Unions and Strikes Under Socialism

[IHateCorporations]

What is the proper role of worker's unions under a Socialist State? Should strikes be allowed if everybody is a government employee? What was the relationship between Trade Unions and the Soviet State? Does this relate at all to what is going on in Wisconsin?

[Queercommie Girl]

The right to strike is always important as a pre-cautionary measure. Otherwise what will happen if workers get oppressed by their managers due to bureaucratisation of the political structure?

Just because one is a "government employee", doesn't mean one can't get very unfavourable terms and conditions. In the Soviet Union, workers were sometimes forced to work hard, and if they don't work hard enough, it's considered to be an anti-Soviet crime.

I mean fuck, what if I just don't want to work so hard? :rolleyes:

[Psy]

The right to strike is always important as a pre-cautionary measure. Otherwise what will happen if workers get oppressed by their managers due to bureaucratisation of the political structure?

Just because one is a "government employee", doesn't mean one can't get very unfavourable terms and conditions. In the Soviet Union, workers were sometimes forced to work hard, and if they don't work hard enough, it's considered to be an anti-Soviet crime.

I mean fuck, what if I just don't want to work so hard? :rolleyes:

True but we are talking about production for utility and not profit right so doesn't that change the whole relationship between workers and consumers? Wouldn't labor strikes in a community society be simply workers getting in the way of the production of other workers thus causing a bottleneck in the production of utility thus making everyone suffer?

I would think if workers are that unhappy in a community society it would become part of public debate long before workers get the idea to strike against other workers.

That said labor demonstrations I can see in a communist society.

[Tablo]

That said labor demonstrations I can see in a communist society.
Why would laborers strike after Communism is achieved? What is there to demand?

[Psy]

Why would laborers strike after Communism is achieved? What is there to demand?
I said labor demonstrations not strikes, what they would demand is society to pay more attention to their production process. For example miners demonstration over that mining is much harder work so miners society so mines should get a larger priority in improving working conditioning, IE miners not take kindly to office workers getting improved safety if they don't think mine safety is improving fast enough.

[Klaatu]

A Socialist economy is not necessarily only government run/owned. A Socialist organization, or business enterprise, can be privately-owned. For example, suppose you go into a partnership with one or two others; this would be a "worker-owned" company. Also consider the average credit union, where members own a piece of the cake, and there is no "controlling owner." These are (or at least can be) considered to be a part of the "workers' paradise." And there would be no real need to "strike," because workers can vote on their compensation level, and this is legally binding.

The real defeat of socialism comes when great amounts of wealth get concentrated in only a few hands. And this is exactly what has been going on in the past thirty years, gaining momentum under U.S. President Reagan.

There may not be an actual sharp dividing line between socialism and capitalism, rather, a vast gray area, so to speak, since the more wealth one person owns, the more society moves away from socialism, and head-first toward capitalism. Socialism favors large amounts of people, while capitalism favors the (small) ruling class. Which system do we prefer?

I am hoping that the recent events in Wisconsin, concerning unions, will finally wake people up to the fact that the U.S. is becoming increasingly plutocratic, with fewer and fewer people owning a greater and greater proportion of the world's wealth (and thus it's power.)

[Tablo]

I said labor demonstrations not strikes, what they would demand is society to pay more attention to their production process. For example miners demonstration over that mining is much harder work so miners society so mines should get a larger priority in improving working conditioning, IE miners not take kindly to office workers getting improved safety if they don't think mine safety is improving fast enough.
Oh, I see what you're saying. :thumbup1:

[Queercommie Girl]

Whether or not there would be an objective need to strike in a communist society is beside the point, but the potential right to strike must always be there, otherwise a Stalinist-style bureaucracy could begin to oppress the workers, in the name of "state interest".

[Queercommie Girl]

Why would laborers strike after Communism is achieved? What is there to demand?

One possibility:

"I'm working too hard now and I want to reduce working hours."

Or do you think people should be forced to work?

[Psy]

One possibility:

"I'm working too hard now and I want to reduce working hours."

Or do you think people should be forced to work?

But in a production for utility mode of production, you'd have to work harder to clear up backlogs caused by the strike once it is over (as we care about utility not exchange value). For example the longer railway workers stop freight train from rolling, the more labor would be required to clear the backup of freight. Add perishables and you have a situation where railway workers can destroy dead labor of others without their consent, for example why it is fair for there to be a shortage of food because it is rotting due to railway workers on strike?

Thus the logic "I'm working too hard now and I want to reduce working hours" can't be dealt with by strikes in a communist society, workers would have to keep working while demonstrating in the streets when they can to demand more help.

[Queercommie Girl]

But in a production for utility mode of production, you'd have to work harder to clear up backlogs caused by the strike once it is over (as we care about utility not exchange value). For example the longer railway workers stop freight train from rolling, the more labor would be required to clear the backup of freight. Add perishables and you have a situation where railway workers can destroy dead labor of others without their consent, for example why it is fair for there to be a shortage of food because it is rotting due to railway workers on strike?

Thus the logic "I'm working too hard now and I want to reduce working hours" can't be dealt with by strikes in a communist society, workers would have to keep working while demonstrating in the streets when they can to demand more help.

You are just talking about the ideal case of a "perfect communist society" where everything is done for immediate human need.

In reality, there is always the possibility of bureaucratic degeneration. Lenin didn't predict that the Soviet system he created in 1917 would degenerate later on either, but it did.

So to take away the potential rights of striking as a means of protest would in the concrete sense mean the workers would be powerless to stop such bureaucratisation in the socio-economic structure. It's easy to have a society that is "communist in name" but in reality even more oppressive for workers in the empirical sense than a democratic capitalist society would be.

After all, the Soviet Union was officially a "communist society" until its final dissolution in 1991! So your logic could have been used by the bureaucrats in the USSR to forbid striking rights by workers as "un-communist".

Also, remind me why I am a "communist" when workers are pushed to work harder in a supposedly "communist" system than a democratic capitalist one? China today is still officially a "communist state", but workers frequently commit suicide in China due to over-work. (More than 80 hours a week!)

And the Chinese regime today is using precisely your kind of logic to prevent the formation of genuine independent trade unions in China. :rolleyes: (Independent trade unions are incompatible with Leninism! they say)

Also, shouldn't workers have the right to switch their jobs or simply quit from the current job? Even in capitalist society this is possible, (though of course in practice it would be difficult to get another one again) if I'm fed up with a particular kind of job, I can just resign from my job position, after a short notice period.

[Psy]

You are just talking about the ideal case of a "perfect communist society" where everything is done for immediate human need.

In reality, there is always the possibility of bureaucratic degeneration. Lenin didn't predict that the Soviet system he created in 1917 would degenerate later on either, but it did.

So to take away the potential rights of striking as a means of protest would in the concrete sense mean the workers would be powerless to stop such bureaucratisation in the socio-economic structure. It's easy to have a society that is "communist in name" but in reality even more oppressive for workers in the empirical sense than a democratic capitalist society would be.

After all, the Soviet Union was officially a "communist society" until its final dissolution in 1991! So your logic could have been used by the bureaucrats in the USSR to forbid striking rights by workers as "un-communist".

Also, remind me why I am a "communist" when workers are pushed to work harder in a supposedly "communist" system than a democratic capitalist one? China today is still officially a "communist state", but workers frequently commit suicide in China due to over-work. (More than 80 hours a week!)

And the Chinese regime today is using precisely your kind of logic to prevent the formation of genuine independent trade unions in China. :rolleyes: (Independent trade unions are incompatible with Leninism! they say)

Also, shouldn't workers have the right to switch their jobs or simply quit from the current job? Even in capitalist society this is possible, (though of course in practice it would be difficult to get another one again) if I'm fed up with a particular kind of job, I can just resign from my job position, after a short notice period.
Remember what a strike is, a strike is to prevent another group of workers from gaining access to the means of production so the owners of said means of production can't use their labor instead.

Thus a strike in a communist society would be workers at a work place preventing workers that want to work from gaining access to the means of production. By what right would the workers of that means of production have to deny access to other workers? Doesn't it belong to society in which the revolutionary army would be well within their right to deploy to ensure workers that want to use the means of production are not stopped by a minority and are protected from disgruntled workers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Remember what a strike is, a strike is to prevent another group of workers from gaining access to the means of production so the owners of said means of production can't use their labor instead.

Thus a strike in a communist society would be workers at a work place preventing workers that want to work from gaining access to the means of production. By what right would the workers of that means of production have to deny access to other workers? Doesn't it belong to society in which the revolutionary army would be well within their right to deploy to ensure workers that want to use the means of production are not stopped by a minority and are protected from disgruntled workers.

So I take it you think the PRC Leninist state and its "revolutionary army" has the right to crush the attempt to form independent trade unions in China today, since China is still technically a "deformed worker's state"? :rolleyes:

You are just talking about the abstract ideal situation, which I'm not interested in. I defend the right to strike as a pre-cautionary measure against bureaucratic degeneration. In any kind of workplace there will be managers, who should be under the worker's democratic control, but the potential risk of the management developing interests that are separate from those of the workers in general is always there. Lenin's original Soviet system degenerated, so any future Soviet system we build could always degenerate again.

Your views are even worse than that of Mao Zedong, accused for being a "Stalinist dictator" by many, because Mao very clearly introduced the right to strike into the Chinese constitution during the Cultural Revolution, which the reactionary revisionist Deng Xiaoping removed from the Chinese constitution in 1982.

So it seems you are more on Deng's side than Mao's on this issue. Therefore to be frank with you, if "communism" means I don't have the right to strike, then I'm not a "communist", and I might indeed oppose your "revolutionary army" with "counter-revolutionary violence" until your entire damn "communist" system is brought down. Just like revolutionary Maoists in the PRC today are been imprisoned for "counter-revolutionary" and "anti-communist" political activity.

[Psy]

So I take it you think the PRC Leninist state and its "revolutionary army" has the right to crush the attempt to form independent trade unions in China today, since China is still technically a "deformed worker's state"? :rolleyes:

No since my point was that strikes are primary aimed at fellow workers, they are necessary in capitalism because we have class unconsciousness and the threat of unemployment.

They also apply to China as these issue still exist (class unconsciousness and the threat of unemployment).



You are just talking about the abstract ideal situation, which I'm not interested in. I defend the right to strike as a pre-cautionary measure against bureaucratic degeneration. In any kind of workplace there will be managers, who should be under the worker's democratic control, but the potential risk of the management developing interests that are separate from those of the workers in general is always there. Lenin's original Soviet system degenerated, so any future Soviet system we build could always degenerate again.

The problem with a strike in a true use value economy is it allows minorities to hold means of production hostage thus is a huge risk for the reintroduction of capitalism by treating means of production as independent institutions not subject to the demand of society.



Your views are even worse than that of Mao Zedong, accused for being a "Stalinist dictator" by many, because Mao very clearly introduced the right to strike into the Chinese constitution during the Cultural Revolution, which the reactionary revisionist Deng Xiaoping removed from the Chinese constitution in 1982.

Right but I'm talking about a society that has actually established communism.



So it seems you are more on Deng's side than Mao's on this issue. Therefore to be frank with you, if "communism" means I don't have the right to strike, then I'm not a "communist", and I might indeed oppose your "revolutionary army" with "counter-revolutionary violence" until your entire damn "communist" system is brought down.
No again I'm talking about a society that actually broken free of the law of value and operates under a communist economy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, at least you are not a supporter of the "deformed worker's state"!

As I said, I don't really care about the "ideal situation", because it's too abstract, and I'm not an utopianist, so I realise that the world will never be completely ideal, communist or not.

Well, Lenin once upon a time created more or less a sound Soviet system, in 1917, agreed? And that degenerated, very badly. So I think the risk of bureaucratic degeneration is eternally present. You will never reach a point where you say: ah, now communism has been completely established, so we would never need to worry about anything degenerating ever again.

Which is precisely why Mao introduced the right to strike into the Chinese socialist constitution, because Maoism believes in "continuous revolution" --- eternal revolution is the price of communism.

[Psy]

Well, at least you are not a supporter of the "deformed worker's state"!

As I said, I don't really care about the "ideal situation", because it's too abstract, and I'm not an utopianist, so I realise that the world will never be completely ideal, communist or not.

Well, Lenin once upon a time created more or less a sound Soviet system, in 1917, agreed? And that degenerated, very badly. So I think the risk of bureaucratic degeneration is eternally present. You will never reach a point where you say: ah, now communism has been completely established, so we would never need to worry about anything degenerating ever again.

Which is precisely why Mao introduced the right to strike into the Chinese socialist constitution, because Maoism believes in "continuous revolution" --- eternal revolution is the price of communism.
Even when faced with a bureaucratic degeneration strikes would not a useful tactic since workers should be more class consciousness making strikes obsolete tactic as labor dispute would no longer be dealing with reactionary workers (at least not to the same extent). Rather labor disputes could move right to other tactics taking direct action in the work place or putting pressure on the workers state through demonstrations.

[Victus Mortuum]

Strikes would not make sense unless you are imagining a coercive planning system.

Coordination could happen bottom up where participatory democratic workplaces came together voluntarily to coordinate production effectively. If some particular community or workplace wanted to opt out, why force them not to? It would be seriously be against their interest to opt out, so why use physical force?

[Psy]

Strikes would not make sense unless you are imagining a coercive planning system.

Coordination could happen bottom up where participatory democratic workplaces came together voluntarily to coordinate production effectively. If some particular community or workplace wanted to opt out, why force them not to? It would be seriously be against their interest to opt out, so why use physical force?
The problem is means of production, if a small group (even of workers) can hold a means of production hostage it sets precedent for the reintroduction of capitalism. If the means of production is considered to be a part of the collective then it means the workers state had to ensure the collective has access to the means of production thus the strike would be an illegal occupation of workers since the workers would be stopping other workers from making use of the means of production.

If the workers just walk of the job that is one thing but the point of striking is to hold the means of production hostage.

[Victus Mortuum]

I don't see what you're talking about.

If the workers are participatory democratically and voluntarily producing at the factory and if they choose to produce outside a large coordination, what is the problem? They wouldn't get any of the benefits of the rest of societies product, but that's what they're choosing.

If they aren't using the "factory", then obviously other workers would be allowed to enter and use the factory. The individuals would only be breaking use-possession if they blocked other workers from using it if they wanted to. I don't think you need a 'state' to deal with this - the self-armed people can handle it themselves.

[Psy]

I don't see what you're talking about.

If the workers are participatory democratically and voluntarily producing at the factory and if they choose to produce outside a large coordination, what is the problem? They wouldn't get any of the benefits of the rest of societies product, but that's what they're choosing.

The problem is viewing the means of production separate from the larger society and that a owner can deny access to the means of production. Remember we are talking after revolutionary armies probably fought a bloody war against capitalists to ensure means of production were not property so I don't see why communist society should just let a minority of workers to turn them back into private property without a fight.



If they aren't using the "factory", then obviously other workers would be allowed to enter and use the factory. The individuals would only be breaking use-possession if they blocked other workers from using it if they wanted to. I don't think you need a 'state' to deal with this - the self-armed people can handle it themselves.
The whole point of a strike is to hold means of production hostage, I'm only against workers using the tactic of strikes in a communist society as it turns means of production back into private property and quickly becomes a struggle over who owns it.

[Victus Mortuum]

So you're objecting to workers forcibly preventing others from accessing some means of production to use them? I'll accept that this is a problem. As I said, of course this is something that the post-revolutionary society would prevent and fight against.

However, the workers right to cease working would certainly be protected (of course, this would certainly remove them from access to the common product). This is not a society of coercion. This is usually what is meant by a 'right to strike'.

[Queercommie Girl]

Even when faced with a bureaucratic degeneration strikes would not a useful tactic since workers should be more class consciousness making strikes obsolete tactic as labor dispute would no longer be dealing with reactionary workers (at least not to the same extent). Rather labor disputes could move right to other tactics taking direct action in the work place or putting pressure on the workers state through demonstrations.

So in your opinions workers should not strike even against Stalinist bureaucratism?

Well, well, we all know what the lack of worker's opposition towards the bureaucracy resulted in, in the FSU, and in China now.

Lots of Chinese workers were armed during Mao's day. When Deng took away the right to strike in 1982, they shouldn't have just demonstrated, but instead should have violently fought for their rights. But they did nothing. And now look at what state the Chinese workers are in.

What's the point of talking about these issues purely in the abstract rather than review what actually happened with the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet states in the 20th century? You think these degenerations were just a fluke?

[Queercommie Girl]

If the workers just walk of the job that is one thing but the point of striking is to hold the means of production hostage.


Workers quiting from a job is not the same as a strike at all, technically speaking.

It's a different issue. And of course in a communist society workers should have the right to quit from their jobs and change careers etc, since Marx actually believed there should be more rounded development of the individual and less narrow specialisation.

Unless you wish to have bureaucrats "allocate" jobs for workers, after which workers are stuck in their job posts for life like how medieval serfs are stuck on their lands.

[Psy]

So you're objecting to workers forcibly preventing others from accessing some means of production to use them? I'll accept that this is a problem. As I said, of course this is something that the post-revolutionary society would prevent and fight against.

Right for example railway workers stopping trains yet not allowing replacement railway workers from getting the trains rolling again.



However, the workers right to cease working would certainly be protected (of course, this would certainly remove them from access to the common product). This is not a society of coercion. This is usually what is meant by a 'right to strike'.

We are talking about different conditions, even if the workers where 100% right striking in a communist society is just plain stupid as it would do nothing but alienate themselves from other workers while making it harder for society to meet their demands due to shortages causes by them disrupting the economy.



So in your opinions workers should not strike even against Stalinist bureaucratism?

Well, well, we all know what the lack of worker's opposition towards the bureaucracy resulted in, in the FSU, and in China now.

Lots of Chinese workers were armed during Mao's day. When Deng took away the right to strike in 1982, they shouldn't have just demonstrated, but instead should have violently fought for their rights. But they did nothing. And now look at what state the Chinese workers are in.

What's the point of talking about these issues purely in the abstract rather than review what actually happened with the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet states in the 20th century? You think these degenerations were just a fluke?
Even large general strikes would be a very weak response against bureaucratic degeneration. Strikes are a tactic against fellow workers, they are not even that a threat against capitalists and capitalists only consider them a threat because they can lead to workers taking the means of production.

Against a bureaucratic ruling class it would be basically the workers saying "we are militant but we lack class consciousness to actually do anything productive with our militancy" If the workers were really class conscious they would simply create a parallel power structure and refuse to acknowledge the authority of the old bureaucracy.

You are assuming that workers would still have to defend against reactionary workers that is the use for strikes, if there are not that many reactionary workers then strikes are counter-productive and workers should resort to more useful tactics.

[Jose Gracchus]

Except the workers of Budapest and elsewhere did shrug off the Stalinist police state apparatus in Hungary in 1956 with workers' militias and armed youth along with a general strike, and formed workers' councils which rapidly assumed much political influence and the new government pretty much existed at its leisure. Then, of course, Soviet troops reoccupied Hungary and crushed the workers' councils and striking workers.

[Psy]

Except the workers of Budapest and elsewhere did shrug off the Stalinist police state apparatus in Hungary in 1956 with workers' militias and armed youth along with a general strike, and formed workers' councils which rapidly assumed much political influence and the new government pretty much existed at its leisure. Then, of course, Soviet troops reoccupied Hungary and crushed the workers' councils and striking workers.
Going back to my point a general strike is just the workers holding the means of production hostage, they don't use the means of production themselves as they lack class consciousness to consider the means of production no longer property of the ruling class. For example what brought fear into the French ruling class in 1968 was not the general strike but that production was starting to come back under worker soviets as workers started up production under their own authority and created their own ration system to distribute commodities.

General strikes are only really useful in building class consciouses, in terms of a tactic to wrestle control of the means of production away from ruling classes it is not that effective, for that you need workers to do the exact opposite and actually go to work but to distribute the value they produce themselves.

[Queercommie Girl]

You are assuming that workers would still have to defend against reactionary workers that is the use for strikes, if there are not that many reactionary workers then strikes are counter-productive and workers should resort to more useful tactics.


Actually I do because I believe in continuous revolution and I think the potential possibility of reactionary degeneration is eternally present.

I'm definitely not an utopian socialist, I don't believe humanity will ever reach a point in history where people can just say: "ah, now communism has genuinely and truly been established so there is no risk of any degeneration ever again." That's a very childish and naive viewpoint.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, eternal revolution is the price of communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Remember what a strike is, a strike is to prevent another group of workers from gaining access to the means of production so the owners of said means of production can't use their labor instead.

Thus a strike in a communist society would be workers at a work place preventing workers that want to work from gaining access to the means of production. By what right would the workers of that means of production have to deny access to other workers? Doesn't it belong to society in which the revolutionary army would be well within their right to deploy to ensure workers that want to use the means of production are not stopped by a minority and are protected from disgruntled workers.

There is simply no such thing as a professional "revolutionary army" in a genuine communist society. There is only the self-armed working people themselves.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why would laborers strike after Communism is achieved? What is there to demand?


You see communism as a static utopian system.

I see communism as a completely dynamic and realistic system in which the potential possibility of reactionary degeneration is ever-present.

[Psy]

Actually I do because I believe in continuous revolution and I think the potential possibility of reactionary degeneration is eternally present.

I'm definitely not an utopian socialist, I don't believe humanity will ever reach a point in history where people can just say: "ah, now communism has genuinely and truly been established so there is no risk of any degeneration ever again." That's a very childish and naive viewpoint.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, eternal revolution is the price of communism.
That is kinda stupid by that logic capitalists should have eternal vigilance to defend capitalism from feudalism, there will be a point in the development of communism where the social relations of production make it improbable for the reintroduction of capitalism (at least in any timely manner).

For example once communism established general abundance and stops rationing how would capitalism be reintroduced, markets would be saturated from a capitalist standpoint with no sign of production easing up as communist production focuses of utility thus doesn't care if exchange value falls to zero.



There is simply no such thing as a professional "revolutionary army" in a genuine communist society. There is only the self-armed working people themselves.

Yes once the task of the revolutionary army has ended but by then I don't see strikes taking place as by then workers should be consciousness enough to take matters into their own hands rather then strike against a workers state that would be becoming irrelevant.

The problem is that you reach a point where strikes would do nothing but strength the worker state, the risk of scarcity would be much larger threat then what ever the workers are striking about, the rest of the communist world would pressure the worker state to send in the revolutionary army to restore production and save the communist world from scarcity.

[Rafiq]

I said labor demonstrations not strikes, what they would demand is society to pay more attention to their production process. For example miners demonstration over that mining is much harder work so miners society so mines should get a larger priority in improving working conditioning, IE miners not take kindly to office workers getting improved safety if they don't think mine safety is improving fast enough.

Actually they would just take it up with the council to change that. No need to strike for it when the Miners (Workers) are the leaders themselves.

[Rafiq]

One possibility:

"I'm working too hard now and I want to reduce working hours."

Or do you think people should be forced to work?

Then they would go to the worker's council and change that.......

Actually Iseul, Communism is hundreds of years away, I doubt humans will be doing that kind of work.

You can't put Communism within the modern context of our time frame.

You have hundreds of years of Socialism first.

[Psy]

Actually they would just take it up with the council to change that. No need to strike for it when the Miners (Workers) are the leaders themselves.
True but if you look at the very first part of what you quoted.

"I said labor demonstrations not strikes"

So I never said miners would go on strike just demonstrate for example have marches down city centers and make speeches at public rallies (on their time off) to gain support from the rest of the community to their plight so changes are made.

[Queercommie Girl]

That is kinda stupid by that logic capitalists should have eternal vigilance to defend capitalism from feudalism, there will be a point in the development of communism where the social relations of production make it improbable for the reintroduction of capitalism (at least in any timely manner).

For example once communism established general abundance and stops rationing how would capitalism be reintroduced, markets would be saturated from a capitalist standpoint with no sign of production easing up as communist production focuses of utility thus doesn't care if exchange value falls to zero.


There is a fundamental difference between one class society replacing another class society, and a classless society replacing a class society.

Capitalism may not stage a comeback after a while, but bureaucratic Stalinism potentially could. (Stalinism technically is still "socialist planned economy" but it could also be very bad for the workers)

Capitalists today may not need to maintain vigilance over feudal restorationists (well, not in the West anyway), but they would still need to maintain vigilance against corruption and the mis-use of power by the rich and powerful, which would objectively distort the capitalist ideal. That's the kind of analogy I was drawing.

You are stupid to take a complacent utopian view of the world, rather than a cautious, cynical and realistic one. We can't just "put our feet up once and for all" once communism is "established". Communism itself is not static but dynamic, it's like a process.

Communism once it reaches a certain point may not need to worry about capitalism anymore, but it would still need to worry about the distortion of communism. No-one can ever be immune to degeneration.

Have you ever wondered why so many people dismiss the ideas of socialism? Because some of the ideas sound too utopian to people. And frankly socialists are partly to blame for that. Genuine socialists must maintain a rugged, cynical view of reality and have a complete radical break with all remanents of utopianism.



The problem is that you reach a point where strikes would do nothing but strength the worker state, the risk of scarcity would be much larger threat then what ever the workers are striking about, the rest of the communist world would pressure the worker state to send in the revolutionary army to restore production and save the communist world from scarcity.
Given that in a communist society production levels would be much higher than they are now, I'd say the threat of scarcity is much more trivial than the threat of bureaucratisation. Workers could afford to have production efficiency go down for a while in order to battle the first signs of bureaucratism.

In a communist society, there is no "professional revolutionary army", and there is no "worker's state", the "state" would have already dissolved away.

You think too much like a Stalinist bureaucrat, or like the Dengists in China who oppose the Maoist Cultural Revolution because apparently China's industrial productivity went down during the "chaotic years" of political activism during the Cultural Revolution. I'd say sometimes such "drop in productivity" is definitely worth it from a genuine Marxist perspective.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then they would go to the worker's council and change that.......

Actually Iseul, Communism is hundreds of years away, I doubt humans will be doing that kind of work.

You can't put Communism within the modern context of our time frame.

You have hundreds of years of Socialism first.

No-one can predict what will happen in hundreds of years of time, and I have no interest in utopian socialism.

My only concern regarding this matter is the threat of bureaucratisation which would take away worker's democracy, and hence worker's power.

The right to strike is part of that power, this is something even a "Stalinist leader" like Mao Zedong understood.

I'm much more worried about deformations in productive relation than the efficiency of productive force. Otherwise one might as well say the use of slavery by white colonialists in the New World was "progressive" since it objectively raised productivity. I think in order to consolidate worker's power, sacrificing some productive efficiency is certainly worth it.

[PottersvilleUSA]

...

There may not be an actual sharp dividing line between socialism and capitalism, rather, a vast gray area, so to speak, since the more wealth one person owns, the more society moves away from socialism, and head-first toward capitalism. Socialism favors large amounts of people, while capitalism favors the (small) ruling class. Which system do we prefer?

I am hoping that the recent events in Wisconsin, concerning unions, will finally wake people up to the fact that the U.S. is becoming increasingly plutocratic, with fewer and fewer people owning a greater and greater proportion of the world's wealth (and thus it's power.)

I'm also hoping Americans realize that a labor union is one of the few mechanisms to counterbalance the immense power of corporations. They're not important, they're essential. The line in the sand needs to be drawn right now in Wisconsin or it'll be the first domino of many to fall. It is serious war--the rich against the already endangered middle class.

I'm curious. Do you folks think capitalism or communism/socialism are equally prone to corruption? Or is one system more prone to corruption than the other?

[Psy]

There is a fundamental difference between one class society replacing another class society, and a classless society replacing a class society.

Capitalism may not stage a comeback after a while, but bureaucratic Stalinism potentially would. (Stalinism technically is still "socialist planned economy" but it could also be very bad for the workers)

Not really, you are not thinking on a global scale. On a global scale a Stalin would have to deal with other workers states that span the entire globe with people able to go anywhere on Earth meaning if they don't like one workers state they can leave and go to one they find better. Meaning the second a Stalin cracks down the people could just leave and the Stalin would be leader of a empty workers state with no workers as the revolutionary armies of other workers state evacuated them out.



Communism once it reaches a certain point may not need to worry about capitalism anymore, but it would still need to worry about the distortion of communism. No-one can ever be immune to degeneration.

Again global scale, I doubt the degeneration would be world wide and with people having the freedom to migrate it would mean people would be able to vote with their feet.



Given that in a communist society production levels would be much higher than they are now, I'd say the threat of scarcity is much more trivial than the threat of bureaucratisation. Workers could afford to have production efficiency go down for a while in order to battle the first signs of bureaucratism.

Production levels can still be quickly disrupted and a strike itself is a threat of bureaucratisation as it means workers have lost faith in direction action.



In a communist society, there is no "professional revolutionary army", and there is no "worker's state", the "state" would have already dissolved away.

Thus there would be no one for the workers to strike against.

Also it is debatable how quickly communist society will be achieved so the worker state and revolutionary army might still be in decay.

[Klaatu]

Do you folks think capitalism or communism/socialism are equally prone to corruption? Or is one system more prone to corruption than the other?

In my humble opinion, I would say that it is capitalism which has the potential to be much more corrupt, in that there are huge amounts of money involved, and, because of this fact, mens' natural emotion of greed is empowered to a degree that could only be imagined in a communist or socialist system. That is because the power is in the gold: in all of history, the lust for gold has propelled nations to fight with utmost fury to satisfy their wants; while those poorer nations, being perhaps socialist, had a greater desire for their people to just live and thrive, as a whole, but not as some sort of elitist class of useless, non-productive, non-creative individuals (as the aristocracy or capitalist class are)

[Amphictyonis]

managers


I wonder if the work place could be run without managers as they can be ran without capitalists ;)

[Victus Mortuum]

I'm curious. Do you folks think capitalism or communism/socialism are equally prone to corruption? Or is one system more prone to corruption than the other?

Communism is stateless, so I'm not sure I understand how it would be in any way prone to corruption.

Socialism is stateless too (as communism is simply a type of socialism), so I'm not sure I understand how it would be in any way prone to corruption, either.

Even Lenin acknowledged that post-revolution a state would NOT exist, though a 'state' (a central organizing/democratic body without an army or police or an executive bureaucracy and having recallable delegates) may (read State and Revolution for clarification, though ignore his mischaracterization of anarchists). This is something a lot of socialists seem to completely miss.

[Jose Gracchus]

Under a proletarian/producers' power - that is, a society in transition to communism - I think the right-to-strike in practical terms ought to be defended because of the omnipresent risk of sliding bureaucratic degeneration.

In practice this would have to be worked out, since socially-necessary labor is compulsive for the entire population, unless they want to be cut off from the common product.

[Psy]

Yet does the workers really have the right to limit access to means of production they just happen to work in?

The right to strike after property has been abolished is a contradiction, the right to strike in a propertyless society means the minority of workers at a means of production has veto power over the larger society as if they owned the means of production.

[Jose Gracchus]

If you think there's no way to tell a difference between workers seizing the common means of production and setting up profiteering cooperatives and a strike against a "revolutionary" state or bureaucracy, I think you're really being excessively blackwhite on this.

[Psy]

If you think there's no way to tell a difference between workers seizing the common means of production and setting up profiteering cooperatives and a strike against a "revolutionary" state or bureaucracy, I think you're really being excessively blackwhite on this.

It is more then that it is the question of if the means of production are there for the common good or if they are just there for the workers that happen to invest their labor into them.

For example lets say that all of sudden forestry workers become environmentalists and are against logging of the forest, yet they are a minority to the larger community that sees logging necessary to avoid scarcity of products made out of wood. The forestry workers go on strike and picket the logging road stopping new forestry workers to replace the striking workers, then what?

Who has rights over the forest? The workers just work there what right do they have to tell other workers they can't cross a picket line? What obligations does a worker state has in protecting replacements workers rights and well being? If the worker state has obligations then they have to have the means to enforce order for example sending troops to escort replacement workers to the forest and to protect them from striking forest workers.

See how even from the standpoint of militant workers the tactict of striking would become obsolete, because even if you are up against a corrupt bureaucracy you need to gain support of the masses.

[RED DAVE]

It is more then that it is the question of if the means of production are there for the common good or if they are just there for the workers that happen to invest their labor into them.

For example lets say that all of sudden forestry workers become environmentalists and are against logging of the forest, yet they are a minority to the larger community that sees logging necessary to avoid scarcity of products made out of wood. The forestry workers go on strike and picket the logging road stopping new forestry workers to replace the striking workers, then what?

Who has rights over the forest? The workers just work there what right do they have to tell other workers they can't cross a picket line? What obligations does a worker state has in protecting replacements workers rights and well being? If the worker state has obligations then they have to have the means to enforce order for example sending troops to escort replacement workers to the forest and to protect them from striking forest workers.

See how even from the standpoint of militant workers the tactict of striking would become obsolete, because even if you are up against bureaucracy you need to gain support of the masses.(emph added)

Stalinist mind in action.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

(emph added)

Stalinist mind in action.

RED DAVE
Would you rather have the tyranny of the minority? If any workplace can go against the will of the rest of society then what is the point of democracy? That means a bunch of nuts works striking at a port can refuse to let replacement workers transport urgently needed supplies because they decided to go against the will of the rest of society and strike.

[Victus Mortuum]

Psy, I'm gonna let you finish, but I'm just gonna repost all the stuff I posted that you seem to have ignored.


Strikes would not make sense unless you are imagining a coercive planning system.

Coordination could happen bottom up where participatory democratic workplaces came together voluntarily to coordinate production effectively. If some particular community or workplace wanted to opt out, why force them not to? It would be seriously be against their interest to opt out, so why use physical force?

If the workers are participatory democratically and voluntarily producing at the factory and if they choose to produce outside a large coordination, what is the problem? They wouldn't get any of the benefits of the rest of societies product, but that's what they're choosing.

If they aren't using the "factory", then obviously other workers would be allowed to enter and use the factory. The individuals would only be breaking use-possession if they blocked other workers from using it if they wanted to. I don't think you need a 'state' to deal with this - the self-armed people can handle it themselves.

So you're objecting to workers forcibly preventing others from accessing some means of production to use them? I'll accept that this is a (hypothetical) problem. As I said, of course this is something that the post-revolutionary society would prevent and fight against.

However, the workers right to cease working would certainly be protected (of course, this would certainly remove them from access to the common product). This is not a society of coercion. This is usually what is meant by a 'right to strike'.

Even Lenin acknowledged that post-revolution a state would NOT exist, though a 'state' (a central organizing/democratic body without an army or police or an executive bureaucracy and having recallable delegates) may exist (read State and Revolution for clarification). This is something a lot of socialists seem to completely miss.

[Psy]

Psy, I'm gonna let you finish, but I'm just gonna repost all the stuff I posted that you seem to have ignored.

Strikes would not make sense unless you are imagining a coercive planning system.

Coordination could happen bottom up where participatory democratic workplaces came together voluntarily to coordinate production effectively. If some particular community or workplace wanted to opt out, why force them not to? It would be seriously be against their interest to opt out, so why use physical force?

Because that would make means of production property, for example if forest workers can opt out the forest it means even if there are plenty of workers willing to produce within the demands of society they can't because the workers that just happened to be working there at the time decided to go on strike.



If the workers are participatory democratically and voluntarily producing at the factory and if they choose to produce outside a large coordination, what is the problem? They wouldn't get any of the benefits of the rest of societies product, but that's what they're choosing.

Because means of production are always going to be scarce and have to be rationed. You can't just give everyone a oil refinery thus oil refineries have to be rationed across the communist world.



If they aren't using the "factory", then obviously other workers would be allowed to enter and use the factory. The individuals would only be breaking use-possession if they blocked other workers from using it if they wanted to.

The point of a strike is the not produce and stop other from working. The very nature of strikes have been used to point out the existence of reactionary workers since if the working class was not reactionary it wouldn't need strikes as it wouldn't need to attack itself and could focus it energy on attacking the ruling class.



I don't think you need a 'state' to deal with this - the self-armed people can handle it themselves.

That pretty much limits options, for example you can't ferry replacement workers through picket lines in APCs without trained crews.



So you're objecting to workers forcibly preventing others from accessing some means of production to use them? I'll accept that this is a (hypothetical) problem. As I said, of course this is something that the post-revolutionary society would prevent and fight against.

However, the workers right to cease working would certainly be protected (of course, this would certainly remove them from access to the common product). This is not a society of coercion. This is usually what is meant by a 'right to strike'.

Right but that means they would have to leave the means of production to let replacement workers take up responsibility for its production (meaning they would be the new workers council for the sight as they would be the ones actually working there)

Striking without picketing is simply walking off the job and the point of picketing is the deny access else it is just a demonstration.





Even Lenin acknowledged that post-revolution a state would NOT exist, though a 'state' (a central organizing/democratic body without an army or police or an executive bureaucracy and having recallable delegates) may exist (read State and Revolution for clarification). This is something a lot of socialists seem to completely miss.
It would wither away as its need diminishes and society reallocates resources elsewhere.

[RED DAVE]

Would you rather have the tyranny of the minority? If any workplace can go against the will of the rest of society then what is the point of democracy? That means a bunch of nuts works striking at a port can refuse to let replacement workers transport urgently needed supplies because they decided to go against the will of the rest of society and strike.Stalinist mind is stalinist.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

Stalinist mind in action.

RED DAVE

Your missing the point of strikes and why they work now.

The point of a strike now is workers withhold their labor from the capitalists but the capitalists of course will simply turn to the army of unemployed that are more desperate for wages.

Yet in a society with full employment this is not the case, the other workers will not be there because they are more desperate for wage but because they don't believe in the strike and don't want production to be disrupted.

Strikes are not the ultimate source of worker power, it is not even the final blow the final blow is the opposite where workers seize the means of production and produce themselves.

[RED DAVE]

Your missing the point of strikes and why they work now.

The point of a strike now is workers withhold their labor from the capitalists but the capitalists of course will simply turn to the army of unemployed that are more desperate for wages.It is no way that simple. Even in these disgusting times, it is no all that easy, especially in a large work place, to recruit scabs. Usually, management tries to wait it out or use management personnel to keep things going.


Yet in a society with full employment this is not the case, the other workers will not be there because they are more desperate for wage but because they don't believe in the strike and don't want production to be disrupted.This is very unclear.


Strikes are not the ultimate source of worker powerNo, but they are a good beginning.


it is not even the final blowNo, but a general strike can be the precipitator of "the final conflict."


the final blow is the opposite where workers seize the means of production and produce themselves.Okay.

But workers in a socialist country must and will have independent organizations and must have the right to strike. Otherwise, it's stalinism, where the state is somehow "above" the workers.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

It is no way that simple. Even in these disgusting times, it is no all that easy, especially in a large work place, to recruit scabs. Usually, management tries to wait it out or use management personnel to keep things going.

This is mostly do to with the capitalists having a understanding that if they send scabs the bourgeoisie elements in union wouldn't be able to prevent the conflict from escalating beyond a strike. For example the capitalists of the big automakers in Detroit are full aware the UAW is their ally and if the UAW loses control over the workers it is a much higher possibility autoworkers will seize factories rather then strike.

This is evident in the UAW sabotaging local union organizers that were far more militant then the UAW was comfortable with and refused to even have their members vote on UAW concessions.



This is very unclear.

Simply, if we have a society with a communist society full employment then there is no army of unemployed. We can assume that also the work force is not as desperate for employment, if you can get a job anywhere on Earth and you choose to undermined a strike by being a replacement worker it probably because you at the very least you are apathetic to the strike and not there simply for a wage (more so if we have a wageless society)



No, but they are a good beginning.

No, but a general strike can be the precipitator of "the final conflict."

True but workers should be already past that point as they should already be organized due to the workspace being their responsibility.




Okay.

But workers in a socialist country must and will have independent organizations and must have the right to strike. Otherwise, it's stalinism, where the state is somehow "above" the workers.

RED DAVE
I agree with independent organizations but don't see strikes being a useful tactic at that point. See if from the point of view of the rest of society, you have a disruption of production from a group that sees strikes as more important then actually engaging the rest of society.

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm sorry, but RED DAVE is right. Where's the shred of evidence that purportedly sectorial-chauvinist workers' wildcat or spontaneous strikes are the real threat to socialism we need to be prepared to strikebreak with Red Pinkertons and Red Scabs? I think it does feel like Stalinism to be concerned about this over the risk of the state eating workers' self-management, as is a historical reality.

[Psy]

I'm sorry, but RED DAVE is right. Where's the shred of evidence that purportedly sectorial-chauvinist workers' wildcat or spontaneous strikes are the real threat to socialism we need to be prepared to strikebreak with Red Pinkertons and Red Scabs? I think it does feel like Stalinism to be concerned about this over the risk of the state eating workers' self-management, as is a historical reality.

If there are Red "Scabs" it means society is apathetic to the strikes as it means there are people willing to defend production without being bribed with wages.

Again if means of production is propertyless it means workers have no right to stop other workers from doing their labor they refuse to do.

Also strikes strengths the state as it diminishes communities ability to operate without a state intervening to restore production due strikes interrupting production, thus the need for a state to ration communities to prevent people from starving in the communities effected from strikes and to ensure strikes don't degrade into riots. As long as strikes exist the workers state can't go away, it can only go away once labor disputes are resolved without causing a power struggle with the larger community.

[RED DAVE]

As long as strikes exist the workers state can't go away, it can only go away once labor disputes are resolved without causing a power struggle with the larger community.You are expressing the fallacy that there is a separation between the workers state and whatever organization of workers is striking. The workers state does not exist to resolve issues between striking workers and "the larger community." That's the role of a bourgeois state. The workers state is made up of those workers who are striking and those who are not. There should be no separation. If there is, we already have a problem with bureaucracy.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

You are expressing the fallacy that there is a separation between the workers state and whatever organization of workers is striking.

There is a separation of scale, the striking workers only represent a section of workers while the workers state represents the larger society.



The workers state does not exist to resolve issues between striking workers and "the larger community." That's the role of a bourgeois state. The workers state is made up of those workers who are striking and those who are not. There should be no separation. If there is, we already have a problem with bureaucracy.

It actually does exist to resolve such issues well till these issues can be resolved without causing loss of life. Remember capitalism has uneven development so a strike can easily result in casualties in the 3rd world due to delays in industrializing the 3rd world.

[RED DAVE]

You are expressing the fallacy that there is a separation between the workers state and whatever organization of workers is striking.
There is a separation of scale, the striking workers only represent a section of workers while the workers state represents the larger society.There is no "larger society" in the sense that you are expressing it. You are positing a separation between the interests of one section of the workers and others which requires a "higher power" to resolve. This is fundamentally a bureaucratic, hence stalinist, conception of socialism.


The workers state does not exist to resolve issues between striking workers and "the larger community." That's the role of a bourgeois state. The workers state is made up of those workers who are striking and those who are not. There should be no separation. If there is, we already have a problem with bureaucracy
It actually does exist to resolve such issues well till these issues can be resolved without causing loss of life.This is a truly bizarre statement by someone who considered themselves to be a Leftist of some sort. What you are saying is that the concflicting within the working class, under socialism, will be severe enough as to provoke violence that might involve loss of life. What model of socialism are you following?


Remember capitalism has uneven developmentSomehow, I've managed to figure that out.


so a strike can easily result in casualties in the 3rd world due to delays in industrializing the 3rd worldGobbledy-gook. This is as clear as mud. What classes in what countries are you talking about?

RED DAVE

[Psy]

There is no "larger society" in the sense that you are expressing it. You are positing a separation between the interests of one section of the workers and others which requires a "higher power" to resolve. This is fundamentally a bureaucratic, hence stalinist, conception of socialism.

Yes there is a larger society, workers beyond the scope of the strike yet are effected by it i.e the rest of the world, in other words the will of the communist world (or rather what the communist world has democratically decided).



This is a truly bizarre statement by someone who considered themselves to be a Leftist of some sort. What you are saying is that the concflicting within the working class, under socialism, will be severe enough as to provoke violence that might involve loss of life. What model of socialism are you following?

No that disruptions in production could result in loss of life. For example lets say the living standard in Africa is still very poor, strikes are going to make things worse by making the process of industrializing all of Africa a even longer process.



Gobbledy-gook. This is as clear as mud. What classes in what countries are you talking about?

In both case workers. For example a minority of workers at a strategic workplace going on strike without concern for how it effects the poor of the world or that their strike is highly unpopular.

For example lets say coal miners in the USA go on strike that brings the industrialization of Africa to a halt, even if American miners had legitimate concerns by striking they simply would prove their immaturity and force the workers state to replace them for the greater good. On the other hand if American miners didn't go on strike but protested they would be in a much better position to get concessions as they didn't cause a crisis of production and the workers state to scramble to deal with shortages.

[RED DAVE]

For example lets say coal miners in the USA go on strike that brings the industrialization of Africa to a halt, even if American miners had legitimate concerns by striking they simply would prove their immaturity and force the workers state to replace them for the greater good.This is out-and-out stalinism. There is no "greater good" in the way that you express it.

This was exactly the arguments that the stalinists used in the USA to call for a no-strike pledge during WWII. And they condemned the actions of striking coal miners when the casualty rate among coal miners was actually higher than the rate in the army.

Stalinist bullshit.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

This is out-and-out stalinism. There is no "greater good" in the way that you express it.

Yes there is, there is what workers right to strike vs the lives lost due to shortages. What if a strike causes thousands of people to die because coal power plants didn't have enough coal to move electric freight trains carrying supplies to remote settlements or rolling blackouts cause accidents?



This was exactly the arguments that the stalinists used in the USA to call for a no-strike pledge during WWII. And they condemned the actions of striking coal miners when the casualty rate among coal miners was actually higher than the rate in the army.

The difference here is not letting workers take out their grievances on fellow workers just because they lack support of the people.

What you are saying is if American coal miners went on strike and African miners were willing to take their place to prevent shortages, that the workers state doesn't have the right to use the revolutionary army to replace American miners with African miners in a communist world where there are no borders (thus African miners would have every right to work in American mines).

The way I see it is if in a communist world if there are workers still willing to work then the strikers have no argument as they don't have to work there, they won't be thrown into poverty they would be able to find work in another industry. This is why I see strikes as pointless in a communist society as workers would be free to change jobs.

[Jose Gracchus]

Again, this is all nice academic discussion of global post-socialist stateless communism. What about a revolution where bourgeois states have not been suppressed still? Where bureaucratism and statism lurks behind many tendencies? I think the case of historical revolutions show clearly the risks in suddenly resolving that post-revolutionary workers' rights are much more limited than pre-revolutionary ones. In essence, the actually existing workers need be consulted or noticed less and less - the party stands in place of the workers, on their behalf. The strike is a tool to discipline bureaucratic elements.

[Psy]

Again, this is all nice academic discussion of global post-socialist stateless communism. What about a revolution where bourgeois states have not been suppressed still?

AT that juncture the revolutionary army would be starving for production and labor as it would be up against well funded imperialist armies. For example if the revolutionary army is locking horns with NATO in bloody firefights it kind of is clear strikes will be dangerous as we could actually lose to NATO and NATO could respond to its victory by turning fascist to prevent workers from rising up again. Also say you have a revolutionary army holding off the US army from retaking Detriot and worker run factories in Detriot goes on strike against the leadership of the revolution, the bourgeois media would use it to spin it into those strikers being in support of the US army to come in and crush the revolution that could slow the spread of the revolution to other cities.




Where bureaucratism and statism lurks behind many tendencies? I think the case of historical revolutions show clearly the risks in suddenly resolving that post-revolutionary workers' rights are much more limited than pre-revolutionary ones. In essence, the actually existing workers need be consulted or noticed less and less - the party stands in place of the workers, on their behalf. The strike is a tool to discipline bureaucratic elements.
These historical events are more a cause revolution not escalating to international revolution, yes bureaucratic elements were at play but even if they didn't exist in the USSR the USSR still would have eventually collapsed by being surrounded by hostile capitalist powers.

The big lesson of the Cuba and the USSR is we can't wait decades from victory in one region to having a victory world wide.

[RED DAVE]

AT that juncture the revolutionary army would be starving for production and labor as it would be up against well funded imperialist armies.You know that for a fact. You're sure that after revolutions in the major industrial countries, the bourgeoisie will be able to field "well-funded armies." I think that your mind is somewhere in the mountains with Chairman Mao. Please remember that the forces of reaction just might have nuclear weapons and other neat stuff like that.


For example if the revolutionary army is locking horns with NATO in bloody firefights it kind of is clear strikes will be dangerous as we could actually lose to NATO and NATO could respond to its victory by turning fascist to prevent workers from rising up again.Somebody has been playing too much Warcraft. You are assuming that the workers of Europe would be more passive that the workers of the US, which is historically not true.


Also say you have a revolutionary army holding off the US army from retaking Detriot and worker run factories in Detriot goes on strike against the leadership of the revolution, the bourgeois media would use it to spin it into those strikers being in support of the US army to come in and crush the revolution that could slow the spread of the revolution to other cities.You really must think workers are dumb and need a bureaucracy to tell them when to strike and not.

In fact, as I pointed out above, historically, party-led bureaucracies have been exactly the force that weakened the working class in the name of its own politics, such as the no-strike pledge in the US, championed by the CP, etc.

You have a stalinist attitude towards the working class.

RED DAVE



These historical events are more a cause revolution not escalating to international revolution, yes bureaucratic elements were at play but even if they didn't exist in the USSR the USSR still would have eventually collapsed by being surrounded by hostile capitalist powers.

The big lesson of the Cuba and the USSR is we can't wait decades from victory in one region to having a victory world wide.[/QUOTE]

[Psy]

You know that for a fact. You're sure that after revolutions in the major industrial countries, the bourgeoisie will be able to field "well-funded armies." I think that your mind is somewhere in the mountains with Chairman Mao. Please remember that the forces of reaction just might have nuclear weapons and other neat stuff like that.

Lookup the great railway strike of 1877, the USA at the time was a major industrial country the railway strike happened in industrial centers yet the revolutionary army of 1877 was crushed by the US Army as the revolution didn't spread far enough.

As for nuclear weapons I doubt the ruling class would be able to maintain its hold over its armed forces after it nukes it own people.



Somebody has been playing too much Warcraft. You are assuming that the workers of Europe would be more passive that the workers of the US, which is historically not true.

No I simply don't underestimate the ruling class.



You really must think workers are dumb and need a bureaucracy to tell them when to strike and not.

No since I'm talking about unpopular strikes that you are supporting. You are saying that if Detriot July 1967 resulted in a workers commune and if one reactionary factory went on a unpopular strike that the revolution would not be able to seize the means of production from them, even if the revolution has evidence of it being backed by the CIA. Thus even if all the workers know it is stupid and the act of the ruling class they can't do anything about it because workers have the right to strike (even reactionary workers in the pay of the CIA).



In fact, as I pointed out above, historically, party-led bureaucracies have been exactly the force that weakened the working class in the name of its own politics, such as the no-strike pledge in the US, championed by the CP, etc.

That doesn't mean we the revolution should not be organized and have some discipline among its ranks. Paris May 1968 was lost due to lack of the organization to send an armed body to seize the state while the ruling class was fleeing.

Also my stance is not that working class should just blindly follow the leadership but that the working class should not shoot itself in the foot by treating means of production as the private property of the workers that happen to occupy it.

[Jose Gracchus]

And Kronstadt, Petrograd, Moscow in 1917? Were those the workers treating something as "private property"? The workers had lost all ability to influence the "workers' state", and had no recourse but to strike or even revolt.

[Psy]

And Kronstadt, Petrograd, Moscow in 1917? Were those the workers treating something as "private property"? The workers had lost all ability to influence the "workers' state", and had no recourse but to strike or even revolt.

The workers state at the time was fighting a losing war against all the imperialist powers of the day. They lost all ability to influence the state because at the time all that mattered was not being overrun by hostile armies.

When the time came to rise up in the mid 1920's they didn't as they got their timing all wrong. Also by the mid 1920's they wouldn't have needed to strike just take to streets and wrestle control of production away from the state especially if Trotsky used his influence over the Red Army to make them stand down while the masses overthrew Stalin.

[RED DAVE]

Lookup the great railway strike of 1877, the USA at the time was a major industrial country the railway strike happened in industrial centers yet the revolutionary army of 1877 was crushed by the US Army as the revolution didn't spread far enough.I think you need to look up the 1877 strike. There was no revolutionary army. There was a huge strike, but that is very far from a revolutionary army.


As for nuclear weapons I doubt the ruling class would be able to maintain its hold over its armed forces after it nukes it own people.I don't think we should bet the future of the human race on your analysis, which seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the revolutionary process.


No I simply don't underestimate the ruling class.But you grossly underestimate the working class.


No since I'm talking about unpopular strikes that you are supporting. You are saying that if Detriot July 1967 resulted in a workers commune and if one reactionary factory went on a unpopular strike that the revolution would not be able to seize the means of production from them, even if the revolution has evidence of it being backed by the CIA.Comrade, what creeps me the fuck out about you is that right now, long before any workers rising, without, I think, any practical experience with workers democracy, and not understanding US labor history, you are already talking about suppressing sectiions of the workingt class for striking.

It all has a very stalinist ring to it: "reactionary factory"; "seize the means of production from them" (from workers, not the bourgeoisie); "evidence of it being backed by the CIA." This all has the stench of the Moscow Trials.


Thus even if all the workers know it is stupid and the act of the ruling class they can't do anything about it because workers have the right to strike (even reactionary workers in the pay of the CIA).I suggest that before you start thinking about stopping a strike, you spend some time thinking about workers democracy.


That doesn't mean we the revolution should not be organized and have some discipline among its ranks. Paris May 1968 was lost due to lack of the organization to send an armed body to seize the state while the ruling class was fleeing.Sending an armed body to seize the state would have led to civil war, with the army still on the side of the bourgeoisie. I suggest you study May-June. What was lacking was not an "armed body" but a revolutionary party. You are flirting with putschism.


Also my stance is not that working class should just blindly follow the leadershipYou have even begin to discuss the dynamics of revolutionary leadership. Your models seem to be drawn from Stalin and Mao.


but that the working class should not shoot itself in the foot by treating means of production as the private property of the workers that happen to occupy it.No one is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that workers right to strike must be protected and cherished after the revolution, against bureaucrats and stalinists, incipient or otherwise.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

I think you need to look up the 1877 strike. There was no revolutionary army. There was a huge strike, but that is very far from a revolutionary army.

You should, there was most certainly a revolutionary army half of the National Guard of Pennsylvania defected or surrendered to it, one company even held a military parade through a town as a revolutionary army.

If National Guard troops switching sides and becoming an armed body to defend the revolution is not a revolutionary army then what is?




I don't think we should bet the future of the human race on your analysis, which seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the revolutionary process.

The US military has problems keeping its troops in line now, how the hell would they control after they nuke a US city? The US ruling class is well aware doing something that stupid would result in most US troops declaring war against the US state.



But you grossly underestimate the working class.

Comrade, what creeps me the fuck out about you is that right now, long before any workers rising, without, I think, any practical experience with workers democracy, and not understanding US labor history, you are already talking about suppressing sectiions of the workingt class for striking.

I'm talking about not simply making workers that happen to occupying means of production the new owners of production. You don't seem to understand the idea of getting rid of property.

Also I'm not talking about suppressing them, I'm talking about using the right of workers have to means of production, if workers have the right to have access to means of production then by what right would strikers have to stop replacement workers from taking their job?

Your logic seems to be grounding in the idea of private property where workers of a factory can tell other workers to get of their property because they don't want them there and the rest of society can't have a say in production because means of production is in the hands of private co-ops.




It all has a very stalinist ring to it: "reactionary factory"; "seize the means of production from them" (from workers, not the bourgeoisie); "evidence of it being backed by the CIA." This all has the stench of the Moscow Trials.

Reactionary forces exist, and if you bothered to read my posts my solution is allowing workers to break their strike by taking their place.



I suggest that before you start thinking about stopping a strike, you spend some time thinking about workers democracy.

So that means every means of production is an island onto itself?




Sending an armed body to seize the state would have led to civil war, with the army still on the side of the bourgeoisie. I suggest you study May-June. What was lacking was not an "armed body" but a revolutionary party. You are flirting with putschism.

There was no way to avoid civil-war and the army was not totally in the side of the bourgeoisie thus why the French ruling class kept them at bases and did not even deploy them in any great numbers to defend the capital.



No one is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that workers right to strike must be protected and cherished after the revolution, against bureaucrats and stalinists, incipient or otherwise.

That is what you are suggesting, I give examples of unpopular strikes being broken and you called that going against the right of workers, meaning a minority of workers has a right to disrupt the will majority of workers because you fear that could lead to Stalinism. Thus you'd rather have neo-Nazis striking at a factory to get rid of Jewish workers from their factory rather then have the workers state break their strike with surplus labor as that might strengthen the bureaucracy.

[RED DAVE]

Just a quicky.


That is what you are suggesting, I give examples of unpopular strikes being broken and you called that going against the right of workers, meaning a minority of workers has a right to disrupt the will majority of workers because you fear that could lead to Stalinism.I fear that your disrespect for workers democracy, your focus on limiting workers rights rather than expanding workers rights, your contriving of extreme situations all smacks of a gross lack of confidence in the working class and the necessityof constructing a bureaucratic apparatus over the working class which is the root of stalinism.


Thus you'd rather have neo-Nazis striking at a factory to get rid of Jewish workers from their factory rather then have the workers state break their strike with surplus labor as that might strengthen the bureaucracy.And what the fuck would be happening in that factory that, after a revolution neo-nazi workers get control of a factory? Where are the revolutionaries in the factory? Where are the stewards, the elected officials or the union? Where are the Jewish organizations in the community all of which would be confronting the nazis in the factory long before they could lead a strike.

You are contriving a dumb, extreme situation to justify repression of the workers.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

Just a quicky.

I fear that your disrespect for workers democracy, your focus on limiting workers rights rather than expanding workers rights, your contriving of extreme situations all smacks of a gross lack of confidence in the working class and the necessityof constructing a bureaucratic apparatus over the working class which is the root of stalinism.


You are limiting workers right that are outside a given workplace, only giving workers the right over their own workplace. Even without a bureaucratic apparatus you still have the problem of property, for example even after the worker state goes away it means the rest of society can be held hostage by a minority that basically owns a strategic means of production.




And what the fuck would be happening in that factory that, after a revolution neo-nazi workers get control of a factory? Where are the revolutionaries in the factory? Where are the stewards, the elected officials or the union? Where are the Jewish organizations in the community all of which would be confronting the nazis in the factory long before they could lead a strike.

You have limited democracy by treating means of production as private property thus the outside community wouldn't be able to do anything as your treating the factory as private property.

If you get rid of property that means workers outside the factory would have the right to work where they want including at factories on strikes, that means the larger community has a say in production and not just workers within means of production.

[RED DAVE]

You are limiting workers right that are outside a given workplace, only giving workers the right over their own workplace. Even without a bureaucratic apparatus you still have the problem of property, for example even after the worker state goes away it means the rest of society can be held hostage by a minority that basically owns a strategic means of production.I do not, nor does any socialist that I know of, thing that the workers at a particular site "own it."

What I am concerned with, one more time, is your cavalier attitude towards the right to strike under socialism. After the experience of stalinism, I am much more concerned with the attitude towards workers right to strike than I am about the danger of one group of workers or another holding society hostage, which seems to scare you so much.


You have limited democracy by treating means of production as private property thus the outside community wouldn't be able to do anything as your treating the factory as private property.You are erecting a straw man and then knocking it down. It's you who are thinking in terms of workers owning a workplace. I am thinking of the base of workers power in a workers state, which means is collective and democratic. I am much more afraid of the bureaucratic/stalinist mind-set than I am of the workers exercising the right to strike.


If you get rid of property that means workers outside the factory would have the right to work where they want including at factories on strikes, that means the larger community has a say in production and not just workers within means of production.What you're defending is the right of the state to scab. Again, I question your motives vis-a-vis the working class. There is vastly more danger in the incipient power of a bureaucracy than there is in the workers right to strike.

Remind me not to vote for you for shop steward. We'd never get a wildcat strike going with you around.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

Okay image communist society after the worker state has faded away, now think about the right of strike and think what that means to the flow of workers from workplace to workplace.

If a workplace itself can decide on its own to strike it means they are going to pounce on new comers to side with their fraction within the workplace and try to talk workers out of leaving that support them. It would mean the employment process is kissing the ass of people at a workplace as they control who works there (limiting access to the means of production).

Meaning even if there is no workers state you could have a factory have a unpopular strike with tons of workers willing to take their place but can't because the factory is seen as the private property of the union using the factory thus you have the risk of having corrupt bureaucratic unions.

You are holding the right to strike as a corner stone of worker power ignoring everything else workers can do that I support many far more effective in the new reality of a communist world. You ignore the problem that unpopular strikes can pop up with no way to put them down as you call workers outside a workplace scabs that decide to break unpopular strikes so the masses can't even mobilize against unpopular strikes themselves as unpopular strikes have a right to exist despite the rest of the world voting against it.

So you can have a scenario where 100 workers vote to strike and 4 billion vote against the strike yet since 4 billion are outside the workplace in question they don't have a say.

[Kotze]

The premise is that the right to exclude others from using X is ownership of X. It follows that if workers on site have a right to strike and to exclude others from using the means of production on site, the workers on site own it.

If one is against workers on site owning the means of production on site, it follows that one shouldn't advocate for them having an unlimited right to restrict access to these means of production, whether it's during a strike or whether it concerns the everyday decisions who is allowed to work there.

It's not a binary question. To quite some extent, judgement whether someone is capable of doing some task can be delegated to a very local level without being a permanent right of that local level; and to some extent, strikes can be tolerated without being an absolute right. The risk of a conflict between bureaucracy and workers exists. If particular workers demand better conditions from a monolothic planning bureaucracy it's probably not helpful to have that same bureaucracy "investigate" whether these demands are justified. A body that makes a binding decision here should be as different from it as possible, without being just composed of the very specific set of workers in question: a random sample from the population.

I don't see how there could be a right to strike or to quit on short notice that's universal. At most, you can ask for everybody pretending these are universal rights, until the shit hits the fan. I prefer being upfront about restrictions in crucial sectors and to have a pay bonus for people working there. Aside from making such a distinction between sectors, it's also possible to have what I call "difficulty options for life" — that is, once you are of working age you get asked every 5 years or so whether you are generally willing to be more flexible when and where you work which helps with planning bottlenecks and get in turn guaranteed higher pay, or whether you are content with less pay and in turn more freedom when it comes to things like quitting on short notice.

[Psy]

I don't see how there could be a right to strike or to quit on short notice that's universal. At most, you can ask for everybody pretending these are universal rights, until the shit hits the fan. I prefer being upfront about restrictions in crucial sectors and to have a pay bonus for people working there. Aside from making such a distinction between sectors, it's also possible to have what I call "difficulty options for life" — that is, once you are of working age you get asked every 5 years or so whether you are generally willing to be more flexible when and where you work which helps with planning bottlenecks and get in turn guaranteed higher pay, or whether you are content with less pay and in turn more freedom when it comes to things like quitting on short notice.

Well I would think youth would be far more flexible to begin with as statistically they would not have settled down and still wanting to see the world. And really encouraging youth to hop from job to job would be a cheap way to see where they are most proficiency along with build a more international community were workers can easily work on other side of the world for various reasons, this would require decisions to be done more on a regional and international level due people moving around more due to them being free to do so.

It may seem a bit chaotic at first but you'd have the older workers that have settled down providing more of a base for labor (though they too would be free to move around).

[PottersvilleUSA]

In my humble opinion, I would say that it is capitalism which has the potential to be much more corrupt, in that there are huge amounts of money involved, and, because of this fact, mens' natural emotion of greed is empowered to a degree that could only be imagined in a communist or socialist system. That is because the power is in the gold: in all of history, the lust for gold has propelled nations to fight with utmost fury to satisfy their wants; while those poorer nations, being perhaps socialist, had a greater desire for their people to just live and thrive, as a whole, but not as some sort of elitist class of useless, non-productive, non-creative individuals (as the aristocracy or capitalist class are)

I agree Klaatu. Thanks for your input.

I've been quibbling with someone who claims that Communism is more prone to corruption. IMO he's just reacting to the fact that some Swell known Communist leaders have been tyrants: Stalin, Lenin. Then again look at well known Capitalist leaders that are tyrants: Bush, Bush, Obama (same as Bush IMO).

Greed is the name of the game in Capitalism. If the less fortunate, or less unscrupulous, are to be helped in Capitalism it's an afterthought. Whereas in Communism/Socialism helping the less fortunate is built into the system, in theory.

[PottersvilleUSA]

Communism is stateless, so I'm not sure I understand how it would be in any way prone to corruption.

Socialism is stateless too (as communism is simply a type of socialism), so I'm not sure I understand how it would be in any way prone to corruption, either.

Even Lenin acknowledged that post-revolution a state would NOT exist, though a 'state' (a central organizing/democratic body without an army or police or an executive bureaucracy and having recallable delegates) may (read State and Revolution for clarification, though ignore his mischaracterization of anarchists). This is something a lot of socialists seem to completely miss.

Thank you Victus. You're helping me think this through. Thanks also for defining "state." I'm doin' remedial ed here.

[RED DAVE]

Okay image communist society after the worker state has faded away, now think about the right of strike and think what that means to the flow of workers from workplace to workplace.Think about the right to strike as a defense of workers rights.


If a workplace itself can decide on its own to strikeWorkplaces do not decide anything. The workers at a workplace make decisions. These are always a result of a political process.


it means they are going to pounce on new comers to side with their fraction within the workplace and try to talk workers out of leaving that support them.That's called organizing.


It would mean the employment process is kissing the ass of people at a workplace as they control who works there (limiting access to the means of production).There is no "employment process." There is a socialist society, made up of workers and others, who decide democratically on how these things should be done.


Meaning even if there is no workers state you could have a factory have a unpopular strike with tons of workers willing to take their place but can't because the factory is seen as the private property of the union using the factory thus you have the risk of having corrupt bureaucratic unions.So first of all, you are cnfounding a workers state with a bourgeois state. And then you are positing a situation where the bureaucracy wants a strike but the workers don't. And this causes bureaucratic unions.

You are sputtering and fulminating, not thinking.


You are holding the right to strike as a corner stone of worker powerI am indeed.


ignoring everything else workers can do that I supportNo, the right to strike is a cornerstone. Others include workers democracy itself.


many far more effective in the new reality of a communist world.Quite possibly, there are more effective "cornerstones" of workers power than the right to strike, but that right is one of them.


You ignore the problem that unpopular strikes can pop up with no way to put them downI will admit that I am not losing much sleep over the problem of "unpopular strikes" under socialism.

And why would you worry about "put[ting] them down"? How about the fact that (a) an "unpopular strike" might be justified. Or, that there are other ways to deal with an "unpopular strike" besides "put[ting] it down." You really have a bureaucratic and stalinist mind. It comes out constantly in your attitude towards strikes and the working class.


as you call workers outside a workplace scabs that decide to break unpopular strikes so the masses can't even mobilize against unpopular strikes themselves as unpopular strikes have a right to exist despite the rest of the world voting against it.What a stalinist horror story.


So you can have a scenario where 100 workers vote to strike and 4 billion vote against the strike yet since 4 billion are outside the workplace in question they don't have a say.Tell you what, comrade. When the workers of the world, 4 billion or more, are in power, I assure you that whatever happens will be outside your mentality.

And yes, the 4 billion just might have enough brains and compassion, unlike yourself, to settle such a situation with democracy and compassion and politics.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

The workers state at the time was fighting a losing war against all the imperialist powers of the day. They lost all ability to influence the state because at the time all that mattered was not being overrun by hostile armies.

Wrong. Wrangel had already been driven to the sea. Soviet Russia was not imperiled existentially by any powers.


When the time came to rise up in the mid 1920's they didn't as they got their timing all wrong. Also by the mid 1920's they wouldn't have needed to strike just take to streets and wrestle control of production away from the state especially if Trotsky used his influence over the Red Army to make them stand down while the masses overthrew Stalin.

There was no mass-based opposition against the bureaucracy or government by 1925.

[Psy]

Think about the right to strike as a defense of workers rights.

Workplaces do not decide anything. The workers at a workplace make decisions. These are always a result of a political process.

That's called organizing.

There is no "employment process." There is a socialist society, made up of workers and others, who decide democratically on how these things should be done.

You are missing the point, you are chaining the workers to the means of production, they will still be slaves to the means of production. Workers will not be able transfer to other workplaces at will as that would undermined the idea that means of production are owned by unions. The employment process will not change as job hunters will still have to sell themselves to the unions that own means of production.




So first of all, you are cnfounding a workers state with a bourgeois state. And then you are positing a situation where the bureaucracy wants a strike but the workers don't. And this causes bureaucratic unions.

No, in my example there is no workers state, I'm just pointing the problem with unions owning the means of production as property. I'm also stating union owning production would cause bureaucratic unions as you are thrusting unions into the role of rulers over their own fiefdoms where the union owns the labor of its members thus its only logical action would be to exploit the labor of its members as if they don't competing unions would have more capital thus could buy more means of production and eventually capitalism would be restored.

The only way to prevent the restoration of capitalism is to abolish property rights, by abolishing property rights workers would have no right to deny access to means of production to other workers. Meaning a worker from Japan would have as much rights to work in a factory in Detriot as the workers already working the factory even if no one in the Detriot factory want Japanese workers in their factory.




No, the right to strike is a cornerstone. Others include workers democracy itself.

It is a cornerstone in CAPITALISM. Property relations is different in capitalism because there is no property thus a strike anywhere on Earth would become an attack on every worker on Earth.

Since you are such a fan of property rights would you object to hackers taking code from striking programmers or do see information as free to anyone to want to access it?



I will admit that I am not losing much sleep over the problem of "unpopular strikes" under socialism.

And why would you worry about "put[ting] them down"? How about the fact that (a) an "unpopular strike" might be justified.

How would an unpopular strike be justified in a communism society? You are basically saying the needs of the few out weighs the needs of many as you saying a few workers might be justified in undermining the democracy of communist society.



Or, that there are other ways to deal with an "unpopular strike" besides "put[ting] it down." You really have a bureaucratic and stalinist mind. It comes out constantly in your attitude towards strikes and the working class.

How is letting other workers that have a right as workers to work at the striking workplace putting down workers at the striking workplace?



Tell you what, comrade. When the workers of the world, 4 billion or more, are in power, I assure you that whatever happens will be outside your mentality.

And yes, the 4 billion just might have enough brains and compassion, unlike yourself, to settle such a situation with democracy and compassion and politics.

RED DAVE

Okay why would 4 billion not simply tell 100 striking workers find work elsewhere and let 100 from the 4 billion to take their place?

[Psy]

Wrong. Wrangel had already been driven to the sea. Soviet Russia was not imperiled existentially by any powers.

What period are we talking about? I'm talking about from 1917-1923




There was no mass-based opposition against the bureaucracy or government by 1925.
That is my point, from the death of Lenin in 1924 till the defeat of the opposition to Stalin in 1927, there was no mass based movement to partake in the power struggle.

[RED DAVE]

You are missing the pointSomehow, I doubt it.


you are chaining the workers to the means of production, they will still be slaves to the means of production.Thisis an utter fantasy on your part.


Workers will not be able transfer to other workplaces at will as that would undermined the idea that means of production are owned by unions.Where have I ever said that unions would own the means of production? Again, this is a fantasy of yours.


The employment process will not change as job hunters will still have to sell themselves to the unions that own means of production.Some kind of bizarre stalinist fantasy.


No, in my example there is no workers state, I'm just pointing the problem with unions owning the means of production as property.Again, this is some fantasy of yours.


I'm also stating union owning production would cause bureaucratic unions as you are thrusting unions into the role of rulers over their own fiefdoms where the union owns the labor of its members thus its only logical action would be to exploit the labor of its members as if they don't competing unions would have more capital thus could buy more means of production and eventually capitalism would be restored.Stalinist fantasy. Actually, this is a parody of what happened in the USSR.


The only way to prevent the restoration of capitalism is to abolish property rightsOkay.


by abolishing property rights workers would have no right to deny access to means of production to other workers.Who says they would have such a right. All I'm saying is that under socialism, workers will have the right to strike.


Meaning a worker from Japan would have as much rights to work in a factory in Detriot as the workers already working the factory even if no one in the Detriot factory want Japanese workers in their factory.You are really weird.


[The right to strike] is a cornerstone in CAPITALISM.And socialism.


Property relations is different in capitalism because there is no property thus a strike anywhere on Earth would become an attack on every worker on Earth.Stalinism: the state forbids the workers to strike.


Since you are such a fan of property rights would you object to hackers taking code from striking programmers or do see information as free to anyone to want to access it?I object to you spewing nonsense.


How would an unpopular strike be justified in a communism society?Because the workers who are striking think its right.


You are basically saying the needs of the few out weighs the needs of manySometimes the right to strike does have to prevail, yes.


as you saying a few workers might be justified in undermining the democracy of communist society.No, the right to strike is a cornerstone of workers democracy, but with your stalinist mind, you don't understand that.


How is letting other workers that have a right as workers to work at the striking workplace to work at the striking workplace?


[QUOTE=Psy;2035545]Okay why would 4 billion not simply tell 100 striking workers find work elsewhere and let 100 from the 4 billion to take their place?Because under socialism we will operate out of intelligence and compassion, neither of which you seem to possess. I see a great future for you as a neocon.

And one more time, remind me to never vote for you for shop steward.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

Somehow, I doubt it.

Thisis an utter fantasy on your part.

Where have I ever said that unions would own the means of production? Again, this is a fantasy of yours.

Because you are saying unions have the right to deny access to means of production to other workers without consequence and any worker that takes their place is a evil counter-revolutionary scab.




Stalinist fantasy. Actually, this is a parody of what happened in the USSR.

If union owns means of production then what new workers would they look for? Why workers they can exploit so they can make them do all the work and since the union can limit access to the means of production they would have every right to turn down all but the most exploitable workers if not directly then through right to strike (it is not like your vision of democracy gives communities any power against unions), they would simply have to strike over wanting to get non-exploitable workers out of their factory.



Who says they would have such a right. All I'm saying is that under socialism, workers will have the right to strike.

That is denying workers access to means of production.




You are really weird.

I'm point out that in communism workers have a right to the means of production and no-one, not union, workers state or communist democracy has a right to deny workers access to the means of production.




Stalinism: the state forbids the workers to strike.

No this is defending the idea that workers have free access to the means of production. That any worker with qualification can't be denied entry to a means of production. You are denying the basic right of communist workers.



Because the workers who are striking think its right.

So? Do I really have to spell out that a minority of workers striking, is a minority? Do you understand the concept of democracy? That minority votes don't have a right to ignore the majority vote.




Sometimes the right to strike does have to prevail, yes.

Why should a communist society cave into a minority vote that decided to undermined the democratic process?




No, the right to strike is a cornerstone of workers democracy, but with your stalinist mind, you don't understand that.

No the cornerstone of workers democracy is community democracy, you seem to forget means of production exist in communities.



Because under socialism we will operate out of intelligence and compassion, neither of which you seem to possess. I see a great future for you as a neocon.

How is this a lack of compassion? A minority doesn't want to work, there are people willing to work, problem solved. We are talking about a communist society, replacing workers is not that harsh due to full employment.

Would it be a lack of compassion for a community to replace inept workers? What if inept workers went on strike to save face?

[RED DAVE]

No the cornerstone of workers democracy is community democracy, you seem to forget means of production exist in communities.You seem to forget that as Marxists we are supporters of the working class, not some abstract community. You Stalinists drawers are showing again in your refusal to view socialism from a class point of view but rather from the point of view of a nonexistent "community," which is basically a petit-bourgeois approach.

Under socialism, there is no "community" that holds sway over the working class. The role of the working class is to free the human race and build a world community.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

You seem to forget that as Marxists we are supporters of the working class, not some abstract community. You Stalinists drawers are showing again in your refusal to view socialism from a class point of view but rather from the point of view of a nonexistent "community," which is basically a petit-bourgeois approach.

Under socialism, there is no "community" that holds sway over the working class. The role of the working class is to free the human race and build a world community.

RED DAVE
Communities are not abstract, for example during Paris May 1968 it was clear the revolution was created by the communities of Paris. I also never said a community holds sway over a working class just that communities holds sway over means of production.

If we break you ideas down to a tribal level it is clear your solution is just to divide the means of production among workers rather then abolishing means of production. Using your logic a blacksmith refusing to work can prevent anyone from making use of the blacksmith's tools, as anyone trying to take the blacksmith's job would be a "scab" due to the logic that workers have ownership of their means of production (which is required for the right to strike to exist in a communist society).

I also find it funny that here I am calling for the abolishment of property and you call that a petit-bourgeois approach. Yes capitalists will thrive when they can't limit access to the means of production and have to meet the demands of communist communities or can be replaced by other workers (since other workers have just as much rights to that particular means of production as they do).

[RED DAVE]

Communities are not abstractDepends on the community.


for example during Paris May 1968 it was clear the revolution was created by the communities of Paris.(1) My brother was in Paris during May-June '68, and we discussed it often; (2) I wrote a book about May-June '68 based on available material at the time; (3) You don't know what you're talking about.

Briefly, the events in France, that's France not Paris, in May-June '68 started out as a series of protests in a university center outside Paris. It soon spread to the Sorbonne and other schools, largely on the left bank in Paris. From there, it spread to factories and workplaces throughout France, based not on community but on class. In some cases, especially in Paris on the Left Bank, the demonstrators and barricade fighters were supported by their communities in a passive sense. But the heart of the events was the workers in the factories that participated in the general strike. Much publicity was given to the activities of the students in the student quarter in Paris, but they wouldn't have been as bold as they were, over such a long period of time, without the actions of the workers, which had even begun to spread to the army and navy.


I also never said a community holds sway over a working class just that communities holds sway over means of production.Same thing.


If we break you ideas down to a tribal levelWhy would you want to do that since we're not discussing tribes?


it is clear your solution is just to divide the means of production among workers rather then abolishing means of production.What is clear is that you are not thinking, just writing to defend your ego.

First of all, I, as a revolutionary socialist, have never advocated "divid[ing] he means of production among the workers." What I have advocated is that the working class control the means of production and that control has its roots in the work places, which means that the right to strike is crucial under socialism. Second of all, I hope that socialism does not "abolish[] the means of production" as the would mean we would all, indeed, be back as the tribal level.


Using your logic a blacksmith refusing to work can prevent anyone from making use of the blacksmith's toolsUhh, Comrade, I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA, we don't have too many blacksmiths as we don't use horses for transportation any more.


as anyone trying to take the blacksmith's job would be a "scab" due to the logic that workers have ownership of their means of production (which is required for the right to strike to exist in a communist society).Any attempt to deprive workers of control of their workplace, in the absence of very severe democratic procedures is dangerous as hell and is subject to abuse. With your stalinist mind, you don't understand that. The right to strike must be preserved under socialism, communism, whatever as the root of workers democracy.


I also find it funny that here I am calling for the abolishment of property and you call that a petit-bourgeois approach.You can call for whatever you like. The fact that your notion of socialism or communism is the subordination of the workers to "society" shows that you are not coming from a proletarian point of view.


Yes capitalists will thrive when they can't limit access to the means of production and have to meet the demands of communist communities or can be replaced by other workers (since other workers have just as much rights to that particular means of production as they do).Gobbledy-gook. This is as clear as mud.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

Depends on the community.

(1) My brother was in Paris during May-June '68, and we discussed it often; (2) I wrote a book about May-June '68 based on available material at the time; (3) You don't know what you're talking about.

Briefly, the events in France, that's France not Paris, in May-June '68 started out as a series of protests in a university center outside Paris. It soon spread to the Sorbonne and other schools, largely on the left bank in Paris. From there, it spread to factories and workplaces throughout France, based not on community but on class. In some cases, especially in Paris on the Left Bank, the demonstrators and barricade fighters were supported by their communities in a passive sense. But the heart of the events was the workers in the factories that participated in the general strike. Much publicity was given to the activities of the students in the student quarter in Paris, but they wouldn't have been as bold as they were, over such a long period of time, without the actions of the workers, which had even begun to spread to the army and navy.

The problem is you don't see workers as making the bulk of communities also I was not talking about just the students but the strike committees that extended beyond unions (as the leadership of the labor unions were siding with the capitalists leaving workers to organize themselves in their communities).



Same thing.

No it is not, since the working class makes up the bulk of most communities thus the statement "the community holds sway of the working class" is an illogical statement as the working class holds sway over the community as they are the vast majority.

Communities holding sway over means of productions means that the working class as a collective holds sway over the means of production not the workers that just happen to currently happen to occupy the means of production at that moment. Basically that the means of production are under the democratic control of more then just a handful of workers but the whole community.



Why would you want to do that since we're not discussing tribes?

To show the flaw in your logic



What is clear is that you are not thinking, just writing to defend your ego.

First of all, I, as a revolutionary socialist, have never advocated "divid[ing] he means of production among the workers." What I have advocated is that the working class control the means of production and that control has its roots in the work places, which means that the right to strike is crucial under socialism. Second of all, I hope that socialism does not "abolish[] the means of production" as the would mean we would all, indeed, be back as the tribal level.

Right basically dividing the means of production among workers just like how peasants demanded land reform to divide land among peasants rather then collectivizing it.

Thus for example each of the automotive factories would be an independent worker run cooperative rather then coordinated under a regional production plan decided democratically by the region (meaning people outside Detriot would actually have a say in what happens with automotive production).




Uhh, Comrade, I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA, we don't have too many blacksmiths as we don't use horses for transportation any more.

It is a example, my point is that it allows a minority of workers to block the will of the majority of workers even when the majority is not forcing the minority to do anything, for example the majority just wanting the minority to get out of the way to workers that are willing to work. For example a minority of workers complaining about the working conditions yet the majority willing to sacrifice for a greater good and willing to put their labor where their mouth is yet blocked by workers not wanting to surrender the means of production to those that willing to put it to better use (like not striking).



Any attempt to deprive workers of control of their workplace, in the absence of very severe democratic procedures is dangerous as hell and is subject to abuse. With your stalinist mind, you don't understand that. The right to strike must be preserved under socialism, communism, whatever as the root of workers democracy.

I'm not depriving workers the right to control their workplace I just object to the means of production being property of workers thus can't see by what right communist workers of one workplace has to deny access to other communist workers. Basically if another group of workers say "your a bunch of babies we will do it" that should be reason enough for other workers to walk past picket lines in a communist society since the community had democratically decided the work should be done, there are workers willing to do the work and those that don't like it don't have to work there, they can work at any workplace on Earth they are qualified for.

This is especially true when wages are done away with and all labor is voluntary and everyone has free access to the products of society.



You can call for whatever you like. The fact that your notion of socialism or communism is the subordination of the workers to "society" shows that you are not coming from a proletarian point of view.

No since workers are part of society, thus it is the subordination of the minority to the larger society that include the majority of workers plus retired workers and students.




Gobbledy-gook. This is as clear as mud.
RED DAVE

I was being sarcastic. Having the means of production democratically controlled by community councils open to the people that reside in that community, is a greater defense against the restoration of capitalism then having a bunch of worker co-operatives that work independently of each other and doesn't have to listen to the demands of the communities their resides in. For example under worker control a factory can pollute a river if its workers don't care (i.e the workers simply live away from the river), where under community control the factory wouldn't never be able to go against the will of the community, the community would simply replace the workers of the workers of the factory if the workers shows disrespect to community.

[Klaatu]

I am proud to announce that I am going to enter into a worker co-op partnership with at least two of my colleagues, into a private-tutoring enterprise. We will help both high school honors students and college-level students in the fields of chemistry, mathematics, and physics (my department). All of us have degrees in our respective fields. We all "share the wealth" in our company. No one "capitalises" on others' labour. (such is forbidden)

This is SOCIALISM, comrades. (the wave of the future). I will actually be a part of the righteous economy.

[Jose Gracchus]

While I would contend this is preferable to traditional labor relations, under the Marxian critique of political economy, your associated laborers are their own capitalist. Where market relations exist, commodification of labor occurs, and capitalism persists.