed onto the South American workers by Starbucks paying less money for their coffee supply.

I am all for militant trade unionism as opposed to reformism - pleading with the capitalist state to enact this or that measure in the interests of us workers - but I do wonder about the impact of crises on the outlook of workers. I dont think we can automatically assume that crises help to radicalise workers. In fact, there is strong empirical evidence to the contrary - I can citer a few references of recent studies if you like - that it tends to make some workers more fearful of the future, more conservative and more conformist though it might well radicalise others. One must never forget the lessons of pre war Germany and the deprerssion which helped to fuel the growth of the Nazi movement.

It strikes me though that the whole reformist argument is odds with the crisis argument. The latter takes the view that workers come to be radicalised as things get worse. The former seems to assume that workers become more radical and ambitious in their demands to the extent that they suceed in obtaining them . In other words to the extent that things are getting better for the workers.

I dont think either argument stands up to scrutiny frankly. To me radicalisation entails the conscious propagandisation of the communist alternative under each and every circumstance thrown up by capitalism. It an interactive process between thought and practice driven by a clear and unambigous conception of what we are to replace capitalism with. Nothing less will do. Unless we know what to replace capitalism with, capitalism will not be replaced. We will be stuck with it.

[Amphictyonis]

One must never forget the lessons of pre war Germany and the deprerssion which helped to fuel the growth of the Nazi movement.


No we shouldn't and thats a great point. Crisis won't automatically usher in socialism or class consciousness what it does is set the stage for actual change. It's our job to lay the ideological foundations of that change because as you pointed out misery can also breed tolerance of less humane systems such as Nazism. You're absolutely correct, thats how Hitler rose to power after the allies intentionally impoverished Germany.This is why we don't just sit back and do nothing in 'good' economic times or bad.

What I've been witnessing during this current crisis is a marginalized left and a capitalist media system being used to manufacture more right wing policies while the so called left is actually implementing right wing policies. The media system in America could give rise to some strange right wing sect (Tea Party LOL). In my opinion if this current crisis is any indication of our ability to organize and resist then we;re fucked in the future. I'm pretty angry about this and have been taking it out on liberals for some time. One of the main reasons, in my opinion, we aren't taking to the streets in America right now is because of some misplaced loyalty to the Democrat party/Obama. We need to wise up or the future is grim :( Maybe I'm wrong....who knows? If I had all the answers I'd be a guru of some sorts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What happened in Tunisia, Egypt (and to a somewhat lesser extent Algeria) was born of inflated food prices, hunger and unemployment, though.

Yes, but there have been similar uprisings all over the place in 2008 - including Egypt - that did not lead to the kind of mass uprising we are seeing. So I agree that the economic problems, inequality and so on, is materially important for creating the potential, but people also have to be convinced that things will change because there are numerous examples in history of really shitty situations in which people did not or could not fight back. Or there are cases where the economic crisis hits people equally hard in different regions, but people don't respond in the same way - there could be a revolution in one place and reaction in another. Certainly the Haitians are worse-off than most Egyptians, and there was a big uprising in 2008 and some protests recently, but there is not an obvious revolutionary movement.


But I also don't buy the idea that "hungry people fight for food not freedom". Agreed. I wasn't arguing that - just that there are subjective factors (like Egyptians seeing the success of Tunisia in this case) that are important and the objective situation of capitalism alone is no guarantee of the success or even ability of people to organize themselves and fight back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How do reforms lead on to a "greater end"? How does trying to mend capitalism square with trying to end capitalism?Where did I argue that reforms lead to a "greater end"? I argued that they are a means to a greater end as opposed to arguing for reforms as a greater end in of themselves. The point is that by struggling for reforms, workers come up against they system and the limits of the system and this will allow for the possibility of radicalization and the development of class and socialist consciousness. The reform of ending Jim-Crow, according to you should have caused complacency. Instead, by fighting to end legal segregation, the movement and the black working class had to deal with the fact that Jim-Crow was not the root of the problems for most black people - in the later 60s then class issues of the black working class began to distinguish themselves from the demands of the liberals and petty-bourgeois demands in the movement.


Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that reformism - the enactment of policies and measures by the state - can actually work and that capitalism can actually be made to run in the interests of workers.Jesus Christ where'd you pull this straw-man from? This is the exact opposite of what I was arguing. Again the IMPORTANT thing about reforms for radicals is that we see them NOT as an end in of themselves.

With the eating comes the hunger was a slogan of the French 68 protests because these people saw a demand for co-ed dorms become a generalized protest of students and then backed by the working class almost toppling the government. Almost every major upheaval has started as "reformist" demands and then radicalized as workers take history into their own hands and come up against the barriers of the system.


That is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of your reformist proposal. Either way capitalism remains intact and the case for revolution is blunted and indefinitely postponedBlunted and indefinately postpond like your idealist conception of workers all slowly moving in unison to socialism by reading the right books? Ok, that's not fair, I have no idea how you propose to have 51% workers develop a radical consciousness - maybe it's not by reading books - but I mean seriously, what is your alternative for workers to organize themselves? You require the working class to first come to socialist consciousness and then act? How do people come to socialist consciousness if they are not in conflict with the system - if it is not through the immediate day to day struggles that can potentially help people to realize the power they have and their ability to change things. Because they read or hear the right ideas? How would they find out ideas useful if they are not already trying to change the conditions of their lives and wondering what the problems and solutions might be?

If we listen to you, we should condemn the Egyptian revolution as hurting and deceiving the working class - rather than, as I'd argue increasing radicalization and the potential for workers to create their own militant movement and fight for their interests. People are fighting for reforms in Egypt and this is doing nothing to increase radical consciousness and create and independent union and encouraging strikes throughout the country?

The revolution may not develop a distinct socialist character and the working class might tail the national struggle, there may be massive repression, when it's all over, but the upheaval has shown how quickly consciousness changes and radicalizes when workers are in motion and coming up against the system. Just look at how the Egyptian protesters were appealing to the military last week and now a significant section of them have begun to learn that the military is not actually neutral and so they are blocking the tanks in Liberation square by sleeping under the treds. Look at how Mubarack's throw-away reforms from the past weeks were not able to passify the increasing radicalization of the movement - if 2 months ago, Mubarak offered to retire in September and not pass power to his son - would people have taken to the streets? No they probably would have just been relieved and taken the reform. Reforms won from below because people fought for them however, teach people about their own power and their own ability to make society and so that is why these struggles are an important part in building a fighting, militant, and self-conscious working class movement.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ok, that's not fair, I have no idea how you propose to have 51% workers develop a radical consciousness - maybe it's not by reading books - but I mean seriously, what is your alternative for workers to organize themselves?Just to clarify, I believe that their viewpoint (the SPGB-esque 'vast majority' one) requires something more along the lines of 80% of workers to do so. Draw from that whatever conclusions you may.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just to clarify, I believe that their viewpoint (the SPGB-esque 'vast majority' one) requires something more along the lines of 80% of workers to do so. Draw from that whatever conclusions you may.Don't get me wrong, I don't think socialism can be achieved by a passive working class, but the ideas that a socialist revolution will be a pre-meditated one by most workers just not consistent with the history of revolutions.

But I am totally ignorent of how the viewpoint presented by Robbo suggests workers develop socialist consciousness outside of and before working class struggle in the first place. It seems like the logical conclusion to that view is that the working class just needs to have the right information (from some enlightened elite?) to develop socialist consciousness - it seems not only mechanical but to view workers as passive consumers of ideas, not active participants in developing their own radical consciousness.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you on this issue.

[robbo203]

Where did I argue that reforms lead to a "greater end"? I argued that they are a means to a greater end as opposed to arguing for reforms as a greater end in of themselves..


How is it different to say that reforms "lead to a greater end" and that they are the "means to greater end"? When I characterise your position as saying reforms lead to a greater end Im not saying you are claiming that reforms are a greater end in themselves. Where did you get this idea from?



The point is that by struggling for reforms, workers come up against they system and the limits of the system and this will allow for the possibility of radicalization and the development of class and socialist consciousness.



Total wishful thinking and in any case contradictory. If you are saying that by struggling for reforms, workers come up against the limits of the system then implicit in this is the acknowledgement that the struggle for reforms - reformism - needs to be rejected. The very radicalisation of the working class you talk of consists in the rejection of refromism and in the understanding that it cannot succeed because of the limits that the system imposes. This is what revolutionaries should be saying - not what you are saying. You are saying we should encourage workers to struggle for reforms - enactments carried out by the state to amelierate capitalism - knowing full well they are going to bang their head against a brick wall in the process. That does not raise consciousness. It merely gives you a concussion. By your logic, workers never will be radicalised in the snese of rejecting reformism because since once they come to recognise the limits of ssyem, what you are asking them to do is essentially to continuie engage engaging in the same reformist struggle so that so that other workers can then come to recognise the limits of the system and they in turn urge still other workers to engage in this same refromist struggle AD INFINITUM! Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in your scenario is there any hope of a decisive break with refromism which you implicitly admit must happen for radicalisation to happen. We are just urged to continue with the eternal treadmill of refromist struggle leading exactly nowhere. In fact what will happen is that the workers that you urge to engage in reformist struggle will simply turn agaiunst you once the limits of the system are apprehended. You will be rejected for leading the up the garden path and "revolutuoinaries" will come to be seen as nothing more than trouble making opportunists so that in the end you will sewrve to reinforce their conservatism and the cooption into capitalism



Jesus Christ where'd you pull this straw-man from? This is the exact opposite of what I was arguing. Again the IMPORTANT thing about reforms for radicals is that we see them NOT as an end in of themselves.

Yes I know what you are arguing for. What I am saying is that despite what you are arguing for , the logic of your position will deliver an outcome the exact opposite of what you intended.





Blunted and indefinately postpond like your idealist conception of workers all slowly moving in unison to socialism by reading the right books? Ok, that's not fair, I have no idea how you propose to have 51% workers develop a radical consciousness - maybe it's not by reading books - but I mean seriously, what is your alternative for workers to organize themselves? You require the working class to first come to socialist consciousness and then act?


Sorry but this is utter crap. Ive come across this straw argument more times than I care to remember. No of course I am not saying that workers should not struggle or organise. I make a very clear distinction between reformist struggle and other forms of struggle. I am 100 % behind militant industrial struggle. So also are organisations like the SPGB of which I am not a mmber but a sympathiser despite the incessant and frankly irritating misprepresentation of their position of by sections of the misinformed left. It sometimes seems like a minor left wing industry exists to manufacture myths about the SPGB.

Refromist struggles are qualitatively different in kind to industrial struggle ssince they are of a political nature and seek to impact on the way capitalism is administered in terms of policies rather than to overthrow capitalism itself





If we listen to you, we should condemn the Egyptian revolution as hurting and deceiving the working class - rather than, as I'd argue increasing radicalization and the potential for workers to create their own militant movement and fight for their interests. People are fighting for reforms in Egypt and this is doing nothing to increase radical consciousness and create and independent union and encouraging strikes throughout the country?

What is happening in Egypt is generally good. Im all for the extension of democratic rights but again that in itself is not reformism. There are however mixed in with what is happening in Egypt a strong refromist element associated with certain bourgeois interests. Once the euphora has died down, my suspicion that there is going to be a lot of disapponted and disillusioned Egyptian workers who pinned their hope and a new capitalist government to deliver the goods. The economic position of the workers is not going to change much, if at all, and it is fairly clear that any new government will be taking orders directly from the White House- Egypt is the largest recipient of US aid in the world apart from Israel



The revolution may not develop a distinct socialist character and the working class might tail the national struggle, there may be massive repression, when it's all over, but the upheaval has shown how quickly consciousness changes and radicalizes when workers are in motion and coming up against the system. Just look at how the Egyptian protesters were appealing to the military last week and now a significant section of them have begun to learn that the military is not actually neutral and so they are blocking the tanks in Liberation square by sleeping under the treds. Look at how Mubarack's throw-away reforms from the past weeks were not able to passify the increasing radicalization of the movement - if 2 months ago, Mubarak offered to retire in September and not pass power to his son - would people have taken to the streets? No they probably would have just been relieved and taken the reform. Reforms won from below because people fought for them however, teach people about their own power and their own ability to make society and so that is why these struggles are an important part in building a fighting, militant, and self-conscious working class movement.

Of course consciousness can change rapidly - I dont wish to dissent with much of what you say here. The really positive thing that came out of all this is the overthrow of the dictatorship although even here I would be cautious as the military are still in control. But the egyptian revolutuiion is emphatically not a socialist revoliution as you seem to acknowlege - it is merely a political revolution. We still have capitalism. You talk somewhat sloppily of "refroms won from below" because people fought for them but you dont say much about what these refroms are and in what sense they have been won. Political reforms are not in my book reformist in that sense. They are of a different order from reformism per se and you may not realise this but even revolutiuonary organisations like the SPGB advocate that workers struggle for political reforms.

You problem - and indeed that of the Left generally- is that you dont have a very clear grasp of what is meant by reformist struggle so we are left with a rather a rather vaque and meaningless summatiuon such as that "Reforms won from below because people fought for them however, teach people about their own power and their own ability to make society and so that is why these struggles are an important part in building a fighting, militant, and self-conscious working class movement" As far as analysis goes this is hopelessly inadequate

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is it different to say that reforms "lead to a greater end" and that they are the "means to greater end"? When I characterise your position as saying reforms lead to a greater end Im not saying you are claiming that reforms are a greater end in themselves. Where did you get this idea from?

From what you said:


How does trying to mend capitalism square with trying to end capitalism? Again, the point is not to "mend" capitalism. Fighting for reforms helps the working class to distinguish their demands, learn how to self-organize etc. We should not support ALL reforms, only ones that help the working class gain strength, organization, and confidence.


If you are saying that by struggling for reforms, workers come up against the limits of the system then implicit in this is the acknowledgement that the struggle for reforms - reformism - needs to be rejected.Yes radicals should not see reforms as the solution to problems faced by the working class. But they should support workers in fights for reforms that will help move the class forward.


The very radicalisation of the working class you talk of consists in the rejection of refromism and in the understanding that it cannot succeed because of the limits that the system imposes.Yes but how is the working class going to learn that reforms are NOT going to ultimately solve their problems if they are passive and never learn this lesson concretely? Workers just need to do what revolutionaries tell them to do and think - and take their word for it?


This is what revolutionaries should be saying - not what you are saying. You are saying we should encourage workers to struggle for reforms - enactments carried out by the state to amelierate capitalism - knowing full well they are going to bang their head against a brick wall in the process. That does not raise consciousness. It merely gives you a concussion. By your logic, workers never will be radicalised in the snese of rejecting reformism because since once they come to recognise the limits of ssyem, what you are asking them to do is essentially to continuie engage engaging in the same reformist struggle so that so that other workers can then come to recognise the limits of the system and they in turn urge still other workers to engage in this same refromist struggle AD INFINITUM! Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in your scenario is there any hope of a decisive break with refromism which you implicitly admit must happen for radicalisation to happen. We are just urged to continue with the eternal treadmill of refromist struggle leading exactly nowhere. In fact what will happen is that the workers that you urge to engage in reformist struggle will simply turn agaiunst you once the limits of the system are apprehended. You will be rejected for leading the up the garden path and "revolutuoinaries" will come to be seen as nothing more than trouble making opportunists so that in the end you will sewrve to reinforce their conservatism and the cooption into capitalism:lol:. You're right, workers just need to listen to what you have to say. Workers are already engaged in struggles for reforms. If radicals had the ear and confidence of the working class and could initiate mass struggles - then yes, it would be silly to not fight for self-emancipation directly. We are not in this position and neither is the working class.


Yes I know what you are arguing for. What I am saying is that despite what you are arguing for , the logic of your position will deliver an outcome the exact opposite of what you intended.I keep offering historical examples - May 68, Egypt, the Russian Revolution, and so on that began with fights for reforms and lead to increased and rapid wide-spread radicalization. In return you only offer more abstract dogma.


Sorry but this is utter crap. Ive come across this straw argument more times than I care to remember. No of course I am not saying that workers should not struggle or organise. I make a very clear distinction between reformist struggle and other forms of struggle. I am 100 % behind militant industrial struggle. So also are organisations like the SPGB of which I am not a mmber but a sympathiser despite the incessant and frankly irritating misprepresentation of their position of by sections of the misinformed left. It sometimes seems like a minor left wing industry exists to manufacture myths about the SPGB.To make a straw-man I'd need to know what your group's politics are. I was sincerely asking to know what your alternative is because I live in the US, this group doesn't exist here to my knowledge.


Refromist struggles are qualitatively different in kind to industrial struggle ssince they are of a political nature and seek to impact on the way capitalism is administered in terms of policies rather than to overthrow capitalism itselfWhat kind of labor struggles are you talking about. You went on and on about how fighting for political reforms only leads to accommodation with capitalism yet what is an economic struggle but exactly an attempt to reconcile the contradictory interests of the bosses and working class. This is why bureaucracy develops in the trade unions - because their position in society depends on the continuation of class conflict (and therefore for professionals to negotiate that conflict).

But economic reforms - the fight for them at any rate - are essential for the working class to have the potential to develop class and radical consciousness and organization. Fights for political reforms have also been shown in practice to have the same effect.

Economics and politics are inherently connected in capitalism, so to condemn reforms for one and support reforms for the other doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify.


You problem - and indeed that of the Left generally- is that you dont have a very clear grasp of what is meant by reformist struggle so we are left with a rather a rather vaque and meaningless summatiuon such as that "Reforms won from below because people fought for them however, teach people about their own power and their own ability to make society and so that is why these struggles are an important part in building a fighting, militant, and self-conscious working class movement" As far as analysis goes this is hopelessly inadequateGreat opinion, what's your argument? What's the "correct grasp" of reformism?

My understanding of reformism is the idea that reforms are an end unto themselves. Struggling for this or that reform is the goal. IMO radicals should help workers who are engaged with the bosses or the government in a fight for some reform - if such a fight will help us build towards our real goals. For me on such larger goal is a working class that knows how to organize itself and fight in its interests because this will be necissary for the self-emancipation of the working class. This can not be dictated to the working class, it must be learned for the most part.

How does socialist consciousness develop if not through struggle? How do struggles radicalize if people do not challenge the status-quo? Again without the process of people actually fighting and learning collectivly how to struggle, I can only imagine you think that the way we get from here (people accepting liberal arguments) to mass radical consciousness is by radicals telling workers of "the right path".

[ZeroNowhere]

Refromist struggles are qualitatively different in kind to industrial struggle ssince they are of a political nature and seek to impact on the way capitalism is administered in terms of policies rather than to overthrow capitalism itselfSo raising wages is fine, so long as you don't act as a class. That seems a bit backwards. Funny how councilist sectarian principles combine with consciousness-raising-based electoralism.

[MarxistMan]

Tommy: you are right, i think that the only way to bring a better political system which is socialism, the only way is with a big economic crisis. As long as gasoline prices stay under 5 dollars, as long as people can still afford to buy food, we won't have a real change in USA. The extreme conformism of American families of not wanting, of not obssesing, and not wishing for more wealth, for higher living standards, and for a better health as a result of a socialist-health-care system is one of major causes of why we are not in the middle of a revolutionary-situation in USA.

If american families were less conformists, i think that USA would be in a revolutionary situation, but since millions of people in USA conform to a life of food and nothing else we are not in the middle of a revolutionary sitatuation in America. So since millions of americans only care about food, i think that to see a revolutionary situation in America people have to experience hunger. So hunger levels and poverty levels in the USA have to rise to extreme levels so that we might see riots, rebellions and more revolutionary crimes.

.

.



Do you ever find yourself hoping for the economic and political collapse of society as it is the only thing that you think can make a socialist revolution possible?

I sometimes get these thoughts and find them most disconcerting. I know that, in truth, we have no hope of seeing a workers' state in the western world if there isn't some terrible incident or dramatic change for the worse in society. Yet I don't feel that I should be hoping for this, yet I cannot fight off the lingering desire for the chaos that will further my greatest hopes for society.

What are your opinions of this sort of thing? Do you to hope for the collapse of the economic and political systems of your country in order to create a state of chaos that could eventually lead to revolution?

[robbo203]

So raising wages is fine, so long as you don't act as a class. That seems a bit backwards. Funny how councilist sectarian principles combine with consciousness-raising-based electoralism.


Im not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. As you should know from your De Leonist background, a distinction can , and needs to be , made between the industrial/economic domain and the political domain. I fully support militant struggle by workers as a class and as individuals in the economic domain to resist the downward pressures of capital. In fact, in my view, the trade union movement has largely compromised and weakened itself by blurring this distinction as for example in the UK where many unions are affiliated to the capitalist Labour Party. Trade unions in my view should stick to the economic domain and they work much better as militant organisations of the working class if they do.

I dont have a problem with electoralism per se. Many on the left seem to have a quite misinformed view on electoralism sometimes equating it with reformism. In this respect I largely agree with the position of the WSM as expressed in their pamphlet Whats wrong with using parliament: the case for and against the revolutiuonary use of parliament at http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/20C/Parliament_update.html

Where i part company with the the WSM/SPGB, as it were (or at least of sections within it) is that I dont think abstract propaganda and electoralism, necessary though they are, are sufficient in themselves to move us towards a socialist/communist society

[robbo203]

Again, the point is not to "mend" capitalism. Fighting for reforms helps the working class to distinguish their demands, learn how to self-organize etc. We should not support ALL reforms, only ones that help the working class gain strength, organization, and confidence.

Hold your horses here. You are jumbling up here all sorts of things which really doesn not help to clarify the discussion. Im quite ahppy with the argument that workers should l"earn how to self organise" etc but this is not the issue. . We are talking about the merits or otherwise of refromism meaning the advocacy of reforms which are specifically legislative measures, carried out by the state, ostensibly directed at solving one or other problem thrown up by capitalism




Yes radicals should not see reforms as the solution to problems faced by the working class. But they should support workers in fights for reforms that will help move the class forward.
Yes but how is the working class going to learn that reforms are NOT going to ultimately solve their problems if they are passive and never learn this lesson concretely? Workers just need to do what revolutionaries tell them to do and think - and take their word for it?.

Cant you see how illogical this is? Reforms (see above) you seem to agree are not the solution to the problem facing workers yet you think it is is necessary for "radicals" to support workers in their refromist struggles to that they can learn this...er..."concretely". Sorry but it just doesnt work like this in the real world. Suppose you as a "radical" were to join a reformist campaign by workers to reduce the rate of VAT on goods. How would this "move the class forward". Lets say the campaign is successful what is gpoing to happen? One thing that is likely to happen is that workers will feel miore inclinded to accept the illusion that capitalism is amenable to being run in their interests . So capitalism will be reinforced. What if the campaign is unsuccessful? Agaib in all probability capitalism will be reinforced. Either, workers will blame the problem on a partiocular governments rather than capitalism and therefore the solution lies wioth electing another capitalist party in power or more likely they will simply become disillusoned and apathetic. There are absolutely no grounds for thinking that workers will automatically draw from this the conclusuion that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers and needs to be overthrown,



FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=". You're right, workers just need to listen to what you have to say. Workers are already engaged in struggles for reforms. If radicals had the ear and confidence of the working class and could initiate mass struggles - then yes, it would be silly to not fight for self-emancipation directly. We are not in this position and neither is the working class..

You contradict yourself. You criticise me for suggesting that "all workers need to do is to listen to what I say" and then straightaway you talk of radicals need to have the ear and confidence of the working class. In other words we are both wanting to say something to our fellow workers and the difference lies only in what we have to day. You want to say to workers "yeah great carry on with your refromist struggles . We're with you all the all way" even though in you heart of hearts you know yourself that this is a recipe for failure. This is not honest and dishonesty does not pay in the end. It is far better to say what you really think and feel to be the case however unpopular or out of touch it might might make you seem at the time. Workers wilkl not thank you for trying to lead them up the garden path and you will certainly not gain their confidence as a result. You stand to lose their confidence completely and this is in fact the story of the Left in general. It has marginalised itself precisely becuase of its opportunistic relationship with the working class


I keep offering historical examples - May 68, Egypt, the Russian Revolution, and so on that began with fights for reforms and lead to increased and rapid wide-spread radicalization. In return you only offer more abstract dogma...

Now come off it. What is it with this thing about "abstract dogma"? Its an almost ritualistic defence mechanism that so many on the left seem to deploy when their ideological assumptions are being probed and put to the test.

I dont offer mere "more abstract dogam". I said quite clearly in relation to the events in Egypt that its a good thing if it means the dictatorship is overthrown and basic basic political rights are established. It enables socialist political activity to be openly carried out and is clearly I distinguishable from reformism as such which is something quite different altogher (see below). However, if expectations have been raised that that the economic conditons of egyptans workers are going to signbifcantly improive in the future I think a lot of Egyptian workers are due for a big disappointment. Let us see then, a year or two down the line, which of us is offering just "more abstract dogma" as opposed to a clear analysis of the siutation.

You mention also May 1968 and the Russian Revolutiuon. Exactly . This precsiely proves my point. Where did this "radicalisation" lead to , eh? Tpoday we have in France a right wing government and the Russian revoluition led to an antiworking class regime and Stalinism. So much for the argument that struggling for reforms leads to radicalisation



To make a straw-man I'd need to know what your group's politics are. I was sincerely asking to know what your alternative is because I live in the US, this group doesn't exist here to my knowledge..
The only organisation I belong to at present is the World in Common group which is not a political party as such. Its more a kind of small umbrella organisation for people from various strands and organisations within the non-market anti-statist sector. Here's the link www.worldincommon.org (http://www.worldincommon.org/) . In terms of political parties probably the closest to my perspective is the WSM though i have some criticism of their persepctive. The American companion party of the WSM is the the WSPUS and the link is http://www.wspus.org/ . Its quite an interesting site by the way. Its sometime since I checked it out but it seems to be improving all the time


What kind of labor struggles are you talking about. You went on and on about how fighting for political reforms only leads to accommodation with capitalism yet what is an economic struggle but exactly an attempt to reconcile the contradictory interests of the bosses and working class. This is why bureaucracy develops in the trade unions - because their position in society depends on the continuation of class conflict (and therefore for professionals to negotiate that conflict)...

You misread what I said. What i said is that political reforms such as the institutionalisation of basic political rights e,g, right to free assemby and to vote are not what I would called reformist struggles . These latter are are effentially focussed on reforming capitalism as an economic system. I support political reforms as a precondition for effective socialist activity but not "refromism" - the advocacy of essentially economic reforms. Labour struggles under the influence of trade uniuon bureaucratts can indeed lead to apparent reconciliation between capitalists and workers. I obviously do not support this but stand for principled and uncompromising struggle of workers against the bosses. The IWW would be the closest example that springs to mind here


But economic reforms - the fight for them at any rate - are essential for the working class to have the potential to develop class and radical consciousness and organization. Fights for political reforms have also been shown in practice to have the same effect
Economics and politics are inherently connected in capitalism, so to condemn reforms for one and support reforms for the other doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify..".

I think this is the key to your misunderstanding. You cannot see how economics and politics constitute two different realms of action even though, yes, they are connected in numerous ways. You are confusing empirical description with normative prescription. Let me explain
Capitalism is defined in essentially economic terms. Reformism as an attempt to modify or reform this essentially economic system of capitalism via the political apparatus of the state - i.e. via various legislative measures. The FIELD of reformism is therefore the political domain but the FOCUS of reformism is the economic domain. Grasp this distinction and you are more than half way there.

Political reforms have a different configuration. Their field is political but their focus is not economic but rather political as well - political reforms are concerned with the adminstrative or institutional architecture by which to administer capitalism; they are not about the policies put forward to administer capitalism as such. Its the same with trade union struggle ideally speaking. Here the field is the econmic domain as is the focus as well.

So "reformism" is distinguishable from both political reforms and trade union struggle by the fact its field and its focus are different. The political domanin is the repository of one's hopes and vision for the future, as it were, where one registers one political consciousness so to speak. It is in this domain, not the economic domain, that the movement to overthrow existing society finds the means to do so - or alternatively where registwer there support for capitalism by supporting refromist attenptos to modify it. The economic domain, by contrast, is the realm of purely defensive activity as Marx pointed out in Value Price and Profit. It is necessary that workers resist capital and organise militantly to do so but there can be no escape from the proletarian condition as an exploited class within the economic domain as such . This domain needs to be transcended and the struggle of workers to take a political form if socialism is to be achieved




How does socialist consciousness develop if not through struggle? How do struggles radicalize if people do not challenge the status-quo? Again without the process of people actually fighting and learning collectivly how to struggle, I can only imagine you think that the way we get from here (people accepting liberal arguments) to mass radical consciousness is by radicals telling workers of "the right path".

Of course socialist conscviousness comes through struggle not just propagandising. This is not an either/or situation. It is actually mutually reinforcing. The struggle gives rise to the ideas and the ideas in turn help to clarify and strengthen the stuggle. Part of my argument against reformism is that it actually weakens the position of workers. It doesnt radicalise them at all. It ties them politically to capitalism via capitalist political parties that aim to garner support through the advocacy of reforms. This is what workers need to reject. They will actually become much more militant in my view if they completely rejected the refromist illusion that capitalism can be moulded to accommodate their interests and if they came to regonise that the interests of workers are diametrically opposed to the capitalists.

This is what revolutionaries should be doing - saying how it actually is not trying to dishonestly socially engineer workers into coming over to them by dangling reforms in front of them which they know full well are not going to modify the position of the exploited class. In the end if you do not break with the logic of capital completely and in ideological terms, if you do not explicitly advocate a genuine alternative to capitalism, there is no way on earth that you will ever create an alternative to capitalism. You will remain forever stuck in the reformist treadmill going nowhere

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, I don't know how to respond to all these straw-men. Esentially you seem to be arguing that radicals should not be reformists - yes I agree with that. But fighting for a reform, by itself, does not make something reform-IST if the ultimate aim is self-emancipation of the working class.

STRAWMAN 1: reforms (like some tax change or gun control) don't help the movement forward.

The point is not the support ANY reform struggle that the working class is engaged in. As radicals we need to look at the political landscape and prioritize what kind of struggles we think could potentially help build to greater struggle and so on.

Although radicals oppose the sexual exploitation of women in porn, radicals should not join a fight by workers who want to force a ban on pornography. This would not be an activiity that would be conducive for radicalizing the participants or helping to put the working class in a better footing for the fight against capitalism... in fact it would do the opposite, it would help bolster the ability of the state to suppress other things - "offensive" political ideas even.

STRAWMAN 2: Fighting for refoms is dishonest because you are tricking workers into thinking capitalism can be groovy.

Radicals should not simply "cheerlead" in reform struggles. Just like when engaging with workers struggling for the reformist activities of trade-unions, radicals should try and bring our political perspective - which implies being UPFRONT about our larger political view, not hiding it as you argue we do. In the anti-war movement, for example we don't just say "war is bad" - that would be a lie - wars of liberation and working class war can have beneficial results. Radicals in the anti-war movement should be clear about their views on and opposition to imperialism, not simply war in general.

The cause of working class self-emancipation is not helped by a working class that is "tricked" - we need to be clear about out larger political view even when we fight short-term battles in unions or against budget-cuts and so on.

STRAWMAN 3: The point of reforms for radicals is to transform the state through legislation implying that the capitalist state can be wielded by the working class.

Again, like above, we do not want to increase the power or efficiency of the state through reforms, we only want to support activities that put the working class on better war-footing by either increasing consciousness or materially creating more favorable conditions for struggle.


We are talking about the merits or otherwise of refromism meaning the advocacy of reforms which are specifically legislative measures, carried out by the state, ostensibly directed at solving one or other problem thrown up by capitalismSo you would oppose the free-speach movement in the US, the fight to legalize trade union struggles, the fight to end legal segregation and the fight for legislative measures to guarantee voting rights and education rights to black people? You oppose May Day since that was from a struggle to establish an 8 hour day?

Reform struggles like these radicalized millions of workers in the US over time and will continue to do so. You mentioned supporting the IWW. Where did workers let alone activists get the idea that such a thing was necessary? It was the lived experience of workers and radicals fighting unions struggles and learning about the nature of the state the system and reforms. It's not like a few Socialists pulled these ideas out of their asses - and the organization would not have appealed to anyone if it had not been for the experience of the struggles workers engaged in.

Again, i am curious - what is you alternative view of how radicalization happens and what is the existing radical's relationship to that process?


This is what revolutionaries should be doing - saying how it actually is not trying to dishonestly socially engineer workers into coming over to them by dangling reforms in front of them which they know full well are not going to modify the position of the exploited class. In the end if you do not break with the logic of capital completely and in ideological terms, if you do not explicitly advocate a genuine alternative to capitalism, there is no way on earth that you will ever create an alternative to capitalism. You will remain forever stuck in the reformist treadmill going nowhere

Again you conflate any fight for a reform with reformism: "dangling reforms in front of their eyes". You also view the working class as totally passive in the reformist process - that radicals are dangling promisies and parties are making legislation - ALL THIS I REJECT as REFORMISM. Again, again, again, the main point is being able to fight along side workers who are already in motion when we feel that such a fight will aid our struggle (i.e. the struggle for the self-emancipation of the working class).

All I see is that your alternative is that radicals need to stand on the sidelines and tell workers to drop their illusions and follow us ("say it like it is") because we radicals know best. Well, we do because we know the lessons of experience - but for masses of people to learn this, a lot of them will also need to learn the lessons. People's won't listen to radicals just because we say-so, they have to learn to trust us and that trust has to be earned through practice. So good luck with that movement of socialist priests dictating the scripture to the masses, I'll continue organizing and fighting among the working class while trying to show in practice why radical politics and revolutionary action are ultimately necessary for working class liberation, thank you very much.


However, if expectations have been raised that that the economic conditons of egyptans workers are going to signbifcantly improive in the future I think a lot of Egyptian workers are due for a big disappointment. Let us see then, a year or two down the line, which of us is offering just "more abstract dogma" as opposed to a clear analysis of the siutation.

You mention also May 1968 and the Russian Revolutiuon. Exactly . This precsiely proves my point. Where did this "radicalisation" lead to , eh? Tpoday we have in France a right wing government and the Russian revoluition led to an antiworking class regime and Stalinism. So much for the argument that struggling for reforms leads to radicalisationYou miss my point completely. You argue that reformist struggles only lead to workers being lulled into believing that the system works. Egypt shows that reformist demands can lead to INCREASED DEMANDS - in fact the "democratic" demands of the Egyptian revolution have also led to a small strike wave which is currently going on. In France, a movement that began as a call to have co-ed college dorms developed into a generalized struggle and the demands became incredibly radical and again eventually lead to strike-waves and factory occupations by workers. Empirically, the claim that any movement that fights for a reform will lead to a pacification of working class demands and increase the sense that the system works fine... well empirically, it's bullshit. To argue that because France is right-wing today that no increased radicalism of the working class occoured in France in 1968... is BAT-SHIT INSANE! By that logic you could equally argue that the IWW lead to Geroge W. Bush!

[robbo203]

Wow, I don't know how to respond to all these straw-men. Esentially you seem to be arguing that radicals should not be reformists - yes I agree with that. But fighting for a reform, by itself, does not make something reform-IST if the ultimate aim is self-emancipation of the working class. .


I been trying to explain you patiently that though the ultimate aim of the radical fighting for a reform may be the self emancipation of the working class, it will never ever come to self emancipation of the working class precisely because fighting for reforms is a trap fromn which you will never ever escape unless you stop fighting for reforms and raise your sights higher. Capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workjers so fighting for reforms in the interests of the workers is fordoomed. It is simply a treadmill which will never lead on to anything else.



STRAWMAN 1: reforms (like some tax change or gun control) don't help the movement forward.

The point is not the support ANY reform struggle that the working class is engaged in. As radicals we need to look at the political landscape and prioritize what kind of struggles we think could potentially help build to greater struggle and so on.

Although radicals oppose the sexual exploitation of women in porn, radicals should not join a fight by workers who want to force a ban on pornography. This would not be an activiity that would be conducive for radicalizing the participants or helping to put the working class in a better footing for the fight against capitalism... in fact it would do the opposite, it would help bolster the ability of the state to suppress other things - "offensive" political ideas even. .

Yes this last bit is quite true - although if you read what I said earler, you would probably realise that I think "fighting porn" is not strictly a reformist struggle - it is not an economic issue - whereas fighting the imposition of a VAT tax on goods certainly is




STRAWMAN 2: Fighting for refoms is dishonest because you are tricking workers into thinking capitalism can be groovy.

Radicals should not simply "cheerlead" in reform struggles. Just like when engaging with workers struggling for the reformist activities of trade-unions, radicals should try and bring our political perspective - which implies being UPFRONT about our larger political view, not hiding it as you argue we do. In the anti-war movement, for example we don't just say "war is bad" - that would be a lie - wars of liberation and working class war can have beneficial results. Radicals in the anti-war movement should be clear about their views on and opposition to imperialism, not simply war in general..

OK so lets look at this. Radicals, you say "should try and bring our political perspective - which implies being UPFRONT about our larger political view". So what does "being UPFRONT" mean? You ve admitted that refromism cannot achieve its goal of trying to run capitalism in the interests of workers. Will you now admit that being upfront with fellow workers means that we say this to them and that we try to encourrage them to see that reformism is a dead end??



The cause of working class self-emancipation is not helped by a working class that is "tricked" - we need to be clear about out larger political view even when we fight short-term battles in unions or against budget-cuts and so on...

This is frustrating because once again you are bring in all sorts of other things into the discussion on reformism which are inapplciable in my book. Let me say it against loud and clear so you dont miss it this time TRADE UNION BATTLES AND THE LIKE DO NOT FALL UNDER CATEGORY OF "REFORMISM". REFORMISM HAS A VERY SPECIFIC MEANING IN MY BOOK. Please go back and read what I wrote on the subject if you want to offer a criticism



STRAWMAN 3: The point of reforms for radicals is to transform the state through legislation implying that the capitalist state can be wielded by the working class.

Again, like above, we do not want to increase the power or efficiency of the state through reforms, we only want to support activities that put the working class on better war-footing by either increasing consciousness or materially creating more favorable conditions for struggl.


But this is itself a straw man argument becuase I do not oppose activities that put the working class on a better war footing. I oppose reformism instead precisely because - paradoxically - it weakens rather than strengthens the position of workers



So you would oppose the free-speach movement in the US, the fight to legalize trade union struggles, the fight to end legal segregation and the fight for legislative measures to guarantee voting rights and education rights to black people? You oppose May Day since that was from a struggle to establish an 8 hour day?.

For heavens sake I think Ive said quite clearly and often enough that I support political refoms insofar as they establish the necessary framework within which socialist/communist political activity could be carried out. Did you not read what I wrote at all? Do you want me to repeat what I hve already said to you. Political reforms are not reformist. Please try to heed what Ive been saying as I am trying to heed what you are saying - otherwise we will get nowhere in this discussion!



Reform struggles like these radicalized millions of workers in the US over time and will continue to do so. You mentioned supporting the IWW. Where did workers let alone activists get the idea that such a thing was necessary? It was the lived experience of workers and radicals fighting unions struggles and learning about the nature of the state the system and reforms. It's not like a few Socialists pulled these ideas out of their asses - and the organization would not have appealed to anyone if it had not been for the experience of the struggles workers engaged in.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say reform struggles have radicalized millions of workers in the US over time. Radicalised in what sense? I am a communist who wants a communist society. I want to know how "radicalisation" is conducive to that end. As far as I can tell there is no real evidence that it does lead to a communist outlook. Many radicals ultimately end up in in the ghetto of worthy liberal causes which only serve to fragment working class solidarity in plethora of separate struggles each demanding attention at the expense of others . Or they become disillusoned old cynics in later life and join the establishment



Again, i am curious - what is you alternative view of how radicalization happens and what is the existing radical's relationship to that process?
.

"Radicalisation" is the result of an interaction between material struggles - workers organising on the industrial terrain - and communist ideas. Above all it involves the explicit and conscious embrace of the communist goal - a non market non statist alternative to capitalism. This is what truly constitutes radical in the sense of a root change



Again you conflate any fight for a reform with reformism: "dangling reforms in front of their eyes". You also view the working class as totally passive in the reformist process - that radicals are dangling promisies and parties are making legislation - ALL THIS I REJECT as REFORMISM. Again, again, again, the main point is being able to fight along side workers who are already in motion when we feel that such a fight will aid our struggle (i.e. the struggle for the self-emancipation of the working class)..

But the advocacy of reforms in the sense that Ive described - a legislative measure enacted by the state which has as its focus the problems that arise from the economic basis of capitalism - IS what is meant by reformism. Its not a question of conflating the fight for a reform with refromism. That is how you define reformism in my book!

Your problem is that you dont make clear what you mean by reformism or reforms. So you bring into the equation all sorts of oher things that are not refromist in my book - like trade union struggle. This is frustrating becuase unless we use an agreed termionology we will not make any headway. Ive said clearly what I mean by reformism. Please do not confuse this with something else



All I see is that your alternative is that radicals need to stand on the sidelines and tell workers to drop their illusions and follow us ("say it like it is") because we radicals know best. Well, we do because we know the lessons of experience - but for masses of people to learn this, a lot of them will also need to learn the lessons. People's won't listen to radicals just because we say-so, they have to learn to trust us and that trust has to be earned through practice. So good luck with that movement of socialist priests dictating the scripture to the masses, I'll continue organizing and fighting among the working class while trying to show in practice why radical politics and revolutionary action are ultimately necessary for working class liberation, thank you very much.

No I dont say "radicals need to stand on the sidelines and tell workers to drop their illusions and follow us". Firstly I reject the whole principle of vanguardism and leadership. Secondly I dont say we should stand on the sidelines. No revolutionary ever is on the sidelines anyway . This is a meaningless way of looking at this anyway . We are all involved in the class struggle whether we like or not or whether we are aware oif it or not. As a worker I will join with my fellow workers in a union to fight the bosses in the indistrial field. As I said I am simply a member of the working class who has come to communist conclusions. I dont exist in some sense outside of the working class telling the working class what to do. This is an elitist leninist perspective which I totally abjure. As a communist worker I will therefore put across communist ideas - about communism, about rejecting nationalism, racism and sexisim and so on and so forth.

Speading ideas is essential. Some on the left have a kind of festishised view of "action" that there is something latent or inherent in the acts oine carries out that somehow drives one forward into becoming a communist. This is wrong. Strikes , protests demonstartions and all these sorts of activities dont carry cany necessary communist implications whatsoever. It is the interaction of ideas and actions which is what is needed. This is the point Im trying to make about radicalisation. If you ignore the importance of ideas and the necessity for a clear and explicit alternative to capitalism you will never ever pose a serious threat to capitalism. Never.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, let's back up and straighten out the semantic thing: I define refom-ISM as looking at reforms to political policy as the goal of organized political activity. This means thinking that a union is enough is reformism just as thinking that imperialism can be ended through legislation or policy change is reformism. However, when workers engage in these struggles against war or for better wages, they are challenging ruling class ideology and can potentially learn through struggle what is required for real long-lasting change. Radicals can have a role to play in this process by arguing what will ultimately be required is for a different kind of society run and built by the working class.

But if people are not struggling, then there is no way.

It sounds to me that we actually largely agree. When I say that radicals need to figure out for themselves which struggles will help create better conditions for workers to be able to radicalize and fight-back more effectively or consciously, in your argument about X=good struggles, Y="reforms" bad struggles, you are arguing that point about what to prioritize, what is most effective. I think it's kind of an abstract and mechanical way to formulate that - not to mention that not calling reforms-struggles you support "reforms" leads to useless semantic arguments.:blushing:


I been trying to explain you patiently that though the ultimate aim of the radical fighting for a reform may be the self emancipation of the working class, it will never ever come to self emancipation of the working class precisely because fighting for reforms is a trap fromn which you will never ever escape unless you stop fighting for reforms and raise your sights higher. Capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workjers so fighting for reforms in the interests of the workers is fordoomed. It is simply a treadmill which will never lead on to anything else.No, you have been repeating that the capitalist system can not be reformed. I agree.

But I don't agree with the suggestion that by fighting for and winning better conditions for themselves, the working class is then happy to settle and demobilize itself. I think history has shown time and time again that struggles that win often lead to more demands and struggles by working class and oppressed people. This is why there is the common idea of a strike-wave. This is why demands for reduced bread prices in Egypt became an all-out uprising.

In the US, the strikes in the 1930s lead to increased class and socialist consciousness. It wasn't until the CP and the Union bosses enforced no-strike pledges and drove militants and radicals out of the unions that the US working class became more complacent. The fights by workers in the 1930s increased class consciousness and socialist consciousness to a less extent, but still a noticible one with radical organizations greatly increasing in size and influence. The top-down refoms on behalf of workers, the reformism of the union-bureaucrats that retards consciousness.


OK so lets look at this. Radicals, you say "should try and bring our political perspective - which implies being UPFRONT about our larger political view". So what does "being UPFRONT" mean? You ve admitted that refromism cannot achieve its goal of trying to run capitalism in the interests of workers. Will you now admit that being upfront with fellow workers means that we say this to them and that we try to encourrage them to see that reformism is a dead end??In the long-term a reform is a dead-end because of the nature of the system, but it is not a dead end for working people to fight on their own behalf and in their own interests. Not fighting is the dead end and so radicals should be arm in arm with workers in fights that will help move the struggle forward for both being able to articulate the long-view and the need to overthrow capitalism by vast numbers of self-conscious working class people. Also often radical politics are necissary for reform-struggles to win anyway and so radicals can win over workers to more radical actions and that helps us win people away from reformist and liberal politics and bureaucrats. By proving our politics in action, we are able to make our larger political perspective more relevant to working class people.


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say reform struggles have radicalized millions of workers in the US over time. Without the fight for unions there would not have been a Socialist Party in the US or an IWW. Without the fight for an end to jim-crow or for school integration, there would not have been the New Left. Without struggles there can be no progress and in the history of the US, it has generally been the case that due to a weakness or absence of permanent left-wing organizations and structures that struggles begin with modest demands, but can lead to much greater and more radical demands.


Radicalised in what sense? I am a communist who wants a communist society. I want to know how "radicalisation" is conducive to that end.I am a communist who wants to see the working class run society collectively, so I see the radicalization of working class induviduals and movements as important to that goal.


But the advocacy of reforms in the sense that Ive described - a legislative measure enacted by the state which has as its focus the problems that arise from the economic basis of capitalism - IS what is meant by reformism. Its not a question of conflating the fight for a reform with refromism. That is how you define reformism in my book!I define chocolate milk as any melted chocolate bar - but ever time I buy chocolate milk at the store they give me this milky-watery chocolate drink! Grrrr!

No I have clearly not been arguing for legislative reforms on behlaf of the working class. For me trade-union struggles and reform struggles are important on the level of rank and file working class self-activity. Struggles that help workers learn how to fight and win for themselves are ones that help create more class-consiousness and confidence. Legislative reforms for a passive working class do not much help unless they do happen to make things more favorable for struggle like allow more free-speech - but in the US, the ruling class has never "offered" anything like that without some kind of fight beforehand.


No I dont say "radicals need to stand on the sidelines and tell workers to drop their illusions and follow us". Firstly I reject the whole principle of vanguardism and leadership. So why should I listen to you or your ideas? Aren't you trying to "lead" me to what you think are the correct way of moving the struggle forward?


Secondly I dont say we should stand on the sidelines. No revolutionary ever is on the sidelines anyway . This is a meaningless way of looking at this anyway . We are all involved in the class struggle whether we like or not or whether we are aware oif it or not. As a worker I will join with my fellow workers in a union to fight the bosses in the indistrial field. As I said I am simply a member of the working class who has come to communist conclusions. I dont exist in some sense outside of the working class telling the working class what to do. This is an elitist leninist perspective which I totally abjure. As a communist worker I will therefore put across communist ideas - about communism, about rejecting nationalism, racism and sexisim and so on and so forth. So you don't tell the working class what to do, but you tell workers to adopt communist ideas? That's the same thing. Why should they listen to you? Because you're so smart?

To me this is incredibly elitist because it suggests that you have the right ideas because you have somehow become enlightened and adopted communist ideas. It is also idealist - people don't develop ideas because they hear about them, there have to be material conditions for ideas to make sense to people - engaging in struggle is a material way in which people begin to challenge the handed-down "common-sense" ideas they've been told since birth from the media, politicians, schools, and so on.


Speading ideas is essential. Some on the left have a kind of festishised view of "action" that there is something latent or inherent in the acts oine carries out that somehow drives one forward into becoming a communist.No there's noting inherent in it - but it is a prerequisite for any possible progress. Action often comes before analysis.


This is wrong. Strikes , protests demonstartions and all these sorts of activities dont carry cany necessary communist implications whatsoever. It is the interaction of ideas and actions which is what is needed. This is the point Im trying to make about radicalisation. If you ignore the importance of ideas and the necessity for a clear and explicit alternative to capitalism you will never ever pose a serious threat to capitalism. Never.I agree, these things are in a relationship with each-other. Your ideas will be bad if they are not tested in practice or related to the material experience on the ground of existing actions. Actions will be ill-informed and people will not be able to learn from success or failure without ideas. Action can exist without ideas, but not the other way around and so that is why struggle does help the working class to develop class and potentially socialist consciousness. But ideas, socialist ideas which are essentially the generalized lessons of past working class struggles, are useless unless workers are engaging in struggles as a precondition for these ideas to even be relevant to them, let alone something that can be adopted and used.

[robbo203]

Jimmie


I have to go to France to do some forestry work for a few a weeks - the unemployment situation here is Spain is grim - so this will be my last contribution for a while till I get back. Ill be selective in my response as I have to do things...


Ok, let's back up and straighten out the semantic thing: I define refom-ISM as looking at reforms to political policy as the goal of organized political activity. This means thinking that a union is enough is reformism just as thinking that imperialism can be ended through legislation or policy change is reformism. However, when workers engage in these struggles against war or for better wages, they are challenging ruling class ideology and can potentially learn through struggle what is required for real long-lasting change. Radicals can have a role to play in this process by arguing what will ultimately be required is for a different kind of society run and built by the working class.
.

Yes reformism is political activity. But it is the purpose or the focus of that activity that makes it reformism or not. Essentially then the enactment of measures by the state or pressure put to bear on the state to deal with problems that sapring from the economic basus of caputalism is what constitutes "reformism". Trade unionism is thus not reformism . becuase it is not political activity. Pressing for voting rights is not reformism because its focus is not economic. However, urging the government to reduce Value added Tax on goods is reformism becuase it is advocating a refprm whose purpose is economic and whose field is political.

Thats the thing to remember: With reformism

The FIELD is political (it is carried out or enacted by the state in the form of measures , decrees , legislation etc)

The FOCUS is economic (it is directed at problems that have their origin in the economic basis of capitalist society)


Anything else that does not have this particular configuration of a political field and economic focus is NOT reformism

The position of a revolutionary in my view is to reject reformism - the advocacy of refroms - which is not the same thing as opposing reforms themselves. Refromism is the promotion of reforms and it is this that we revolutionaries should not be engaged in. Trying to mend capitalism is incompatible with trying to end capitalism. It is literally a case of one or the other




But I don't agree with the suggestion that by fighting for and winning better conditions for themselves, the working class is then happy to settle and demobilize itself. I think history has shown time and time again that struggles that win often lead to more demands and struggles by working class and oppressed people. This is why there is the common idea of a strike-wave. This is why demands for reduced bread prices in Egypt became an all-out uprising. .


See , this is what I was trying to get . When you say things like "fighting for and winning better conditions for themselves" this covers a multitide of different kinds of activities - some refromist , some non refromist - which need to be differentiated . As a trade unionist there are certainly some kinds of activities I can support, As a revolutionary there other kinds of activities I would not support becuase they essentially serve to ideologically tie workers to capitalism

The other poiint I would make is this You say history has shown time and time again that struggles that win often lead to more demands and struggles by working class and oppressed people.OK they lead to greater demands but what then? What do those greater demands lead to? What happens if they prove to be economically unsustainable and beyond the capacity of the state to met? What if a recession comes along and causes governments to not just put a halt to meeting the demands of workers but necessitates a rollling back of previous reforms as a way of , say cutting budgetary deficits. What do you do then?

Point is that there structural limits to what is achievable at any point in time . Above all the fact that you simply cannot run capitalism in the interests oif wage labour. The very nature of the system means the interests of capital must always predominate. That is the primary condition for the employment of wage labour. No profit means no production.

So what should be the position of the revolutionary. I think revolutionaries should be completely honest about this and say to workers what they think the situation is. The very last thing you want to do is to encourage reformist illusions becuase illusions lead to disillusions and thence to apathy and the end of organised resistance.

In Egypt for example there are a lot of good things happening just now which I fully endorse. One being the possibility of democratic reforms being implemented - which you will remember from our previous discussion I do not regard as reformist becuase the focus of such reforms is political and not economic. However, I worry that, along with the good stuff, the events in Eygypt have unleashed a rising wave of reformist aspirations - pressure on govenrment to introduce measures designed to improve the economic conditions of workers - which are simply not going to be sustainable. What happens then? Not infrequently in these situations when rising expectations collide with economic realities the calls for strong government become more insistent. A deterorating political and economic situation has often been the context in which an authroitarian (usually military style) dictatorship reasserts itself. That would be tragic if that were to happen in Egypt but it could happen. A civilian government might come into being and prove itself hopelessly inept at meeting those rising expectations resulting in further chaos and intervention of the military






In the long-term a reform is a dead-end because of the nature of the system, but it is not a dead end for working people to fight on their own behalf and in their own interests. Not fighting is the dead end and so radicals should be arm in arm with workers in fights that will help move the struggle forward for both being able to articulate the long-view and the need to overthrow capitalism by vast numbers of self-conscious working class people. Also often radical politics are necissary for reform-struggles to win anyway and so radicals can win over workers to more radical actions and that helps us win people away from reformist and liberal politics and bureaucrats. By proving our politics in action, we are able to make our larger political perspective more relevant to working class people.
.

Your first sentience is revealing - in the long term a reform is a dead end becuase of the nature of the system. So you mean basically that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers. This is so true. But then the question becomes how does relate to the refromist struggles of workers now. Bear in mind Im not talking about trade union struggle which are simply defensive struggles and which I fully endorse. I am talking about struggles to exert pressues on governments to implement measures that supposedly improve the economic circumstances of workers.

I think the position of revolutuionaries in relation to these latter struggles should be one of complete non involvement. They are examples of struggles you mentioned earlier of what we should not get involved with. We should be honest to the workers in such struggles and tell them why we think these are a dead end. When they prove to be a dead end in the end this is what the workers will remmber. That the revolutionaries said this. They will not thank you for cheerleading them on and encouraging them to engage in reformist struggle that would end up with them banging their heads against a brick wall



Refromist struggle does not necessarily imply a passive working class. This is the point. Workers can be actively engaged in reformist struggles to get governements to introduce measures that they perceive to be in their economic interests. But in the end they actually help to weaken not strenthgthen the working class by tying it idelogically to capitalism, fostering the illusion that capitalism can be run in the interests of workers and entrenching their dependence on capitalist governments to do it for them


[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;2023293
So why should I listen to you or your ideas? Aren't you trying to "lead" me to what you think are the correct way of moving the struggle forward?

So you don't tell the working class what to do, but you tell workers to adopt communist ideas? That's the same thing. Why should they listen to you? Because you're so smart?

To me this is incredibly elitist because it suggests that you have the right ideas because you have somehow become enlightened and adopted communist ideas. It is also idealist - people don't develop ideas because they hear about them, there have to be material conditions for ideas to make sense to people - engaging in struggle is a material way in which people begin to challenge the handed-down "common-sense" ideas they've been told since birth from the media, politicians, schools, and so on...


Sorry but this is a very silly argument. Everybody without exception believes their ideas are the right ones - otherwise they would not hold or expression them. Its got nothing to do with "leadership". Its what human beings do - talk, discuss , argue - and for which biological evolution has endowed us with the necesary physical equipment. So lets knock that one on the head straightaway.

If it is elitist in and of itself to express an idea then what you are trying to say is that we really should not express ideas at all . We should keep mum about our political vierws. That is quite absurd. If everyone followed that adviice there would be discussion about anything . Revleft would not even exist. Probably we would still be moping about in a cave gnawing at a peice of raw meat

And you are quite wrong you know. People do develops their ideas as a result of hearing other ideas., I became a socialist as a result of hearing or what another socialist told me. I make no bones about it. I would suggest that however much you might want to repress the idea, you most likely came to the views you hold by the same route. Almost every I know has.

This is not "idealist". People sometimes have a very funny notion of what idealism is about as a metaphysical approach. Materialism does not deny the role of ideas, what it denies is the "independent" role of ideas. That social developments are completely explicable in terms of the impact of ideas alone. This is false but nevertheless it is quite true that all social developments involve an exchange of ideas between historical actors and could not happen without that

I find it ironic that people who cricitice "abstract propaganda "- the purposeful spreading of ideas - should expend so much time and energy doing just that in order to put across the idea that putting across ideas is somehow idealist and ought on no account to be advocated:laugh:

Catch up with you later...

[Proukunin]

i think about this all the time, I actually waited during 2010 almost everyday for something terrible to happen that would kick off nation wide unrest..
I almost thought the BP oil spill would create that, but since then america has forgotten about it.

But, I also think that if politics keeps going the way it is now, and the economy gets worse.. we will see socialism make a HUGE rise in the west.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And you are quite wrong you know. People do develops their ideas as a result of hearing other ideas., I became a socialist as a result of hearing or what another socialist told me. I make no bones about it. I would suggest that however much you might want to repress the idea, you most likely came to the views you hold by the same route. Almost every I know has.Well there's not much working class struggle - at least in the US - so saying that the tiny left that exists now came to these views through ideas doesn't prove much. Hardly anyone these days have radical anti-capitalist views. In addition, if it were IDEAS that were the most important thing, we'd empirically see a steady rise in radicalism, we'd see a correlation between amount of publishing sales and number of radicals. Instead, in my experience, how interested working people are in radical ideas is MOST dependent on what the conditions are like in society and if workers are fighting back or not.

What got me to challenge the accommodating liberal/progressive views I once held (because basically I thought - and had been told - these were the only viable options) was the Seattle WTO protests - yes, demands for ECONOMIC reforms. That and the following anti-globalization movement convinced me that other solutions were possible and from there I broke with thinking in terms of how to get with the best deal under present capitalist circumstances (i.e. Keynesian, reforms, etc) and thinking what kind of world makes sense and would work for me and people like me.

Ideas are definitely important as I have argued - if they weren't I wouldn't be having this debate:lol:. But they ALONE do not matter and to think that ideas in the abstract are more important than working class struggle doesn't make any sense from any of my experiences.

As you know Marx said the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. I think most people's consciousness is a mix of "common sense" ideas handed down to them from teachers, parents, politicians, the media, and others on the one hand, and ideas that come from their daily experience and class position. People can have intellectually dissonant ideas (like reformists who are against capitalism, but also don't support revolution or worker's power) and for the most part it is material experience which will force them to confront their own contradictory ideas and develop a clearer class-consciousness. People who are already radicals do have an important part to play in this by organizing, agitating, and propagandizing... but if it is up to the "battle of ideas" alone, we will never win because the ruling class has infinitely more and better ways to disseminate their ideas.


This is not "idealist". People sometimes have a very funny notion of what idealism is about as a metaphysical approach. Materialism does not deny the role of ideas, what it denies is the "independent" role of ideas. That social developments are completely explicable in terms of the impact of ideas alone. This is false but nevertheless it is quite true that all social developments involve an exchange of ideas between historical actors and could not happen without thatYour argument that it's ideas not the material circumstances that make people more or less receptive to certain ideas is almost the DEFINITION of idealism - ideas resonate with people ONLY if they make sense in their MATERIAL experiences. People will believe the US when it says that Iraqi's support the US Invasion if that's all they hear (and even if a minority of leftists argue differently)... only the ACTION of Iriaqis fighting back helped break many people in the US from the propaganda. People believed that Arabs are incapable and uninterested in democracy... the ACTION of people in Egypt breaks that propaganda.

[Vanguard1917]

Capitalist crisis will deepen, but that doesn't mean working class resistance will automatically step up in accordance. For that to happen, the key is the level of working-class consciousness -- the 'subjective element' -- something which develops through working-class organisation. The current economic downturn is demonstrating clearly that the working class today has no significant existence as an organised entity in conflict with capitalism. Even in socially unstable countries like Egypt, where states are certainly being shaken by popular discontent, we're seeing the utter lack of a working-class, anti-capitalist alternative. This is the reality, something which we need to recognise in order to begin looking for ways forward. Asking for capitalist stability is futile and politically backward, but wishing for capitalist crisis as a remedy for diminished political horizons is often mere fatalism. Like Lukacs said, an economic crisis may rock the very foundations of the capitalist order, but whether that crisis is 'fatal or surmountable for the bourgeoisie depends entirely on the class consciousness of the proletariat.'

[PFay]

Even in socially unstable countries like Egypt, where states are certainly being shaken by popular discontent, we're seeing the utter lack of a working-class, anti-capitalist alternative.

I would disagree with that comment - Egypt has one of the most active working class movements in the developing world. HUGE. Read my blog to find out more on:

theclearview.wordpress.com

"And so the crisis in Egypt continues to spread – strikes, both economic and political, spread against the ruling class in Suez, Port Said and Ismailiya (where the American USS Enterprise aircraft carrier and a guided missile cruiser patrolled today, as if to remind Egyptians whose interests are at stake in Egypt), to Mahalla el-Kobra in the textile heartland – the very same location which sparked nation-wide strikes in 2006, and to Alexandria and Damietta. And in Cairo, where state banks are under siege from their employees who relentlessly hound the corrupt managers, the Charmain of the Egyptian National Bank resigned.


“Outside the headquarters of Banque Misr, another state-owned institution, a 10-minute walk from Tahrir Square, chants of “Leave, leave, leave” echoed into the night”