A minimum program for Europe

[Zederbaum]

Below is a condensed European Minimum Programme. I've seen a few threads that discuss other versions, and of course most of the points are derived from those threads or from writers such as Cockshott and Schweickart. Those threads generally contain a good bit of explanatory material around the points themselves.

The aim is to be minimal in terms of presentation and to set out a few key reforms in an easy to understand manner and which could put an end to capitalism and set Europe on a trajectory towards socialism.

It assumes that progress within the framework of the nation state is no longer possible.

Part A
1. Unification of Europe into a single sovereign authority.
2. Plebiscites on major issues, including budgets and military intervention abroad.
3. Parliament and juries chosen by lot for two year sessions with a right of recall for both.
4. Limitations to serving two non-consecutive terms for parliament in a lifetime.
5. Senior public service positions to be chosen from a pool of qualified personnel by lot for a set period. A quota of such positions to be set aside for serving parliament members and the public.
6. Juries to decide cases regarding conflicts between employers and employees.
7. State support for only secular schools and hospitals.
8. Establishment of a single working language for all state affairs.
9. Fair trade on the basis of solidarity with all countries.

Part B
10. A normal working week of 25 hours.
11. Democratic control of investment via publicly owned banks issued with mandates from plebiscites and parliament.
12. Establishment of a tax on capital assets to fund investment.
13. Workers to have a legally enforceable right to the full value of their labour.
14. All goods, services, and wage slips to be stamped with their labour value.
15. Enterprises above X size to be organised on a co-operative basis if requested by majority of staff. Compensation to be paid out of future profits.
16. Guaranteed right to work with the State to be employer of last resort.
17. Transition to tax being collected in labour notes.
18. Abolition of indirect taxation.
19. Abolition of laws restricting the flow of scientific and technical information.
20. Promotion of the distribution of goods and services on the free software model.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In part A I would disagree with "term limits" the left could lose some good people and people should have the right to elect anyone they want, no matter how long they've been around. Also, why a single administrative language? I would be careful about making the Union into a single sovereign authority. It is still a capitalist state. We need power from below, not rule by Eurocrats.As far as juries deciding labor disputes (in the US the labor board is often run by Republicans) why not have labour arbitration by armed worker's councils?Much of Part A still seems played on the terrain of capital.


Some ideas for a European Transistional Program


A.) Open the books of all companies employing over 100 people to the public
B.) Guaranteed minimum wage of ? EU
C.) Full language and cultural autonomy for minorities that desire this-Bretons, Basques, Romany, Ruthenians, Welsh, etc.
D.) All education accountable to democratic institutions, ending Church schools.
E.) Ending remaining border controls between EU states.
F.) All banks ,and financial institutions to be brought under public ownership.
G.) Disestablishment of state churches-Anglican Church, Catholic, Lutheran and Othodox churches while guaranteeing complete freedom of religion., ending discrimination of religious/cultural expression
H.) British royal family to be pensioned off or to receive free job training.
I.) Hundred largest companies in each EU country to be brought under public ownership, responsible only to employees, customers,and communities.
J.) Ending of all discrimination of lgbt people. Mass education campaign to foster acceptance and understanding. Strong anti-hate crime legislation.
K.) full reproductive freedom for women.

[Dimentio]

Lenina's programme is probably somewhat better. A unitary state for Europe would be a nightmare and would fail.

[Rowan Duffy]

Also, why a single administrative language? I would be careful about making the Union into a single sovereign authority. It is still a capitalist state. We need power from below, not rule by Eurocrats.

In terms of the use of a single administrative language, it serves several functions. One, the number of translators required if every language group that wants "autonomy" is granted it is absurdly large, going on the order of the square of the number of languages. Demanding language autonomy is demanding an overly large bureaucratic overhead for no practical reason. C can be solved by relegating all the current national languages to essentially the same status as Basque etc.

In addition a single state language would solve the question in the workers movement about what type of language our international trade unions and international organisations should adopt. This will enable more cooperation.

We need to re-orientate our movement towards an EU scale. All the states are capitalist. So focusing on your local nation state hardly escapes this. The "Eurocrat" denunciation is firmly a rightist nationalist frame of discourse, leading naturally to the assumption that our local bureaucracies are better. In fact, they are worse for a large number of reasons - but primarly they are worse because no solutions on the national scale can possibly present themselves at the current relative strength of international capital.

The workers movement could use a good deal of regularisation of labour law throughout the EU area, even if those aren't particularly favourable as it would serve as a common contradiction on the appropriate scale.


As far as juries deciding labor disputes (in the US the labor board is often run by Republicans) why not have labour arbitration by armed worker's councils? Much of Part A still seems played on the terrain of capital.

Jury's are representative of the public. If the public is orientated in support of labour than radical resolutions can be made in favour of labour. If the general population does not identify itself with labour, then socialists are not doing their job. The introduction of juries potentiates radical decisions, it does not ensure it.



F.) All banks ,and financial institutions to be brought under public ownership.Point 11 is similar, but I think you're right that the present financial organisations should just be made public.

I think additionally there should be some demand that any the national armies be desolved in favour of militias.

* Dissolve all national militaries and replace with a conscription based militia.



I.) Hundred largest companies in each EU country to be brought under public ownership, responsible only to employees, customers,and communities.I think this is dealt with more neatly by point 13, which, in combination with jury arbitration could be used to seize companies into workers ownership.

G, J and K are good.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm in the US and I probably look at things from a more "federalist" approach. I certainly do not want to give credence to any sort of rightist nationalism. I do understand there is much resentment against Brussels and the EU bureaucracy though. People felt the proposed constitution was being rammed down their thoats.A united Europe could only really be possible along socialist lines, there's too much friction from competing national elites, as revealed with the Libya situation and the reaction to the financial crisis.A year ago there was debate in the Financial Times over how long the Euro would last.

Further integration of Europe would imply a common border and tariffs,centralized control of international trade and credit flow, some sort of system of aid for the "PIIGS" to equalize the level of development, a central bank and a mechanism for economic coordination. As I understand the Bundesbank plays the role of a de facto central bank.

How do we put forth effective appeals to the working classes of Germany and France for continent wide internationalism and solidarity?

Anyway all this can be very complex. A way forward may involve beginning discussions on democratic continent wide integration by representatives responsible to a network of worker's councils.I think this should be viewed as proposals and demands. The bourgoise is not going to give us a socialist Europe.

As far as languages go I do not know how cumbersome translation can be. The residents of my own country are notorious for being mono-lingual. Its more common for Europeans to speak 3 or more languages.I might suggest Esperanto, which is actually ridiculouly easy to learn and has the advantage of not being connected to a single country.The default international language of course is English, which is fine, but it is connected with the all pervading Anglo-American culture sphere.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Part A
1. Unification of Europe into a single sovereign authority.
2. Plebiscites on major issues, including budgets and military intervention abroad.
3. Parliament and juries chosen by lot for two year sessions with a right of recall for both.
4. Limitations to serving two non-consecutive terms for parliament in a lifetime.
5. Senior public service positions to be chosen from a pool of qualified personnel by lot for a set period. A quota of such positions to be set aside for serving parliament members and the public.
6. Juries to decide cases regarding conflicts between employers and employees.
7. State support for only secular schools and hospitals.
8. Establishment of a single working language for all state affairs.
9. Fair trade on the basis of solidarity with all countries.

You forgot standards of living for public officials being at or slightly less than the median standard of living for professional and other skilled workers. This includes the labour juries, so that we all know where their most likely bias will be (i.e., pro-labour).

You also forgot the double-negative of no political disqualifications based on non-ownership of property and wealth generally, so that the bourgeoisie can be disenfranchised if necessary.

Don't forget sovereign socioeconomic governments.


Part B
10. A normal working week of 25 hours.
11. Democratic control of investment via publicly owned banks issued with mandates from plebiscites and parliament.
12. Establishment of a tax on capital assets to fund investment.
13. Workers to have a legally enforceable right to the full value of their labour.
14. All goods, services, and wage slips to be stamped with their labour value.
15. Enterprises above X size to be organised on a co-operative basis if requested by majority of staff. Compensation to be paid out of future profits.
16. Guaranteed right to work with the State to be employer of last resort.
17. Transition to tax being collected in labour notes.
18. Abolition of indirect taxation.
19. Abolition of laws restricting the flow of scientific and technical information.
20. Promotion of the distribution of goods and services on the free software model.

10) Why the retention of the five-day workweek?
11) Should say "investment and money supply via a public financial monopoly"
15) Why no nationalization option or even the Meidner option re. regional wage earner funds?


I would be careful about making the Union into a single sovereign authority. It is still a capitalist state. We need power from below, not rule by Eurocrats. As far as juries deciding labor disputes (in the US the labor board is often run by Republicans) why not have labour arbitration by armed worker's councils?Much of Part A still seems played on the terrain of capital.

The labour juries are derived from my work re. "good faith" independent government agencies. It's an obvious jab at tred-iunionizm. I suggested three measures above which, when added to the suggested program, would not be "played on the terrain of capital" because of the DOTP.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-democracy-t112390/index.html?t=112390

Class-Strugglist Democracy and the Demarchic Commonwealth

“But much more important for Marxist thought is Aristotle's account in Books 3-6 of the Politics where he defines democracy as the rule of the poor over the rich whom they can outnumber in the Assembly. Demokratia is taken to be class rule rather than popular government, and demos is understood in the sense of the common people, not the whole of the people as Perikles, Demosthenes, and other Athenians preferred to believe.” (Mogens Herman Hansen)

The Greek word demokratia is a much more emphatic word than “democracy” in two very personal ways. First, I considered substituting the word “democracy” in the title of this chapter section and in other areas of this work with this Greek word. Second, upon reading the word demokratia for the very first time, I initially regretted not having used it at all, much less commented on it, in my earlier work. Does the word demokratia, unlike “democracy” and its politically correct connotations, actually present its own separate challenge to overcoming the crisis of theory regarding strategy and tactics (thereby meriting a separate chapter in that work)? In 2005, however, the British left-wing reformist Tony Benn noted that demokratia meant merely “people power” (implying the possibility of elites leaning upon it at times) and not “rule by the people” – demarchy. Regardless of the answer to this question, I decided against using that word and especially the –kratia suffix, given the sufficiency of the term “class-strugglist democracy.”

“Class-strugglist democracy” also has the two-fold advantage of expressing the full range of parallelism necessitated by participatory democracy (both in terms of so-called “dual power” and parallelism amongst different organs of participatory democracy) and suggesting the contention for power by more than two classes, including: coordinators, small-businessmen or petit-bourgeoisie, at least one class of semi-workers not developing society’s labour power and overall capabilities (lawyers, judges, and police officers in one group, the self-employed in another group, and unproductive workers such as full-time nannies in yet another group), and the various underclasses (the proper lumpenproletariat, the lumpenbourgeoisie, and the lowest class of beggars, chronic drug addicts on the streets, other homeless people, unemployables, and welfare cheats – the lumpen).

On the latter advantage, the contention for power can even be made by more than two class coalitions. The proletariat-led coalition in an imperialist power might include all the dispossessed classes: the coordinators (because they too are estranged from owning the means of production), the proper lumpenproletariat (preferring legal work to illegal work), and those dispossessed elements who nevertheless perform unproductive labour. The bourgeoisie-led coalition might include lawyers, judges, and police officers. Meanwhile, that underrated coalition led by the petit-bourgeoisie, which has formed the socioeconomic base for fascist movements, has included the self-employed, the lumpenbourgeoisie, and the lumpen.

That aside, I now refer back to the profoundly true and important musings in Mike Macnair’s Revolutionary Strategy on the long-lost minimum program of Marx himself, despite the radical republicanism of electing all officials:

This understanding enables us to formulate a core political minimum platform for the participation of communists in a government. The key is to replace the illusory idea of ‘All power to the soviets’ and the empty one of ‘All power to the Communist Party’ with the original Marxist idea of the undiluted democratic republic, or ‘extreme democracy’, as the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[…]

Without commitment to such a minimum platform, communists should not accept governmental responsibility […] To accept governmental responsibility as a minority under conditions of revolutionary crisis is, if anything, worse than doing so in ‘peaceful times’: a crisis demands urgent solutions, and communists can only offer these solutions from opposition.

This merely confirms what Engels wrote in his critique of the Erfurt Program’s lack of any mention of a “democratic republic”:

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown. It would be inconceivable for our best people to become ministers under an emperor […]

However, since what is suggested in this work rejects both liberal and radical republicanism, what should replace the “democratic republic” and “soviet power”? Fortunately, Engels himself suggested a term that has the potential to address class-strugglist anarchist criticisms of coordinated “workers’ states”:

We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French ‘Commune.

The minimum program for the emergence of this demarchic “Commonwealth” surpasses broad economism by aiming for multiple struggles:

1) A two-fold political struggle of a minimum-maximum character, with politico-ideological independence for the working class as the immediate aim, and with the demarchic commonwealth fully replacing the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes – the state – as the aim later on;
2) Economic struggles of a minimum-maximum character, with economic struggles promoting politico-ideological independence for the working class as an immediate aim, and with economic struggles directly for social labour later on – since the struggle for this “socialism” is indeed economic and not political; and
3) Peripheral sociocultural struggles of a minimum-maximum character around various issues, such as identity politics.

To tie this and the preceding commentary on participatory democracy and class issues together, listed below are demands based on the struggles of politico-ideologically independent worker-class movements in the past (the list of which is more comprehensive than the one provided by Macnair). Taking into account modern developments and critiques, the consistent advocacy of this core of a minimum program for political power – as opposed to the more common and orthodox “minimum program” for continued opposition even after complete fulfillment – emphatically solves the problem of broad economism throughout the class-strugglist left by being much greater than the sum of its political and economic parts. While individual demands could easily be fulfilled without eliminating the bourgeois state order, the complete, consistent, and lasting implementation of this minimum program in the pre-orthodox sense (as formulated by Marx himself) would mean that the working class will have captured the full political power of a ruling class, thus establishing the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat”:

1) All assemblies of the remaining representative democracy and all councils of an expanding participatory democracy shall become working bodies, not parliamentary talking shops, being legislative and executive-administrative at the same time and not checked and balanced by anything more professional than a sovereign commoner jury system that dispenses with judges altogether. The absence of any mention of grassroots mass assemblies is due to their incapability to perform administrative functions on a regular basis. Also, this demand implies simplification of laws and of the legal system as a whole, again dispensing entirely with that oligarchic and etymologically monarchic legal position of Judge and at least curtailing that legalese-creating and overly specialized position of Lawyer.

2) All political and related administrative offices shall be assigned by kleros (random selection or lot) as a fundamental basis of the demarchic commonwealth. This is in stark contrast to elections for all such public offices, the central radical-republican demand that completely ignores electoral fatigue. With this demand comes the possibility of finally fulfilling a demarchic variation of that one unfulfilled demand for annual parliaments raised by the first politico-ideologically independent worker-class movement in history, the Chartist movement in the United Kingdom.

3) All political and related administrative offices, and also the ability to influence or participate in political decision-making, shall be free of any formal or de facto disqualifications due to non-ownership of non-possessive property or, more generally, of wealth. The Chartists called similarly for “no property qualification for members of Parliament – thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.” While the struggle against formal property qualifications was most progressive, even freely elected legislatures are almost devoid of the working poor, especially those who are women. Unlike the Chartist demand, by no means does this demand in the grammatically double negative (“disqualifications” and “non-ownership”) preclude the very illiberal disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie – and other owners of the aforementioned types of property – as one of the possible measures of worker-class rule. In fact, the original Soviet constitution deprived voting rights from the bourgeoisie and others even on more functional criteria such as hiring labour for personal profit.

4) All jurisdiction over regular socioeconomic politics shall be materially transferred to sovereign socioeconomic governments directly representative of ordinary people – separate from structures responsible for high politics, security politics, and all other related state politics. Once more, the separation of powers can exist in the wrong way, as is the case with the bourgeois separation of legislative and executive-administrative functions, or in the right way, in accordance with the participatory-democratic premise of parallelism. Also, associated with truly statist politics is the culture of state secrecy, something that permeates regular socioeconomic politics under present societies.

5) All political and related administrative offices shall operate on the basis of occupants’ standards of living being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers. On the one hand, formulations that demand compensation for such public officials to be simply no more than “workman’s wage” fail to take into account the historic worker-class demand for legislators to be paid in the first place, first raised by the worker-class Chartists, “thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country.” On the other hand, even freely elected legislators, many of whom have “moonlighting” or additional sources of income through businesses or unproductive public speeches, tend to increase their collective level of expense allowances beyond the median equivalent associated with professional work. A combination of appropriate pay levels and expense allowances, mandated loss of other occupations (since these offices should be full-time positions), employment transition programs for occupants leaving office, and other measures can fulfill this demand.

6) All political and related administrative offices shall be subject to immediate recall from any of multiple avenues, especially in cases of abuse of office. Recall can be fulfilled effectively under a radical-republican system of indirect elections and hierarchical accountability, as opposed to the current system of direct electoralism (based on mass constituencies) that require significant numbers of constituents to sign recall initiatives. Nevertheless, additional avenues are necessary, such as from sovereign commoner juries sanctioning representatives who violate popular legislation, and from political parties. Like two of the preceding demands, this demand is best fulfilled when all such public offices are assigned by lot, thereby minimizing interpersonal political connections.

7) There shall be an ecological reduction of the normal workweek even for working multiple jobs – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, and the prohibition of compulsory overtime. In addition to the extensive analysis provided in the next chapter, it must be noted that proposals for an eight-hour day were made but not implemented within the Paris Commune, and that the development of capitalist production is such that time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. should be part of the normal workweek and not outside of it.

8) There shall be full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement. If one particular demand could neatly sum up the struggle for the politico-ideological independence of the working class – before and even just after having captured the full political power of a ruling class – it is this one by far.

9) There shall be an expansion of the abilities to bear arms, to self-defense against police brutality, and to general self-defense, all toward enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training, especially in connection with class-strugglist association, and also free from police interference by the likes of agents provocateurs. The aggressive advocacy of this demand separates class-strugglists from the most obvious of cross-class coalitionists, even if the likes of Bernstein pushed for this demand in less formal workers’ action programs.

10) There shall be full independence of the mass media from concentrated private ownership and control by first means of workplace democracy over mandated balance of content in news and media production, heavy appropriation of economic rent in the broadcast spectrum, unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for independent mass media cooperative startups – especially at more local levels, for purposes of media decentralization – and anti-inheritance transformation of all the relevant mass media properties under private ownership into cooperative property. Although this is an applied combination of more general demands that are in and of themselves not necessary for workers to become the ruling class, a comprehensive solution to the mass media problem of concentrated private ownership and control (not to mention bourgeois cultural hegemony as discussed by the Marxist Antonio Gramsci) is a necessary component of any minimum program in the pre-orthodox sense.

11) All state debts shall be suppressed outright. Unlike the more transformative suppression of all public debts on a transnational scale, the minimum character of this demand was long established by the historical precedent of the 19th-century imperialist powers periodically going into debt to fund their wars and then defaulting upon them on an equally periodic basis.

12) All predatory financial practices towards the working class, legal or otherwise, shall be precluded by first means of establishing, on a permanent and either national or multinational basis, a financial monopoly without any private ownership or private control whatsoever – at purchase prices based especially on the market capitalization values of insolvent yet publicly underwritten banks – with such a public monopoly on money supply control inclusive of the general provision of commercial and consumer credit, and with the application of “equity not usury” towards such activity. The usage of the word “multinational” instead of “transnational” signifies the minimum character of this demand, given the multinational structure of the European Union and given that, as mentioned earlier, a single transnational equivalent should put to an end the viability of imperialist wars and conflicts more generally as vehicles for capital accumulation.

13) There shall be an enactment of explicitly confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, investment strikes, and other elitist economic blackmail, whether the related wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers. Ultimately, the flight of gold from Parisian banks by those in control over same banks weakened the workers of 1871 Paris and financed the ruthless suppression of the Paris Commune.

[Note: Due consideration must, of course, be given to other political issues crucial to the beginning of worker-class rule, such as public monopoly over foreign trade, local autonomy, and the full or partial addressing of certain transformative issues like governmental transparency and genuine freedom of movement.]



REFERENCES



The Tradition of Ancient Greek Democracy and Its Importance for Modern Democracy by Mogens Herman Hansen [http://books.google.com/books?id=8lPaSAnZg28C&printsec=frontcover]

The Two Souls of Democracy by “Anarcho” [http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=962]

The minimum platform and extreme democracy by Mike Macnair [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm]

A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891 by Frederick Engels [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm]

Letter to August Bebel in Zwickau, March 1875 by Frederick Engels [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm]

The People’s Charter by the London Working Men’s Association [http://www.chartists.net/The-six-points.htm]

[Zederbaum]

I would be careful about making the Union into a single sovereign authority. It is still a capitalist state. We need power from below, not rule by Eurocrats....Much of Part A still seems played on the terrain of capital.

As DNZ said, the intention is to establish working class domination of public affairs and, furthermore, to do so in a way that facilitates progress towards socialism. In other words, to get off the terrain of capital without losing our feet.

So, while it doesn't demand, say, instant expropriation of the means of production, it does enable it and does so in a way that better balances working class self-activity with the necessity to maintain production than merely occupying the factories or even the compuslarly nationalisation of the top 100 industries. If workers are interested enough to organise to demand the full value of their labour then they will find the state facilitates that through point 13.

But it won't necessarily do it for them. If workers don't wish to run their company democratically or share the profits amongst themselves, then it doesn't make sense to force them. Workers self-management will be more successful the more the impetus comes from workers themselves.

The same reasoning applies to the democratic control of investment. If socialists can convince enough people to favour progressive investment policies, then they will be enacted and society will therefore be far more likely to bed down onto a stable road to socialism than if the same policies were done in either a top-down manner or in a fairly chaotic process of dencentralised factory takeovers.

In a modern society the question of the legitimacy of the state is of the utmost importance as it is a primary method of maintaining the population's support. One of the difficulties of the Russian revolution is that the Bolsheviks lost popular support and had to resort to force to push their policies forward.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of that choice back in the 1920s, I don't think such a strategy would be successful in modern Europe.

If it is clear that socialist proposals (investment in public infrastructure, public services etc etc) have majority support then they will have a good deal of legitimacy which in itself would help neutralise those who might otherwise waver. Gaining majority support is not to be underestimated. Socialists obviously would have a major role to play in persuading workers that such proposals should be enacted.

On the language question, I was being a little provocative but I think it's worth reducing the number of administrative languages quite a lot. I agree with Rowan Duffy's take so I won't repeat it here.

With the addition of Lenina's two points regarding lbgt and reproductive rights for women, Rowan Duffy's workers' militias, and DNZ's suggestions, there'd be some 25-26 points. Which is getting a bit lengthy for a document that is intended to minimal!

[Zederbaum]

You forgot standards of living for public officials being at or slightly less than the median standard of living for professional and other skilled workers. This includes the labour juries, so that we all know where their most likely bias will be (i.e., pro-labour).
That's a point.


You also forgot the double-negative of no political disqualifications based on non-ownership of property and wealth generally, so that the bourgeoisie can be disenfranchised if necessary.
I didn't so much forget that one as just not think of it :)

Do you think it would be necessary given the use of random selection to fill the parliament? I can see the logic of excluding the bourgeoisie from the franchise if the selection method is elections. given their propensity to win them. But they will be in a minority in Lot's Parliament. There's a trade off between keeping them on a leash and losing legitimacy through measures that will likely be perceived as anti-democratic. I'm not sure it's worth it in this case.


Don't forget sovereign socioeconomic governments.
Expound, explicate, elucidate.

I just read your piece below, but don't quite get what you're trying to say in that particular part.



10) Why the retention of the five-day workweek?
It isn't retained. The five day work week is ditched in favour of a 25 hour work week. That could easily be done in 3 days.



11) Should say "investment and money supply via a public financial monopoly"
In addition to the existing text or as a replacement for it? I'm not sure that is a better way of saying it if you mean the latter, although I don't have any objection in principle since the intention is the same (working class executive power over investment).

As it stands, point 11 specifies democratic control via plebiscites and parliament. Since these are the avenues for the expression of democratic will, it follows that investment outside of them is prohibited. In effect then, investment would be a public financial monopoly which itself is constrained by the mandate it receives from the democratic organs of society. I think there's a certain utility in appropriating the rhetoric of democracy. Firstly, given the prevailing ideology, few people are against democracy. Secondly workers are in a majority.


15) Why no nationalization option or even the Meidner option re. regional wage earner funds?
There is no nationalisation specified because once investment is publicly controlled, the state can exercise a key influence on a firm. Again, I'm not opposed to it on principle and a parliament wouldn't be prohibited from doing so. It might be advisable to have state and public representatives on the governing institutions of certain firms.

Nationalisation itself has a limited use. Worker run companies mixed with public control of investment opens up better possibilities than straight up nationalisation I think. In any case, a good part of the program's purpose is pedagogical.

Nationalisation is already fairly familiar and not only does it have limited attractiveness in its own right, a good lot of key companies are state owned. In Ireland for instance the majority of the banking sector is nationalised at this point and it clearly doesn't serve to push people towards socialism. So I think it is worth trying to get people to look at it from a different angle.


I like the sentiment of this bit:

15)There shall be an enactment of explicitly confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, investment strikes, and other elitist economic blackmail, whether the related wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers.

It's practically poetry :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a point.

Are you by chance sort of a new Menshevik-Internationalist?


Do you think it would be necessary given the use of random selection to fill the parliament? I can see the logic of excluding the bourgeoisie from the franchise if the selection method is elections. given their propensity to win them. But they will be in a minority in Lot's Parliament. There's a trade off between keeping them on a leash and losing legitimacy through measures that will likely be perceived as anti-democratic. I'm not sure it's worth it in this case.

Mere random selection doesn't exclude them from airing political views in a public forum or from throwing lobby $$$ away. I was not referring just to the right to vote.


Expound, explicate, elucidate.

I just read your piece below, but don't quite get what you're trying to say in that particular part.

Please PM me so we can talk about how you can grab my work for convenient reading.

A lot of the programmatic work I post here ends up as an older version by the time one week passes, but here's an older version:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2696


It isn't retained. The five day work week is ditched in favour of a 25 hour work week. That could easily be done in 3 days.

Why 25 and not 24? I had 32 to appease Green sentiments. ;)


In addition to the existing text or as a replacement for it? I'm not sure that is a better way of saying it if you mean the latter, although I don't have any objection in principle since the intention is the same (working class executive power over investment).

As a replacement. Your text allows for the possibility of private finance.


There is no nationalisation specified because once investment is publicly controlled, the state can exercise a key influence on a firm. Again, I'm not opposed to it on principle and a parliament wouldn't be prohibited from doing so. It might be advisable to have state and public representatives on the governing institutions of certain firms.

Nationalisation itself has a limited use. Worker run companies mixed with public control of investment opens up better possibilities than straight up nationalisation I think. In any case, a good part of the program's purpose is pedagogical.

Nationalisation is already fairly familiar and not only does it have limited attractiveness in its own right, a good lot of key companies are state owned. In Ireland for instance the majority of the banking sector is nationalised at this point and it clearly doesn't serve to push people towards socialism. So I think it is worth trying to get people to look at it from a different angle.

I'll comment on this later.


I like the sentiment of this bit:

It's practically poetry :D

My point there was that it can't be so easily sloganized outside the bold text. :p

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As someone from Britain, I find it hard to get behind this unitary Europe approach. Europe is not a hugely productive nation, so to go for the unitary style and effectively close off trade links with other potential partners would set back living standards a long way.

To the same end, a normal working week of 25 hours is utterly ridiculous. It should probably be closer to 35 hours, standard 9-5, Monday to Friday. If workers have a legally enforceable right to the full fruit of their labour (which is an excellent point from the OP, I must add!), then that is not a particularly exploitative number of hours to be working, particularly as this is only a minimum, transitory programme.

I would like to see, rather than a unitary programme, more trade links with ALBA nations. They produce food, biomedical products, computer chips and oil on a large scale and really would be far more effective political and trade allies than simply going it alone for the sake of being European.

I would probably add a few points of my own to the minimum programme:

Ultimate political executive power to rest with democratically elected delegates from nation states. Such delegates to have an absolute veto power over proposals that come from a federal level.

In fact that's just one point really but whatever.:D