Have we soiled any potential anti-capitalist movement?

[RadioRaheem84]

By we, I mean socialists, anarchists, etc.

Socialism's association with the USSR and the even worse association with Nazism, thank to right wing propaganda, seems to have left any viable anti-capitalist alternative afraid to be bold and critique the system as a whole.

After watching the pretty good Zeitgeist 3 movie, I was left wondering why there has to be so much damn code. Why couldn't they have just come out and said, "it's capitalism", "capitalism is at fault"?

Even Michael Moore's last film seemed to not fully convey the message that capitalism needs to be abolished. I went in thinking that MM had made a film calling for capitalism's destruction and came out feeling a bit cheated because of the reformist message (albeit more reformist than most).

Code for capitalism: Free Market, Corporatism, Corporate-backed, neo-liberalism, free enterprise, etc.

Common cop out: We're not Marxists or Anarchists. This has nothing to do with Marx or socialism.

I mean what kind of critique of the system are these people trying to accomplish when they're afraid of being red baited?! How do they expect us to believe they're anti-establishment when they fall into the trap of thinking they're going to be called "leftists".

Are they just afraid of being considered irrelevant by academia and the mainstream?

[bcbm]

what's "anti-establishment" about openly being part of the left?

i think we can "be bold and critique the ... whole" without being anarchist/socialist/communist jargonizers

[Hit The North]

I mean what kind of critique of the system are these people trying to accomplish when they're afraid of being red baited?!Well in their case, the critique is, as you say, reformists, so people like Michael Moore do not believe that capitalism can be overthrown. Given they don't start from the point of view of working class revolution, I wonder why you think they should claim they do!

EDIT: Also, I don't believe that "Free Market, Corporatism, Corporate-backed, neo-liberalism, free enterprise, etc. " are coded words for capitalism. I think these reformist liberals believe that a humane capitalism is possible, if it wasn't for the distortions caused by the free-reign of "Free Market, Corporatism, Corporate-backed, neo-liberalism, free enterprise, etc."

[RadioRaheem84]

Well I assumed that Michael Moore had come to a radical conclusion considering he sold his last documentary as a his magnum opus. I thought that he had finally come around to the notion that the system cannot be reformed but hs to be overthrown. Instead, it was heavily pro-FDR and reformist in the old school soc dem variety.

[black magick hustla]

being red-baited is actually very pernicious. if i had to namedrop all the shit ive read and the concepts i used when i talked nobody will listen to me. you can avoid a lot of jargon and still make it evident how the state and the bosses need to go to hell

[Hit The North]

Well I assumed that Michael Moore had come to a radical conclusion considering he sold his last documentary as a his magnum opus. I thought that he had finally come around to the notion that the system cannot be reformed but hs to be overthrown. Instead, it was heavily pro-FDR and reformist in the old school soc dem variety.

So who ever informed you that Moore had come to revolutionary conclusions was either mistaken or being mischievous.

Btw, the only people who are scared of red baiting is folk who don't consider themselves as reds. Those who do, don't care.

[Decolonize The Left]

By we, I mean socialists, anarchists, etc.

Socialism's association with the USSR and the even worse association with Nazism, thank to right wing propaganda, seems to have left any viable anti-capitalist alternative afraid to be bold and critique the system as a whole.

After watching the pretty good Zeitgeist 3 movie, I was left wondering why there has to be so much damn code. Why couldn't they have just come out and said, "it's capitalism", "capitalism is at fault"?

Even Michael Moore's last film seemed to not fully convey the message that capitalism needs to be abolished. I went in thinking that MM had made a film calling for capitalism's destruction and came out feeling a bit cheated because of the reformist message (albeit more reformist than most).

Code for capitalism: Free Market, Corporatism, Corporate-backed, neo-liberalism, free enterprise, etc.

Common cop out: We're not Marxists or Anarchists. This has nothing to do with Marx or socialism.

I mean what kind of critique of the system are these people trying to accomplish when they're afraid of being red baited?! How do they expect us to believe they're anti-establishment when they fall into the trap of thinking they're going to be called "leftists".

Are they just afraid of being considered irrelevant by academia and the mainstream?

In the first place, those who will overthrow the capitalist system will not do so because they consider themselves 'socialists' or any derivative of said term. They will do so because the capitalist system cannot provide what they believe it is supposed to, and because they will understand their role in the economic movement of their society.
So the label means nothing. The action everything.

In the second place, 'we' have not soiled an anti-capitalist movement. There isn't really an anti-capitalist movement to soil. Capitalism is in full stride; It may have had a hiccup in 2007-2009 but it rolls right along. The popular uprisings in the Middle East are not a threat to capitalism, nor are the demonstrations in Wisconsin. These events are very important, yes, but they are not economically revolutionary nor should they be treated as such.

Finally, the negative associations made between the 'radical left' and atrocities committed by dictators are not going to be destroyed. They need to be overcome by an evolutionary process of the radical left - not by fighting back against history because we know all-to-well that you cannot fight history.

- August

[RadioRaheem84]

So who ever informed you that Moore had come to revolutionary conclusions was either mistaken or being mischievous.

Btw, the only people who are scared of red baiting is folk who don't consider themselves as reds. Those who do, don't care.


A.) I said that I had assumed that MM had come to radical conclusions following the financial crisis and I thought that his latest doc would've been a testament to that new change. I was wrong. And why cannot MM change his views? Why do you make it seem like it would be erroneous to have thought so?

B.) People like Zinn, Chomsky, David Harvey and Parenti have all at one point or another dressed up their red talk in more populist progressive garb in order to avoid the ire of the mainstream press. Notice the difference in when they talk to the BBC or give a talk at Harvard vs. what they tell smaller more left wing audiences at Churches or activist gatherings.

But that's besides the point. I was talking about groups like Zeitgeist who come very close to realizing that the system is completely at fault and thus needs social upheaval yet reject the notions of socialism or anything having to do with such out of negative publicity surrounding socialism, or in fear of being red baited.

I understand that everyone in here is trying to say that you don't need to label every movement towards change socialist, and that change shouldn't have to be purely dictated by socialism as it is a mere label, and labels destroy social change. But I am trying to point out that some groups purposefully omit the radical notions brought up by past socialists and miss out on the insight provided by them.

The need by some progressive, liberal or Zeitgeist movements to disassociate themselves from "the reds" in my opinion does more harm than good for their movements. Even anti-capitalist movements within the progressive camp seem a little undone considering they've totally outright rejected the radical notions of radical leftists, leaving their movements almost destined to be reformist in scope (even if they claim not to be).

I know there is a tendency in this forum to not be doctrinaire and from several of the responses that I have already received in here, I can tell that my arguments have been conflated with dogamatism, but I just rarely trust non-Marxist/non-Anarchist movements, not because they're not "doctrinally" pure but because most miss the root radical class analysis critique of the system, which in my opinion is a very fundamental to understanding the system and how to abolish the system.

I mean yes, you do not need labels in order to foment social change. Most of the time revolt happens despite any consistent or coherent opposition taking charge, but what kind of revolution will it become I am asking if the radical critique brought by socialists is amputated?

[Tim Finnegan]

Well I assumed that Michael Moore had come to a radical conclusion considering he sold his last documentary as a his magnum opus. I thought that he had finally come around to the notion that the system cannot be reformed but hs to be overthrown. Instead, it was heavily pro-FDR and reformist in the old school soc dem variety.
I actually it was more radical than it appeared. Certainly, it presented itself very much in the tradition of European social democracy, but the substantial and glowing segment on worker's cooperatives makes me think that Moore really is willing to challenge capitalism itself, albeit perhaps not quite to the point of revolutionism. There was as much of Tony Benn as there was of FDR in it, and that's no bad thing in the modern era.

[Mather]

By we, I mean socialists, anarchists, etc.

Socialism's association with the USSR and the even worse association with Nazism, thank to right wing propaganda, seems to have left any viable anti-capitalist alternative afraid to be bold and critique the system as a whole.

This whole problem of the word socialism being connected to nazism or nazism/fascism being called left-wing/far-left, is an American phenomenon and not an issue for the revolutionary left in Britain, Europe, Russia, Asia or Latin America. Of course revolutionary leftists in the USA will have to deal with this issue, but thankfully it's not a global problem.


Even Michael Moore's last film seemed to not fully convey the message that capitalism needs to be abolished.

Michael Moore is a social democratic liberal who wants a more 'humane' capitalism, he does not want to see it overthrown. Michael Moore was always more FDR than Marx and it shows in his films.


I went in thinking that MM had made a film calling for capitalism's destruction and came out feeling a bit cheated because of the reformist message (albeit more reformist than most).

Perhaps Moore was aware that his films have an appeal to people on the revolutionary left and sought to promote this film as 'radical' simply in order to get more viewers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In the first place, those who will overthrow the capitalist system will not do so because they consider themselves 'socialists' or any derivative of said term. They will do so because the capitalist system cannot provide what they believe it is supposed to, and because they will understand their role in the economic movement of their society.


Sounds like someone has been reading Nih-Com.

[Tim Finnegan]

This whole problem of the word socialism being connected to nazism or nazism/fascism being called left-wing/far-left, is an American phenomenon and not an issue for the revolutionary left in Britain, Europe, Russia, Asia or Latin America. Of course revolutionary leftists in the USA will have to deal with this issue, but thankfully it's not a global problem.
Although, of course, the term has its own baggage in the West, particularly an association with a certain kind of technocratic Old Labour bureaucracy. (One often termed "Bennism" by the red-tops, which, given that Benn advocated a rather dynamic and decentralised form of syndicalism, rather neatly illustrates the profound ignorance of that particular market.)


Michael Moore is a social democratic liberal who wants a more 'humane' capitalism, he does not want to see it overthrown. Michael Moore was always more FDR than Marx and it shows in his films.
True, more isn't a hugely radical figure, and his output is more deeply rooted in Midwestern left-populism than any class struggle radicalism. However, I don't think that this discounts him as an effective proponent of left-wing concepts, nor do I think this means that he can be thrown on the "capitalism with a human face" pile alongside the left-liberals and social democrats.
I suppose I may be reading too much into it, but, again, I think the segment on industrial worker's cooperatives in his recent work was significant. That's not an obvious liberal talking point- "co-op", in the American mind, generally means a vaguely bohemian café or an organic grocery store, not a manufacturing plant- and it represents a challenge to the material basis of capitalism- theoretically informed or otherwise- that is rarely heard these days. Fact is, Moore, for all his flaws, has hit on the one essential truth of socialism, the one which the mainstream left has entirely forgotten: that we do not need capitalists. If he can communicate this in a manner which slips under the radar of Americans who, even at their most progressive, so often carry a lot of McCarthyite baggage? All the better.


Perhaps Moore was aware that his films have an appeal to people on the revolutionary left and sought to promote this film as 'radical' simply in order to get more viewers.Oh, yeah, sure, we're such a huge demographic. Wealthy, too! :rolleyes:

[Cencus]

The problem is that if ever a single lefty puts a foot wrong or does anything that can be presented as bad in any way it will be publicised to the max. The media the world over is owned by the rich, or states who aint exactly gonna want to sing the praises of revolutonary leftists. We are fighting a propaganda war, against an opponent who massive outguns us that places like revleft even exist is somewhat of a miracle.

[Hit The North]

And why cannot MM change his views? Why do you make it seem like it would be erroneous to have thought so?


I haven't said he can't change his views, only that he hasn't. It was erroneous to have thought so, because as you yourself admit:


I was wrong.


So I don't know why you're calling me out on it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sounds like someone has been reading Nih-Com.Or Marx and Engels.

"Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes."

[Os Cangaceiros]

LOL I actually knew that you were going to say that as soon as I saw your username listed as last replier.

I mean, who reads those guys anymore, anyway? Why read them when you can just get any number of other authors to tell you what they really meant? I mean, c'mon now.

[Rjevan]

Socialism's association with the USSR and the even worse association with Nazism, thank to right wing propaganda, seems to have left any viable anti-capitalist alternative afraid to be bold and critique the system as a whole.
Here we already have the basic problem: an "alternative" which is afraid to critique the system (capitalism) as a whole obviously is not anti-capitalist. They perceive certain features of capitalism as unacceptable but mainly see them as results of flawed policies or wrong turns in its developement. The fact that communism is discredited certainly doesn't help to change their views towards a more radical perspective (even if they wanted, it's very questionable whether most liberals would accept communism if it wasn't "clearly proved a failure by history"). But it'd be wrong to blame this on "us", of course communists of every tendency contributed sources of criticism or ridicule but the lion's share of prevailing anti-communist sentiment goes to our opponents of every political colour.


I just rarely trust non-Marxist/non-Anarchist movements, not because they're not "doctrinally" pure but because most miss the root radical class analysis critique of the system, which in my opinion is a very fundamental to understanding the system and how to abolish the system.
And rightfully so, because it is fundamental! Dogmatism is something very harmful but certain groups have a tendency to cry "Death to dogmatism" as an excuse to throw the very basics and core principles overboard. Without a "radical class analysis critique of the system" you cannot get any solid concept to go past capitalism.

It's true what people said here, that labels are irrelevant and that in case of a proletarian revolution the majority likely won't think of themselves as socialists/communists/Marxist(-Leninists)/whatever. But the great majority of those who reject these labels today also reject the entire content and this keeps them from seeing any real alternative to capitalism.

A working class uprising taking place and people becoming radicalised in its process doesn't automatically mean a successful socialist revolution. Without any revolutionary perspective it can and will be inevitably usurped by reactionary forces (wrapped in the banner of progress). If the only alternative you are presented and you can see is an ElBaradei you'll never get anywhere.

[ar734]

In some parts of the US being a communist or a socialist will get you fired, your tires slashed, your house shot at, etc., if you're lucky. Even in Wisconsin they were ultra careful not to be associated with any socialists or communists.

Not much has changed since the Communist Manifesto:

"A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself."

[Tim Finnegan]

I haven't said he can't change his views, only that he hasn't.
You don't think that advocacy of worker's cooperatives constitutes a shift to left? It's certainly not something that the average Social Democrat gets excited about...

Y'know, sometimes I think that we on the far left enjoy our isolation... :rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure what you mean about this. Patricia Hewitt, enthusiastic Blairite, supporter of the Iraq War and Minister for Health under the previous government was former chair of the Industrial Common Ownership Movement; the Co-operative Party is an affiliated organisation in the Labour Party (I know, I used to be in it) and 28 MPs and 15 members of the Horse of Lords are officially 'Labour and Co-Operative'; David Cameron's 'Third Way'... or is it 'Big Society'? I can never remember... is in part at least based on co-operatives...

Some stats: after 5 years, new worker co-ops are 3 times more likely than traditional businesses to be trading. On the other hand (?) they have the worst record for any business model for staff doing unpaid overtime, with average working weeks for co-op workers well in excess of 48 hours (source, Co-operative Development Agency).

Though there have been Anarchist co-operators (that's my excuse for having been in the Co-op Party), Kropotkin critiqued the idea circa 1890; honestly, there's no radical co-operative strategy; I wasted years trying to find or invent one.

[HEAD ICE]

You don't think that advocacy of worker's cooperatives constitutes a shift to left? It's certainly not something that the average Social Democrat gets excited about...

Y'know, sometimes I think that we on the far left enjoy our isolation... :rolleyes:

You said that co-ops challenge the material basis of capitalism. Socialists ought to point out that worker run capitalism

A. Is not a step towards socialism
B. Retains capitalist relations
C. Historical examples show that worker exploitation doesn't decrease, and many times increases in "co-ops"

When socialists veil their arguments in such garb to make what we advocate more "acceptable", even if we genuinely are for a communist society, we end up arguing for and become appendages of the interests of capitalist society. When we hide our beliefs behind reformist rhetoric, it is the communists who become reformed (even if they are genuine in their support of communism).

Communists are going to be a minority and will remain a minority even in a revolutionary situation. Believing that socialism will come about because the majority of workers want it to because they like the idea of socialism better than capitalism is more unlikely and more defeatist than our being in "isolation" arguing on a consistent class line and declaring open hostility to the present capitalist order.

[Hit The North]

You don't think that advocacy of worker's cooperatives constitutes a shift to left? It's certainly not something that the average Social Democrat gets excited about...


I don't think his advocacy of these things represents much of a shift from the positions he held when he made his first documentary, Roger and Me.

Moore has always been on the left, albeit the radical reformist left.

My intervention in this thread was explicitly to counter the OP's assertion that Moore and others like him were hiding their real views for fear of red baiting.


Y'know, sometimes I think that we on the far left enjoy our isolation... :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that exaggerating the political shift of celebrity leftists like Moore is likely to end our isolation?

[RadioRaheem84]

My intervention in this thread was explicitly to counter the OP's assertion that Moore and others like him were hiding their real views for fear of red baiting.


I wasn't so much saying that they're hiding their beliefs for fear of being red baited but that their movements are hindered from going any further because of a fear of being too ideologically close to us.

[Tim Finnegan]

You said that co-ops challenge the material basis of capitalism. Socialists ought to point out that worker run capitalism
"Worker run capitalism"? A contradiction in terms, surely? :confused:


A. Is not a step towards socialismIn what sense? It's not a revolutionary act, sure, but it can contribute to the formation of class conciousness and a popular revolutionary sentiment. If socialism is, in it's most simple sense, a worker-run economy, then don't successful worker-managed firms make a strong case study?


B. Retains capitalist relationsDebatable.


C. Historical examples show that worker exploitation doesn't decrease, and many times increases in "co-ops"That really depends what co-ops you're talking about. Obviously, workplace democracy is crucial; there's a difference between a profit-sharing enterprise like John Lewis and a true workers' cooperative like AK Press.


When socialists veil their arguments in such garb to make what we advocate more "acceptable", even if we genuinely are for a communist society, we end up arguing for and become appendages of the interests of capitalist society. When we hide our beliefs behind reformist rhetoric, it is the communists who become reformed (even if they are genuine in their support of communism).I don't think that arguing for cooperatives constitutes the neutering of socialism, at least not unless you consider anything less than the most uncompromising militancy to be a neutering.

Cooperatives constitute a very real challenge to the economic basis of capitalism, in two senses: Firstly, they remove part of the economy from bourgeoisie control (and in regions like the Basque Country or Emilia Romagna, this can be as much as a two-figure percentage of the local economy), and, while this will certainly never be enough to simply transition neatly into socialism, can, along with unions and other workers' organisations, provide a not inconsiderable financial basis for left-wing activism. Secondly, in that they provided a living, breathing example of a world without the bourgeoisie, a concept which I have found to be one of the greatest stumbling blocks for the average man-on-the-street when considering socialist proposals. He can just about accept that worker's could manage a café by themselves, but it takes proof to convince him that they can take control of major industries.
Now, of course, cooperatives alone will not lead to socialism, no more than political parties or trade unions will. But, surely, that means we should foster all were possible? It will take a powerful alliance of worker's organisations to bring about revolution, and the more, the better.


I don't think his advocacy of these things represents much of a shift from the positions he held when he made his first documentary, Roger and Me.

Moore has always been on the left, albeit the radical reformist left.
Well, if that's the case, then there are a lot of people here who aren't giving his original position nearly enough credit. The general assumption seems to be that he's always sat in with the "reform-within-capitalism" SocDem types, which, while it may have at one point been true, seems to be something which his recent work casts into doubt.


My intervention in this thread was explicitly to counter the OP's assertion that Moore and others like him were hiding their real views for fear of red baiting.Fair dos. Just saying, Moore isn't exactly a Blairite, y'know?


Are you suggesting that exaggerating the political shift of celebrity leftists like Moore is likely to end our isolation?More so than decrying them as worthless reformists, I'd wager. Moore may not be flying the red flag, but if he can introduce people to the idea of worker's self-management- something which most people have genuinely never considered, at least beyond the level of a small service-industry firm- then that's not exactly a blow to the socialist cause.

[Mather]

Although, of course, the term has its own baggage in the West, particularly an association with a certain kind of technocratic Old Labour bureaucracy. (One often termed "Bennism" by the red-tops, which, given that Benn advocated a rather dynamic and decentralised form of syndicalism, rather neatly illustrates the profound ignorance of that particular market.)

True, though Tony Benn is not a revolutionary syndicalist or socialist and is still objectively a social democrat, even if his rhetoric is populist and radical in tone. This is something he shares Hugo Chavez.

Though the left has 'baggage' in every nation, were lucky that in Britain and Europe we don't have to deal with an utterly stupid anti-socialist sentiment such as equating nazism/fascism with socialism. In America anti-socialist sentiment is much more cruder and sometimes mind boggling.


However, I don't think that this discounts him as an effective proponent of left-wing concepts,

I agree and I would add that Naomi Klein is a good comparison. In her books, Klein made some very good points with regards to child labour, sweatshops, advertising, privatisation, the erosion of the trade unions and the erosion of public space vs corporate space. Moore also makes good points in his films about US armed forces recruitment in working class and black neighbourhoods, healthcare (the lack of it), wages, trade unions and the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

Both make good points, both can claim some credit in raising political awareness to these issues and on that point both Klein and Moore have some effect. This makes both Klein and Moore social democrats who still and despite their reformist politics, make valid and informative criticisms of aspects of capitalist society.


nor do I think this means that he can be thrown on the "capitalism with a human face" pile alongside the left-liberals and social democrats.

Without social revolution all leftists can ever hope for is capitalism with a 'human face'. This is so due to material conditions as capitalism cannot be elected, boycotted, talked or wished out of existence, only overthrown. So no matter Moore's own personal motives or beliefs, if he does not support social revolution as a means to abolishing capitalism, then he is a social democrat/left-liberal even if he doesn't realise it himself.


Fact is, Moore, for all his flaws, has hit on the one essential truth of socialism, the one which the mainstream left has entirely forgotten: that we do not need capitalists. If he can communicate this in a manner which slips under the radar of Americans who, even at their most progressive, so often carry a lot of McCarthyite baggage? All the better.

As I said before, Moore (like Klein) can make good points and criticisms, but that alone does not make him a revolutionary though it can make him useful in popularising basic socialist ideas.


Oh, yeah, sure, we're such a huge demographic. Wealthy, too!

I'll admit to being cynical, but Moore does court celebrity a little bit and if my cynicism were to be correct, I'd say it would be more about the fame than money.

[Tim Finnegan]

Without social revolution all leftists can ever hope for is capitalism with a 'human face'. This is so due to material conditions as capitalism cannot be elected, boycotted, talked or wished out of existence, only overthrown. So no matter Moore's own personal motives or beliefs, if he does not support social revolution as a means to abolishing capitalism, then he is a social democrat/left-liberal even if he doesn't realise it himself.
I'm not sure this follows; just because somebody's program is unfeasible doesn't mean that is fictitious. It merely means that they are wrong, just as any explicitly revolutionary socialists with an infeasible program would be.
Furthermore, I would argue that, even taking the above into account, there is a substantial distinction between social democrats and democratic socialists in that, while the latter do not advocate revolution, they are able to contribute towards it through the fostering of class conciousness and the construction of proletarian organisations, something which the former are incapable of doing. Revolutionary socialists from Marx onwards have conceded (and even enthusiastically advocated) the usefulness of reformist means such as parliamentarianism in moving towards revolution, and of forming united fronts with non-revolutionary socialists to this end.

Other than that, though, I agree.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Communists are going to be a minority and will remain a minority even in a revolutionary situation. Believing that socialism will come about because the majority of workers want it to because they like the idea of socialism better than capitalism is more unlikely and more defeatist than our being in "isolation" arguing on a consistent class line and declaring open hostility to the present capitalist order.

The left-com approach isn't really a consistent class line, but one that combines the worst of the WSM's Educate-Educate-Educate approach and Trotskyism's Agitate-Agitate-Agitate approach.

[Savage]

The left-com approach isn't really a consistent class line, but one that combines the worst of the WSM's Educate-Educate-Educate approach and Trotskyism's Agitate-Agitate-Agitate approach.
But we do this consistently, no? :cool:

[Zanthorus]

"Worker run capitalism"? A contradiction in terms, surely?

Marx's analysis of capitalism hinges around the fact that this is precisely not the case. Capital is not a system where a certain group of individuals dominates over another group of individuals, but where the immediate producers are ruled by their own productive forces which appear as a power alien to them. Capital is not an individual or the domination of individuals through a particular management structure, it is self-expanding, self-valorising value, and capitalists are merely those who represent capital, whether this be an individual factory owner, or a group of capitalists, the state or even a co-operative "by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist".


but it can contribute to the formation of class conciousness and a popular revolutionary sentiment.

There have been plenty of socialists before you who believed in building up socialism through the formation of co-operatives. Can you show us a single example where their efforts were succesful, where the buildup of the co-operative movement was what presaged a revolutionary crisis? Personally I think the idea that co-operatives can forment revolutionary sentiment is counter-intuitive. The whole point of a revolutionary situtation is that the existing state institutions cease to be held as legitimate, but the co-operative panacea is based on the idea that instead of building the political power of the proletariat, we need to peacefully build up it's dominance within the bounds of freedom, equality, property and Bentham.


don't successful worker-managed firms make a strong case study?

The human misery caused by capitalism on a daily basis is probably a better case study than isolated examples which don't even show what we would want them to show. That is, they show that workers can succesfully manage a capitalist firm, whereas the point is the end of the autonomous firm itself.


That really depends what co-ops you're talking about. Obviously, workplace democracy is crucial; there's a difference between a profit-sharing enterprise like John Lewis and a true workers' cooperative like AK Press.

Even in co-operatives with 'workplace democracy' exploitation of workers' continues. See for example:

Mondragon Capitalists' Exploitation and Repression in Poland (http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008)
Go slow strike at Mondragon factory (http://libcom.org/news/go-slow-strike-fagormastercook-mondragon-capital-group-25012011)
Co-operatives: All in this together? (http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together)

There is also The Myth of Mondragon by Sharryn Kashmir. Unfortunately only parts of it are online on google books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xTp3hf8X0AgC&dq=%22myth+of+mondragon%22&pg=PP1&ots=erNp6F2iST&sig=3mmVYWLTmuY5nk_BwJmFNfccOjo#v=onepage&q=%22myth%20of%20mondragon%22&f=false) but the basic gist is:


Sharryn Kashmir's The Myth of Mondragon: Co-operatives, Politics and and Working-Class life in a Basque town, is the first ethnographic analysis bringing together the interaction of co-operatives and communities in a holistic analysis of working-class perspectives on the form of industrial organization that has been hailed as an alternative to both capitalism and socialist organizations of work. From the perspective of workers, Mondragon differs little from managerial styles of private enterprises found throughout the Basque area. Workers do not take advantage of the democratic forms available to them, and are, in fact, more passive in asserting their rights than are workers in private firms who engage in militant working-class action through trade-unions. The very ideological stance of the co-operatives as harmoniously integrated worker-management teams mitigates the expression of antagonism based on structural opposition that persists in these settings.


...if he can introduce people to the idea of worker's self-management- something which most people have genuinely never considered, at least beyond the level of a small service-industry firm- then that's not exactly a blow to the socialist cause.

If he can introduce people to the idea that the proletariat can achieve victory in the struggle by managing the proletarian condition rather than abolishing it and the whole organisation of autonomous firms which is the characteristic mark of capitalism then that is a definite blow to the socialist cause.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the notion that there can be such a thing as 'worker-run capitalism' has been well defended.


...

There have been plenty of socialists before you who believed in building up socialism through the formation of co-operatives. Can you show us a single example where their efforts were succesful, where the buildup of the co-operative movement was what presaged a revolutionary crisis? ...

Yes, I was one of them (socialists that believed that co-operatives could lead to socialism, that is).

The one sole only individual and unique example (I can't stress enough that six years of research into the history of the co-op movement internationally only produced this one example) that I could find (it is a biggy however) is Russia, 1917. The slogan 'All Power to the Soviets' was I believe originally raised by the delegates of the co-operative organisations.

Everything else (including the exploitative business model of the Mondragon co-ops, or the struggle lasting years between the IWW and the co-op movement in the UK, the super-exploitation of co-op workers alluded to by myself and others) is all true.

Co-ops are not a solution to capitalism or stepping stone to socialism, at best they're an attempt to make capitalism run more in line with the interests of the workers. As it's impossible for capitalism to be run in the interests of the workers, because ultimately the interests of the workers are in smashing capitalism, they're an unworkable project, and must either fail or become capitalist business. 'Socialism in one factory' is as meaningless as 'socialism in one ...' any else.

[Tim Finnegan]

@ Zanthorus: Interesting information all round, thanks. I am going to have to seriously re-consider my position on co-operatives.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26311)