Socialist Workers Party Submits 7,080 Signatures In Four Days

[Victoire]

I have heard about the SWP, that apparently has a small and declining membership number and has taken a generally cultist (I mean, uhm workerist) turn in the past decades.

Yet I was baffled to see that this small party still managed to gather so many signatures (over 7000!) in just four days for a special New York U.S. House race It seems now that the SWP will be the only third party on the ballot, except if the Green Party fields a candidate.

My question is just, how did they pull this off?


Can't post links yet, but for more info just go to ballot-access.org or the website of the Militant.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My question is just, how did they pull this off?They stood on the sidewalk and asked for signatures.

The election is to replace Weiner, who represented parts of New York City. If you stand on the corner of a street in New York during the day, you will be passed by tens of thousands of people. I don't think it's that exceptional that a percentage of them would sign a petition.

[Geiseric]

Wow, 7000 signatures in that short span of time is pretty cool. I mean, if SWP gets a big member surge maybe they'll get their shit togather.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You want 7000 signatures? I can get you 7000 signatures, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.:lol:

Yeah, a very focused push by some motivated folks can get that many signatures. Good for them, if they can get into a debate on TV and say "the rent is too damn high" and "stop austerity and the attacks on unions" then maybe it would be a decent platform to challenge some of the ubiquitous mainstream bullshit about the deficits... oh the deficits... oh we have no money... shared sacrifice... oh boo-hoo-fart.

At worst, they'll be able to get on TV and embarrass the entire left but then no one will remember in two weeks anyway.:lol:

Peter Camejo (a former SWP Presidential candidate) got into the debates in California and it was worth it just to see the media commentators after the debate trying to explain why this guy they weren't taking seriously got the most enthusiastic applause (for saying "tax the rich") even though he was an unknown, from a vilified 3rd party and up against Schwarzenegger and Ariana Huffington.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is "tax the rich" a part of the program for the overthrow of capitalism?

[chegitz guevara]

We aren't going to tax them?

[RedSonRising]

We aren't going to tax them?

I believe the plan is to expropriate and disempower them, firstly.


Whoever's rich from their own labor down the line can get taxed.

[Tim Finnegan]

Is "tax the rich" a part of the program for the overthrow of capitalism?
I think that taxing the rich to fund public services which allow workers more freedom to organise and thus overthrow capitalism is part of the program, yes. A worker who doesn't have to work an extra six hours a week to pay for his healthcare is a more dangerous worker than one who does.

[The Idler]

If there's a rich class, does that mean there wll be a poor class?

[jake williams]

I think that taxing the rich to fund public services which allow workers more freedom to organise and thus overthrow capitalism is part of the program, yes. A worker who doesn't have to work an extra six hours a week to pay for his healthcare is a more dangerous worker than one who does.
Those who aren't concerned about ameliorating the most immediate suffering of the working class, and expanding our capacity not just to live and breath but to politically organize, are totally useless to class struggle.

Clearly reformism is a danger, something history has amply demonstrated. But the bigger danger is not fighting for anything, of never proving the usefulness and capacity of organized struggle, of never doing anything which will bring broader and broader groups into a struggle which ultimately has to be a revolutionary struggle.

[Ocean Seal]

Those who aren't concerned about ameliorating the most immediate suffering of the working class, and expanding our capacity not just to live and breath but to politically organize, are totally useless to class struggle.

Clearly reformism is a danger, something history has amply demonstrated. But the bigger danger is not fighting for anything, of never proving the usefulness and capacity of organized struggle, of never doing anything which will bring broader and broader groups into a struggle which ultimately has to be a revolutionary struggle.
That's an excellent point. While we shouldn't identify with the reformist current, we should use all means to help improve the lives of the workers. This is no way a defense for the CPUSA, or Noam Chomsky who endorse a reactionary party, but rather that we should organize as communists or through unions to get initial work done before the revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is it possible at this stage for the working class to make big advances, to pressure capitalism to improve education, housing, jobs, etc.? Or is it that capitalism is forced by the results of its own contradictions to savagely attack the working class as it has been doing for the last several decades, rolling back any "progress" made previously? Is that why schools are closing, real wages are falling, unemployment is rising, and the "social welfare" model is disintegrating? Or is it because the people in political office are just "bad" guys or are making "bad" decisions?

Reform or revolution? Idealism or materialism?


Clearly reformism is a danger, something history has amply demonstrated. But the bigger danger is not fighting for anything, of never proving the usefulness and capacity of organized struggle, of never doing anything which will bring broader and broader groups into a struggle which ultimately has to be a revolutionary struggle. Who does the fighting? Workers or leftist activists with bullhorns and newspapers?

The class struggle is an aspect of class society. It's not something leftists can will in to or out of being. Workers fight because they have to, because they are forced to. Not because they have a subscription to Left News Monthly.

There are plenty of reformists out there. They don't need my help, nor would I give it to them.

The job of militants, of those who have a grasp of what's going on, is to "represent the future in the present"; to utilize history, method, etc., to make positive suggestions; to encourage and assist; to expose pitfalls and help point out the way forward, off the reformist treadmill and onto the road of revolution, which offers the only real solution.


through unions to get initial work doneYou mean like this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/second-largest-public-t158131/index.html)?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Who does the fighting? Workers or leftist activists with bullhorns and newspapers?

Why not workers with bullhorns and newspapers, and leftist activists in the workplaces, schools, and streets?

[jake williams]

Who does the fighting? Workers or leftist activists with bullhorns and newspapers?

The class struggle is an aspect of class society. It's not something leftists can will in to or out of being. Workers fight because they have to, because they are forced to. Not because they have a subscription to Left News Monthly.
Leftist activists are an aspect of class society, and class struggle. The point is precisely that they don't and can't exist outside of history - they're produced by it. Those that try to exist outside of history aren't very relevant.

The fact that we even try to meaningfully distinguish between "leftist activists" and "workers", the former floating around in space and the latter engaging in "real" class struggle, is a symptom of some complex problems going on in the movement, with two main aspects: the one being that we're willing to recognize people not participating in class struggle as "leftists", and the other side of it, that self-proclaimed leftists don't actually work within class struggle.

But the mainstream of left activism that those who want a socialist revolution should be concerned about is not external to class struggle - it is its most important product, its most important internal character.


The job of militants, of those who have a grasp of what's going on, is to "represent the future in the present"; to utilize history, method, etc., to make positive suggestions; to encourage and assist; to expose pitfalls and help point out the way forward, off the reformist treadmill and onto the road of revolution, which offers the only real solution.
I don't totally disagree, but I don't think it's this narrow. All class conscious workers need to do whatever they can to advance struggle in whatever situation this faces. This entails different things in different circumstances. Class struggle is very complex.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is it possible at this stage for the working class to make big advances, to pressure capitalism to improve education, housing, jobs, etc.? Or is it that capitalism is forced by the results of its own contradictions to savagely attack the working class as it has been doing for the last several decades, rolling back any "progress" made previously? Is that why schools are closing, real wages are falling, unemployment is rising, and the "social welfare" model is disintegrating? Or is it because the people in political office are just "bad" guys or are making "bad" decisions?

Reform or revolution? Idealism or materialism?What are you on about here - this is a massive strawman. I thought you were joking with your first post, but do you really believe the goal of the SWP here is to get elected into office? Were you literally saying that you thought that any reforms they might suggest are their "program for the overthrow of capitalism"?


I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out.

There's a long tradition of protest candidates who have utilized the publicity of electoral campaigns or lower or useless elected positions as a platform. I don't know the SWP's reasoning and decisions behind running in this campaign but I'm pretty certain it's not to try and get a "revolution caucus" started in the Congress or win the Presidency some day.


Who does the fighting? Workers or leftist activists with bullhorns and newspapers?Oh well workers do the fighting. And when they begin fighting they usually need to communicate with eachother through some kind of portable voice amplification system like some kind of electric horn. Then often they have set up ways to communicate to eachother and give publicity about the times of pickets or common meetings and whatnot. People use facebook sometimes or post paper on the wall with some writing and sometimes create newsletters, blogs or newspapers.

In other words and activist is a fighting worker. But unless he's Superman he probably can't fight on his own and so he or she will need to organize with others and coordinate things.

Why do you fetishise "the party" as if it were somehow outside of the material development of class struggle - like aliens came down and imposed it on the world?


The class struggle is an aspect of class society. It's not something leftists can will in to or out of being. So leftists are outside of class society? So subjective action plays no part in class struggle - so then why the fuck do you care what "parties" do since if they can't effect the class struggle in anyway, what harm do they do?


Workers fight because they have to, because they are forced to. Not because they have a subscription to Left News Monthly. So the publishers of Left News Monthly don't have to fight? The publishers of News Left Monthly exist outside of class struggle..? Are they the thing imposed by aliens?

What if workers want to make a magazine... do they disappear from the material class struggle at that point?

Seriously, bullhorns... newspapers... magazines... Facebook event pages... parties - these are all just tools, they can be used effectively, ineffectively, for good or bad political reasons. They hold no power of their own other then helping people organize themselves.

As to your historical determinism... if what parties do doesn't matter, then what individuals do matters even less. Why should workers fight at all - at what point does picket organizing or the administration of aid to a protest (like the food distribution and medic areas in Tahrir square) become "a party" and then useless?

The schools are failing because of the objective conditions of capitalism but the rate at which they fail, the terms at which they fail or not are also due to subjective factors. There are the subjective factors of how strong the unions are, how willing the ruling class is to move to another target or decide the fight is more than it is worth? People fight, but not in conditions of their own choosing: the objective and subjective are linked.


There are plenty of reformists out there. They don't need my help, not would I give it to them. Sayeth it ain't sooooo, my lord! Say not that it is true!:crying:

To be honest this all just sounds like an elaborate justification for revolutionary armchairism.


The job of militants, of those who have a grasp of what's going on, is to "represent the future in the present"; to utilize history, method, etc., to make positive suggestions; to encourage and assist; to expose pitfalls and help point out the way forward, off the reformist treadmill and onto the road of revolution, which offers the only real solution. I have some political disagreements with the SWP, but I think from their perspective that's exactly what they are trying to do and using a platform provided by the system to intervine in the mainstream political discussion and "make positive suggestions; to encourage and assist; to expose pitfalls and help point out the way forward". They are not trying to win political office.

[Crux]

I have to ask though, what kind of activist base does the SWP have left? My impression has always been that they're pretty much a bookshop these days. Oh and, in case you didn't know their sister organizations (all by the name of Communist League) all sell The Militant. Yeah. The american Militant. It's a bit strange if you ask me.

[Coggeh]

Is "tax the rich" a part of the program for the overthrow of capitalism?
Not aware of the SWP in the USA too much so i don't know if their reformist or whatever. But calling for higher taxation on the rich is not a reformist line, but a transitional demand towards the idea of expropriating their wealth completely.

[Ocean Seal]

You mean like this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/second-largest-public-t158131/index.html)?
Yes, I know that case. Its my father's union too which makes it especially bad. But the idea is that he belongs to a very reactionary union and at the moment there is no way to organize outside of it, nor should we organize against it. But what we should do is organize a resistance to the leadership and with leftists within the ranks of the union we should fight to beat back the assault on workers. Wherever there are workers, there should be communists who can help guide the movement to victory and we should learn from the struggles of the reformists in order to ensure that the workers are getting everything that they can in terms of concessions from the bourgeoisie. Once the workers start winning victories they'll start asking for more, and when the yellow unions refuse and when the bourgeoisie refuse; the workers don't have to take know for an answer because through the reformist struggles they have a gauge of their strength.

[Aurora]

Is it possible at this stage for the working class to make big advances, to pressure capitalism to improve education, housing, jobs, etc.?
If it is then it should be fought for to improve the living conditions of the working class, if it isn't then it should be fought for even harder to show that capitalism cannot provide a decent standard of living to the working class.

[KC]

Is "tax the rich" a part of the program for the overthrow of capitalism?

It's invariably a reformist slogan.


I think that taxing the rich to fund public services which allow workers more freedom to organise and thus overthrow capitalism is part of the program, yes. A worker who doesn't have to work an extra six hours a week to pay for his healthcare is a more dangerous worker than one who does.

By this logic we should have called for votes for Kucinich, no?

[jake williams]

By this logic we should have called for votes for Kucinich, no?
If you could demonstrate that calling for votes for Kucinich would be the best way to achieve that effect, then yes. I can't think of a case where that's been true.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's invariably a reformist slogan.
Just like saying "troops out now" is, demanding universal healthcare, opposing public school privatization, opposing interventions in Libya and so on.

...unless you think asking NATO or the US nicely for something will achieve anything. But these demands are also a way for the working class to take initiative.

Hell, fighting a union battle is merely fighting to have a say in your exploitation.

But these battles also help change the terms of the class struggle and can put workers in a better position by either stopping an attack by the ruling class or by building up the self-activity and self-confidence and organization of workers.


By this logic we should have called for votes for Kucinich, no?No, that would not create an independent moment of workers fighting for their interests - that would be supporting a party that wants to push austerity and not tax the rich as much as the Republicans do. That's a silly comparison. If you argue for voting for politicians who will tax the rich, then it would be an apt comparison.

But in the struggle we are in now, the ruling class WANTS the working class to shut up and accept austerity and attacks on living standards. They want the working class to accept the logic that "duh, we're just broke, so you have to eat some shared sacrifice". So in this context, a propagandistic "tax the rich" slogan can be used to counter the claims by both Democrats and Republicans that getting rid of "entitlements" for workers is the "only" way to pay for services. It's saying to the capitalists - we are not going to pay for your crisis, you want to save this system, you pay for it then. But again, it's only useful if it's independent and not tied to voting in "progressives" into power to do this for the working class. It's all about context and where the struggle is at.

[Martin Blank]

I feel I have to jump in here, because it really does bother me when leftists attempt to shut down a worker who is asking legitimate (though uncomfortable) questions.


What are you on about here - this is a massive strawman. I thought you were joking with your first post, but do you really believe the goal of the SWP here is to get elected into office? Were you literally saying that you thought that any reforms they might suggest are their "program for the overthrow of capitalism"?

ICWUDT. You changed the subject.

NHIA asked if there was any value at this point to demands that are aimed at the ruling classes, since it seems like the electoral platforms that organizations like the SWP adopt are purely reformist in character and make it look like the problem is not capitalism, but a few "bad" politicians with "bad" ideas.

The deeper and more uncomfortable question he's asking is this: What is the point of groveling in front of the Capitol or White House, begging the exploiting and oppressing classes to "stop the war" or utilize the budget so that you have "money for jobs (books, education, food, etc.), not for war", especially since the ruling classes have made it clear they don't care what we think?

I think this is a legitimate question to ask. The material conditions have changed. The old ways of conducting activity are no longer effective. Que faire?


There's a long tradition of protest candidates who have utilized the publicity of electoral campaigns or lower or useless elected positions as a platform. I don't know the SWP's reasoning and decisions behind running in this campaign but I'm pretty certain it's not to try and get a "revolution caucus" started in the Congress or win the Presidency some day.

At this point, the SWP runs candidates because Jim Cannon said back in the 1930s and 1940s that they should run candidates, not because they did any kind of analysis of the political situation that confirmed the necessity and importance of doing so.

As to the other part of your comment, I feel compelled to ask: If the goal is not to win, then: a) what is the point of running at all, and b) what makes you think anyone is going to take your organization seriously if you cannot even take your own work seriously? It's one thing to not expect to win an electoral race; it's another thing entirely to make that lack of confidence in your own abilities an integral part of your campaign.


Oh well workers do the fighting. And when they begin fighting they usually need to communicate with eachother through some kind of portable voice amplification system like some kind of electric horn. Then often they have set up ways to communicate to eachother and give publicity about the times of pickets or common meetings and whatnot. People use facebook sometimes or post paper on the wall with some writing and sometimes create newsletters, blogs or newspapers.

In other words an activist is a fighting worker. But unless he's Superman he probably can't fight on his own and so he or she will need to organize with others and coordinate things.

I call shenanigans! A fighting worker may be an activist, but not all activists are fighting workers. Just because you consider yourself a partisan of the working class does not mean you are a worker. One of Marx's most forgotten comments was his belief in the intellectual ability of workers themselves to make the revolution, through mutual discussion, experience and organizing. He didn't take kindly to "professional activists", seeing them as the "condescending saviors" talked about in The Internationale.


Why do you fetishise "the party" as if it were somehow outside of the material development of class struggle - like aliens came down and imposed it on the world?

So leftists are outside of class society? So subjective action plays no part in class struggle - so then why the fuck do you care what "parties" do since if they can't effect the class struggle in anyway, what harm do they do?

Because the "party" model used by self-described socialists and communists throughout the late-19th and 20th centuries was alien to the proletariat. It was modeled on the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts of political parties, where the organization achieved its goals by taking power in its own name, not by seeing its program put into effect by the working class. It's the difference between providing political leadership to the most advanced elements of the class in motion as compared to substituting an organization for those forward elements of the class. And, yes, this would apply as much to the members of that organization as it does to the "party" itself, if the members themselves actually agree with that substitutionist goal.

This is not to say that there is no subjective element in the revolutionary struggle. Quite the contrary! But the difference is in the kind of leadership that this subjective element provides: political or practical. Communists are not substitutionists; we do not project ourselves on top of the working class. To become leadership, our program must be held up by the majority.

Finally, as for the question of the harm these "parties" can do, we can talk about what recently happened in Wisconsin.


So the publishers of Left News Monthly don't have to fight? The publishers of News Left Monthly exist outside of class struggle..? Are they the thing imposed by aliens?

See above.


What if workers want to make a magazine... do they disappear from the material class struggle at that point?

Again, ICWUDT. The point NHIA was making is that workers will move into struggle whether or not this or that leftist publication is haranguing them to do so. They are compelled into action by their material conditions, not "good" ideas printed in a magazine or newspaper. Those who do begin moving after coming into contact with a publication or organization were already looking for an avenue of activity; it is not that they weren't thinking about it until they picked up their first copy of Socialist Worker or Workers' Republic or The Militant, etc.


Seriously, bullhorns... newspapers... magazines... Facebook event pages... parties - these are all just tools, they can be used effectively, ineffectively, for good or bad political reasons. They hold no power of their own other than helping people organize themselves.

As to your historical determinism... if what parties do doesn't matter, then what individuals do matters even less. Why should workers fight at all - at what point does picket organizing or the administration of aid to a protest (like the food distribution and medic areas in Tahrir square) become "a party" and then useless?

It is not organization that is the problem. It is what those organizations actually fight for that becomes the problem. If the raison d'etre for a party is taking power in its own name, regardless of whether or not it does so "for the benefit of the working class", that is a party whose method and practice is inherently alien to the proletariat.

Organization is needed. Organization matters. If there had been better organization in Tahrir Square, perhaps the Egyptian revolutionary democrats would not still be fighting with the military. If there had been better organization in Libya, perhaps the opposition would not have sold themselves to NATO and become their proxy.


The schools are failing because of the objective conditions of capitalism but the rate at which they fail, the terms at which they fail or not are also due to subjective factors. There are the subjective factors of how strong the unions are, how willing the ruling class is to move to another target or decide the fight is more than it is worth? People fight, but not in conditions of their own choosing: the objective and subjective are linked.

Yes, they are. And problems in the form and content of the subjective will have a harsh effect on the objective. History is an unforgiving judge.


Sayeth it ain't sooooo, my lord! Say not that it is true!:crying:

To be honest this all just sounds like an elaborate justification for revolutionary armchairism.

Ooooooooor,...

It is an attempt to understand the changes in material conditions in this beginning of the 21st century, how those changes have affected the old ways of conducting activity, and what new methods, strategies and tactics are needed.

It is truly unfortunate that critical thinking by a working-class person is met with such crass condescension and mockery. It really does expose the pervasive inroads that bourgeois ideology has made into the self-described socialist and communist movement ... and, incidentally, what its transmission-belt is.


I have some political disagreements with the SWP, but I think from their perspective that's exactly what they are trying to do and using a platform provided by the system to intervine in the mainstream political discussion and "make positive suggestions; to encourage and assist; to expose pitfalls and help point out the way forward". They are not trying to win political office.

If the SWP platform for this Congressional Race is anything like past campaigns, the only people they will "make positive suggestions" to, "encourage and assist", and "help point out the way forward to" will be the other bourgeois politicians. SWP platforms have traditionally been little more than left-liberalism with a couple boilerplate phrases about "socialism" tagged on at the end. Honestly, it's hard to tell the difference between a platform by the SWP or some other groups and a platform by Dennis Kucinich or John Conyers.

[KC]

So in this context, a propagandistic "tax the rich" slogan can be used to counter the claims by both Democrats and Republicans that getting rid of "entitlements" for workers is the "only" way to pay for services.

President Obama wants to tax the rich ffs and you call it a fucking "propagandistic" slogan that socialists should use? Are you fucking kidding me?


...you also can't solve [the deficit] without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share -- or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don't get.

It's pretty simple. I don't think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they're making tens of billions in profits. I don't think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. I don't think it's fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family has seen their income decline over the past decade -- and when many of you are just trying to stretch every dollar as far as it'll go.


Sounds like it came right out of Socialist Worker, though I will concede that its opportunist rhetoric is blatant, whereas the ISO (and any other org that takes up such a stupid slogan) has to be more subtle to maintain its "revolutionary cred".

"Tax the rich!" Okay, let's say it happens. Then what? Let's say it doesn't. Then what? It's a dead end slogan, an end in itself, it's status quo liberalism. It offers no way forward whatsoever and simply makes everyone bow down to congress, who the demand is obviously directed towards. Same exact thing with "troops out now!"

EDIT: Wanted to add another point. So your slogan is "Tax the rich!" The obvious question that follows is "How much?" So how much does a revolutionary socialist organization think the rich should be taxed? Perhaps we should change the slogan to "Tax those earning over $250,000 annually at a 50% rate!" The difference, then, between the revolutionary socialist organization's "propaganda" and Obama is merely a quantitative one. You simply have different opinions on what is "fair". The significant point is that your positions are so similar that you're squabbling over numbers, 30% and 50% perhaps. Maybe the only difference between being a servant of a bourgeois state and a revolutionary socialist is a further 20% income tax increase on high income households?

I had a longer post but decided to edit it down as this one single quote sums up Higgins' entire post, and outlook.


SWP platforms have traditionally been little more than left-liberalism with a couple boilerplate phrases about "socialism" tagged on at the end.

I think it's quite obvious this applies to nearly every single "socialist" "organization".

[MarxSchmarx]

By the way, the republicans are notorious for funding the efforts of third-party candidates on the left of the democrats to get on the ballot and give them a platform on the theory that it "divides the opposition" :

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/07/republicans-recruiting-street-people-green-party-candidates/

And i think in wisconsin they even ran trojan hourse candidates in democratic primaries or something like that.

I wouldn't say that's what is happening here, but I wonder if not a few of those signatures and possibly even gatherers come from republicans happy to see the democratic nominee split their votes.

[Martin Blank]

I think it's quite obvious this applies to nearly every single "socialist" "organization".

I would consider that a fair argument to make.

[DiaMat86]

Dictatorship of the proletariat cannot come about through democracy. State power will not so easily be put in play.

To be redeemable the thrust of the campaign must be class struggle not about the individual candidates.

I do vote for the socialist candidates though. It only takes a few minutes on a tuesday afternoon.

[Revy]

SWP is a cult, around a man named Jack Barnes who took over the party a few decades ago. And now the SWP is a shadow of its former self. I think it's a dying party with no potential for growth.

[Revy]

I think that taxing the rich to fund public services which allow workers more freedom to organise and thus overthrow capitalism is part of the program, yes. A worker who doesn't have to work an extra six hours a week to pay for his healthcare is a more dangerous worker than one who does.

Well in that case, you should raise taxes on the rich, while lowering them for the working class. That gives working class people more money to pay for their needs. Just taxing the rich only gives more money to the state - without lowering taxes on the poor, it doesn't really help the poor.

[manic expression]

From what I've seen, the SWP gets signatures relatively quickly because they don't make sure their signatories are registered NYC voters (in this case). If the petition was challenged, it likely wouldn't stand.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I feel I have to jump in here, because it really does bother me when leftists attempt to shut down a worker who is asking legitimate (though uncomfortable) questions.So I'm not a worker - worker status is only granted by you for people who have positions you agree with? I'm not a worker - tell that to my boss that just cut my hours here on the graveyard shift.


ICWUDT. You changed the subject.No, NHIS is misrepresenting the tactics and goal of the SWP. This has nothing to do with the question of if the SWP's tactic is useful or not - there are plenty of useful and real questions to be raised and debated.


NHIA asked if there was any value at this point to demands that are aimed at the ruling classes, since it seems like the electoral platforms that organizations like the SWP adopt are purely reformist in character and make it look like the problem is not capitalism, but a few "bad" politicians with "bad" ideas.No there is no value to it and I'd contend that I'm 95% certain that the SWP has the same attitude.

That's a strawman argument against the SWP in this case unless the SWP's strategy was to promote and organize leftist politics by gaining electoral positions and using the power of these positions to make change.

If that is the SWP's position, please post links or quotes from them and explain that. Otherwise I will take them at their word about why they are putting themselves on the ballot:


The SWP campaign is the only voice in the September 13 election calling for workers to break with the two parties of U.S. imperialism, the Democrats and Republicans, and build a revolutionary movement that can overturn the capitalist state and replace it with political rule by workers and farmers—the necessary instrument for working people to fight to end once and for all the scourges of war, racism, women’s oppression, and class exploitation.

In other words they are using an electoral platform for propaganda purposes - hey even if you want to be completely cynical about it you can say they are fielding a candidate just to raise their own profile. Maybe it's a good strategy maybe a bad one, but you and NHIA are falsely conflating this strategy with democratic socialism. As in below:


The deeper and more uncomfortable question he's asking is this: What is the point of groveling in front of the Capitol or White House, begging the exploiting and oppressing classes to "stop the war" or utilize the budget so that you have "money for jobs (books, education, food, etc.), not for war", especially since the ruling classes have made it clear they don't care what we think?Yeah asking the ruling class to be nice won't do anything. If you want to debate this, then we have no argument.

But what does a strategy of socialist reforms through electoralism have to do with trying to rally working class people to more forward demands? What does this have to do with the SWP running a protest candidate?

Do you honestly believe that these radicals are raising these demands hoping that the ruling class will take the advice - or, are these slogans attempts to rally people around alternative ideas to the mainstream capitalist arguments?

It's a strawman.


I think this is a legitimate question to ask. The material conditions have changed. The old ways of conducting activity are no longer effective. Que faire?I went to public school in the US, I don't know what Que Faire is referencing. But other than that, another great question - what tactics are best suited for the objective conditions we face.

Without arguing for or against this particular SWP tactic, I'd argue that objective conditions have not changed so that the subjective actions of workers trying to promote radical ideas is a futile effort. The crisis of capitalism, the attacks from above, anger from below, and horribly low level of working class organization suggests to me that it is possible to make a larger impact with radical ideas right now because politics are in flux and the Democrats have exposed themselves as equal-partner war-mongers and austerity-pushers.

Again, if you want to debate the efficacy of running a protest candidate, then that's a major open question. But saying that the SWP is acting against it's stated reasons for fielding a candidate means the burden of proof is on you to show how this is a lie and they actually want to win electoral power and reform the system or that they are somehow trying to ask the ruling class to ease up a little.

If a segregationist party was running, had no chance of winning but was able to gain a large platform for their ideas, would you think people would be wrong to protest? If you don't think fascists should have a platform, then it cuts both ways and gaining propaganda platforms for pro-working class demands and so on may also have an impact. It won't mean much in the absense of relating to actual workers struggles or social movements and it's not decisive, but these are questions of under what conditions a protest candidate could make an impact.


At this point, the SWP runs candidates because Jim Cannon said back in the 1930s and 1940s that they should run candidates, not because they did any kind of analysis of the political situation that confirmed the necessity and importance of doing so.Ok, this is actually a great question to raise and a valid criticism. Again, would such a campaign under present conditions actually aid the struggle or is it just a mechanical tactic by this group?


As to the other part of your comment, I feel compelled to ask: If the goal is not to win, then: a) what is the point of running at all, Read their paper, they say they want to win voters away from the Democrats and Republicans (protest vote) and promote working class politics and the ideas that worker self-organization to actively take on the system of capitalism is ultimately needed (propaganda). You can read it above where I quoted their statement.


and b) what makes you think anyone is going to take your organization seriously if you cannot even take your own work seriously? It's one thing to not expect to win an electoral race; it's another thing entirely to make that lack of confidence in your own abilities an integral part of your campaign.What's the point of writing a book about working class history if you don't think it will be a best-seller - don't you take your work seriously?

I think they can take their campaign seriously without seriously trying to win the horse-race. They could seriously want to damage the Democrat's monopoly on working class issues, they could seriously use debates and free mainstream press coverage to pose left-wing alternatives to what the Democrats and Republicans offer.


Because the "party" model used by self-described socialists and communists throughout the late-19th and 20th centuries was alien to the proletariat. It was modeled on the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts of political parties, where the organization achieved its goals by taking power in its own name, not by seeing its program put into effect by the working class. Again, strawman in this context. We agree on the uselessness of democratic socialism and the centrality of socialism from below, this is not a question. The SWP is not stating anything about wanting to "give socialism" to the working class. Maybe their strategy is useless but it's dishonest to say that their strategy is parlementary socialism.



Again, ICWUDT. The point NHIA was making is that workers will move into struggle whether or not this or that leftist publication is haranguing them to do so. I hate it when self-appointed revolutionaries speak for workers. :P

Ok seriously, this is the same fetishism of the party that NHIA was doing. If workers debate each-other or write different opinions on political questions, they are workers, but if they print these things or create pamphlets doing the same thing, or if they organize together around certain shared ideas... they are magically placed outside of the class struggle?


They are compelled into action by their material conditions, not "good" ideas printed in a magazine or newspaper. Yes they are compelled into action by material conditions of capitalism, without that nothing else matters.


Those who do begin moving after coming into contact with a publication or organization were already looking for an avenue of activity; it is not that they weren't thinking about it until they picked up their first copy of Socialist Worker or Workers' Republic or The Militant, etc.Exactly, but it is a give and take relationship as subjective factors, what's going in in the class struggle, what the ruling class is doing, etc play into how people perceive and react to the objective conditions of the system at any given time.

You can't simultaneously claim that "good ideas" don't matter while "bad ideas" (like your argument about Wisconsin) do - that's just crazy dissonance and illogical.


It is not organization that is the problem. It is what those organizations actually fight for that becomes the problem. If the raison d'etre for a party is taking power in its own name, regardless of whether or not it does so "for the benefit of the working class", that is a party whose method and practice is inherently alien to the proletariat. Yup. Agree 100% and I even know that french phrase.


Organization is needed. Organization matters. If there had been better organization in Tahrir Square, perhaps the Egyptian revolutionary democrats would not still be fighting with the military. If there had been better organization in Libya, perhaps the opposition would not have sold themselves to NATO and become their proxy. Agree.


Ooooooooor,...

It is an attempt to understand the changes in material conditions in this beginning of the 21st century, how those changes have affected the old ways of conducting activity, and what new methods, strategies and tactics are needed.But he didn't make any argument about how these objective conditions have made a protest candidate obsolete - he made a straw-man case against socialism won through the ballot box or pleading with the ruling class.


It is truly unfortunate that critical thinking by a working-class person is met with such crass condescension and mockery. Again how am I somehow magically NOT a worker. And have you ever used the internet - mockery in a debate heaven forfend! I find it condescending that I am not a worker in your formulation where only people with certain viewpoints are "legitimate workers".

I have no interest in "shutting down workers" who ask uncomfortable questions, I'm just against misrepresenting the positions of other groups when there are plenty of real questions that could be asked. Critical thinking can't be based on misinformation - and misrepresenting the positions or tactics of other groups is a barrier to working class critical thinking. Capitalist politics lie and misrepresent because they don't care if workers have the best and most accurate information possible - in fact they want to prevent that!


If the SWP platform for this Congressional Race is anything like past campaigns, the only people they will "make positive suggestions" to, "encourage and assist", and "help point out the way forward to" will be the other bourgeois politicians. SWP platforms have traditionally been little more than left-liberalism with a couple boilerplate phrases about "socialism" tagged on at the end. Honestly, it's hard to tell the difference between a platform by the SWP or some other groups and a platform by Dennis Kucinich or John Conyers.These are critical questions and I hope this conversation heads in this direction and leaves the lazy straw-men arguments behind. I don't know much about the history of the SWP in recent decades and so it would be interesting to hear some discussion of this stuff.

[Jimmie Higgins]

President Obama wants to tax the rich ffs and you call it a fucking "propagandistic" slogan that socialists should use? Are you fucking kidding me?So you bought his rhetoric about being against the wars too? Are anti-war protesters just supporting Obama when they say they are against the war?

Here's a hint: Democrats often say one thing to their working-class supporters and then do the opposite.

In this case, this weak rhetoric is only been backed up by token publicity stunts - in addition Obama's argument is not "Tax the rich" INSTEAD of austerity, he is making a "shared sacrifice" argument and his "close loopholes" bullshit is really just to win some support among the population for the Democrats being allowed to peruse austerity.

There may come a time when, pushed by the threat of revolt from below, the Democrats ACTUALLY begin to back up some of their token rhetoric with real reforms - so if this was the eve of WWII and FDR was proposing popular reforms like Tax the Rich and so on, then that would be a time not to support this demand because it would be a passive demand that doesn't help people keep pushing forward.


"Tax the rich!" Okay, let's say it happens. Then what? Let's say it doesn't. Then what? It's a dead end slogan, an end in itself, it's status quo liberalism. It offers no way forward whatsoever and simply makes everyone bow down to congress, who the demand is obviously directed towards. Same exact thing with "troops out now!"These are not slogans directed at congress.


EDIT: Wanted to add another point. So your slogan is "Tax the rich!" The obvious question that follows is "How much?" So how much does a revolutionary socialist organization think the rich should be taxed? Perhaps we should change the slogan to "Tax those earning over $250,000 annually at a 50% rate!" The difference, then, between the revolutionary socialist organization's "propaganda" and Obama is merely a quantitative one. You simply have different opinions on what is "fair". The significant point is that your positions are so similar that you're squabbling over numbers, 30% and 50% perhaps. Maybe the only difference between being a servant of a bourgeois state and a revolutionary socialist is a further 20% income tax increase on high income households?What the hell are you talking about. You are making shit up. Tax the rich is not "my slogan" first of all and I don;'t know where you pulled these numbers from. Second, "tax the rich" as a propagandistic slogan is not offering up policy it is a response to austerity. Both parties say, we have no money and we have to cut services... workers should respond, take it from the top, don't make us pay for your crisis.


I had a longer post but decided to edit it down as this one single quote sums up Higgins' entire post, and outlook.Calling people with different opinions on struggle or tactics "liberals" - how old-school Stalinist of you.

[Martin Blank]

So I'm not a worker - worker status is only granted by you for people who have positions you agree with? I'm not a worker - tell that to my boss that just cut my hours here on the graveyard shift.

I did not say that. Not at all. I know enough about you from your posts here to know better than that, and I apologize if I came off as saying that. The point I was trying to make is that those of us who are in organizations (i.e., who are seen as "leftists"), should not be shutting down other class-conscious workers just because we disagree with them or find their questions uncomfortable. If anything, it means we should be listening harder.


No, NHIA is misrepresenting the tactics and goal of the SWP. This has nothing to do with the question of if the SWP's tactic is useful or not - there are plenty of useful and real questions to be raised and debated.

I don't think the issue is whether or not the SWP thinks they'll be elected. They know they won't. Every morsel of their electoral strategy screams, "We will fail!" (their unwillingness to seek out registered voters to sign their petitions; their use of ineligible candidates, due to age or citizenship status; and so on). The issue here is the platform they are presenting in this electoral campaign, specifically the reformist demands that are put forward as "revolutionary" by the SWP. If the SWP was running on a really revolutionary platform, then this part of the discussion would probably not be happening.


No there is no value to it and I'd contend that I'm 95% certain that the SWP has the same attitude.

That's a strawman argument against the SWP in this case unless the SWP's strategy was to promote and organize leftist politics by gaining electoral positions and using the power of these positions to make change.

If that is the SWP's position, please post links or quotes from them and explain that. Otherwise I will take them at their word about why they are putting themselves on the ballot.

Again, I don't think the SWP's view on being elected is the issue here, and I don't think NHIA was making that suggestion, either. Actually, I think the strawman argument here is the one suggesting that NHIA is contending that the SWP has a "run to win" electoral strategy. I think he knows better than that, especially since he was in their youth organization for a time.


In other words they are using an electoral platform for propaganda purposes - hey even if you want to be completely cynical about it you can say they are fielding a candidate just to raise their own profile. Maybe it's a good strategy maybe a bad one, but you and NHIA are falsely conflating this strategy with democratic socialism. As in below:

Yeah asking the ruling class to be nice won't do anything. If you want to debate this, then we have no argument.

But what does a strategy of socialist reforms through electoralism have to do with trying to rally working class people to more forward demands? What does this have to do with the SWP running a protest candidate?

Again, the issue is their platform, not necessarily their running of candidates. The issue is that they normally do not run on "socialist reforms", but rather on capitalist reforms.


Do you honestly believe that these radicals are raising these demands hoping that the ruling class will take the advice - or, are these slogans attempts to rally people around alternative ideas to the mainstream capitalist arguments?

It's a strawman.

I am sure the SWP sees it as the latter. The problem is that their demands do not advance an alternative that goes beyond capitalism. There is a little boilerplate about "building a revolutionary movement", but the demands themselves do not stray far from those of liberal Democrats (e.g., "Defend Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!"). (Quotes taken from the 2008 SWP platform, which is probably the best one I've seen from them in nearly 20 years.)


I went to public school in the US, I don't know what Que Faire is referencing. But other than that, another great question - what tactics are best suited for the objective conditions we face.

"Que faire?" means "What is to be done?" Just FYI.


Without arguing for or against this particular SWP tactic, I'd argue that objective conditions have not changed so that the subjective actions of workers trying to promote radical ideas is a futile effort. The crisis of capitalism, the attacks from above, anger from below, and horribly low level of working class organization suggests to me that it is possible to make a larger impact with radical ideas right now because politics are in flux and the Democrats have exposed themselves as equal-partner war-mongers and austerity-pushers.

On this we agree, though I would go so far as to say they should be more than radical; they should be a revolutionary political platform, not just a spiced-up version of the same old reform demands (with a little "socialism" sprinkled on top). As I mentioned in my last post, I think Wisconsin exposed this problem, and it led directly to the workers' defeat. I'll summarize our view:

While the general strike slogan was a correct one to raise, it needed to be coupled with a political strategy of which the strike would be a key component. More to the point, there was a dire need for a concrete political platform of action that went beyond "join our organization and build socialism". But the entire struggle was kept confined to the economic arena, even though the "bosses" being fought were the political representatives of the ruling classes, defended by the armed bodies of the state. Like we said in one of our articles on Wisconsin, this was like going to Brewer Stadium to watch the Packers play. The failure of the self-described socialist and communist organizations to put forward a common political platform left a vacuum that the Democrats were quick to fill with their dead-end recall/election strategy. And we've all since seen how well that worked out (the Prosser-Kloppenburg race).

When we talk about changed material conditions, this is an excellent example of what we're talking about. These struggles involving public-sector workers appear on the surface to be economic, but the struggle itself is fundamentally political, since the antagonist is the capitalist government and state. That requires more than the same old economic slogans and demands; it requires a political perspective that overarches the relatively narrow economic struggle. The class struggle is a political struggle, and the events in Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, California, New York and other states have made that abundantly clear.


Again, if you want to debate the efficacy of running a protest candidate, then that's a major open question. But saying that the SWP is acting against it's stated reasons for fielding a candidate means the burden of proof is on you to show how this is a lie and they actually want to win electoral power and reform the system or that they are somehow trying to ask the ruling class to ease up a little.

But here's the thing, Jimmie: Neither I nor NHIA is really arguing about "the efficacy of running a protest candidate". We can argue about that, but in another thread. What's being raised here, by both of us, is that they are "running a protest candidate" on a reformist platform, which is a real waste of resources for a self-described communist party.


If a segregationist party was running, had no chance of winning but was able to gain a large platform for their ideas, would you think people would be wrong to protest? If you don't think fascists should have a platform, then it cuts both ways and gaining propaganda platforms for pro-working class demands and so on may also have an impact. It won't mean much in the absense of relating to actual workers struggles or social movements and it's not decisive, but these are questions of under what conditions a protest candidate could make an impact.

Again, you're making this out to be about the validity of running candidates, which I've pointed out was not the issue.


Ok, this is actually a great question to raise and a valid criticism. Again, would such a campaign under present conditions actually aid the struggle or is it just a mechanical tactic by this group?

For the SWP, it's a mechanical tactic. They run candidates at every opportunity they can. They don't bother to ever explain why it's important, in their view, to run candidates; they just run them. And to make matters worse, they don't even really take it seriously. The SWP has elevated the "run to lose" strategy to an art form. They proved that when they ran a naturalized citizen and a twenty-something for president and vice-president in 2008. That campaign was failtastic!


Read their paper, they say they want to win voters away from the Democrats and Republicans (protest vote) and promote working class politics and the ideas that worker self-organization to actively take on the system of capitalism is ultimately needed (propaganda). You can read it above where I quoted their statement.

I've read their statement, too. Like I said, it's really just boilerplate and routine for them to include those phrases. It's probably also boilerplate for the SWP to toss in those reformist demands, too. So, take it as you will.


What's the point of writing a book about working class history if you don't think it will be a best-seller - don't you take your work seriously?

What's the point of writing a book if you don't think anyone should really read it? That's a more proper analogy here.


I think they can take their campaign seriously without seriously trying to win the horse-race. They could seriously want to damage the Democrat's monopoly on working class issues, they could seriously use debates and free mainstream press coverage to pose left-wing alternatives to what the Democrats and Republicans offer.

But that, again, is more like a "run-to-win" strategy -- where you take the electoral campaign seriously and present yourself as a viable candidate. Believe me, it works much better for mobilizing working people than does a "placeholder" or "run-to-lose" campaign. I've worked enough political campaigns (as CM or chief strategist) to know the effectiveness of each method.


Again, strawman in this context. We agree on the uselessness of democratic socialism and the centrality of socialism from below, this is not a question. The SWP is not stating anything about wanting to "give socialism" to the working class. Maybe their strategy is useless but it's dishonest to say that their strategy is parliamentary socialism.

Not a strawman, but a tangent. You had asked:


So leftists are outside of class society? So subjective action plays no part in class struggle - so then why the fuck do you care what "parties" do since if they can't effect the class struggle in anyway, what harm do they do?

I was responding to this statement with my comment on party models. It was not meant as a specific jab at the SWP or any other party, but rather a general remark that many self-described socialist and communist parties resemble.


I hate it when self-appointed revolutionaries speak for workers. :P

Bite me. :D I've known NHIA for six years, and I discuss these issues regularly with him (along with about a hundred others!). I think I have a sense of on what track we can find his train of thought.


Ok seriously, this is the same fetishism of the party that NHIA was doing. If workers debate each-other or write different opinions on political questions, they are workers, but if they print these things or create pamphlets doing the same thing, or if they organize together around certain shared ideas... they are magically placed outside of the class struggle?

No, and I don't think NHIA was making that statement, either. What each of us was getting at, AFAIK, was what you agreed with in the next two sentences, viz.:


Yes they are compelled into action by material conditions of capitalism, without that nothing else matters.

and


Exactly, but it is a give and take relationship as subjective factors, what's going in in the class struggle, what the ruling class is doing, etc play into how people perceive and react to the objective conditions of the system at any given time.

That's the point of the passage. There is a give and take -- i.e., a relationship between the worker looking for methods of struggle and his or her interaction with workers' organizations -- but it stems from the development of material conditions that compel workers into struggle.


You can't simultaneously claim that "good ideas" don't matter while "bad ideas" (like your argument about Wisconsin) do - that's just crazy dissonance and illogical.

And I'm not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that it's a matter of the development that stems from material conditions, and how the experiences within those material conditions affect both the consciousness and activity of the working class -- both in the sense of what compels them into activity, and how it is affected by their initial interactions with workers' organizations. The subjective factor gives form and direction to the objective tendency toward action; that is the "give and take" between organization and class. But the organization is not the motivator for taking action.


Yup. Agree 100% and I even know that french phrase.

Agree.

Very glad to hear it.


But he didn't make any argument about how these objective conditions have made a protest candidate obsolete - he made a straw-man case against socialism won through the ballot box or pleading with the ruling class.

NHIA likes to draw out a series of questions before getting to the main point. If I was unkind, I'd call it "sandbagging". But it's a method of debate that actually works well in a situation where there is an attempt to achieve clarity. Unfortunately, it seems that the gear didn't catch.


Again how am I somehow magically NOT a worker.

Again, not what I said. See above.


And have you ever used the internet - mockery in a debate, heaven forbid!

I know how the Internetz works. But I am of the opinion that, when workers of different political trends are talking (yes, that includes you!), we should avoid the kind of debating tactics that are more suited to the exploiting and oppressing classes. Mockery, condescension, humiliation, ridicule -- these are the tools the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie use to break workers down, whether on the job, in our communities, or online. We shouldn't be bringing those elements into conversations among fellow workers. We are better than that, and should treat our brothers and sisters as such. Non-workers, on the other hand,...


I find it condescending that I am not a worker in your formulation where only people with certain viewpoints are "legitimate workers".

**Sigh!**

I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!
I WASN'T IMPLYING YOU WEREN'T A WORKER, AND I'M SORRY YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY!

Is that enough? Or do I have to copy-paste more mea culpae for you?


I have no interest in "shutting down workers" who ask uncomfortable questions, I'm just against misrepresenting the positions of other groups when there are plenty of real questions that could be asked. Critical thinking can't be based on misinformation - and misrepresenting the positions or tactics of other groups is a barrier to working class critical thinking. Capitalist politics lie and misrepresent because they don't care if workers have the best and most accurate information possible - in fact they want to prevent that!

And, once again, I don't believe there was being presented a strawman here. I seriously think you misunderstood what was being questioned. So let's see if we can bring down the noise-to-signal ratio here and talk more about electoral tactics and platform in this period, as well as any changes that need to be made in strategy and tactics in general (or should the latter be more for a separate thread?)


These are critical questions and I hope this conversation heads in this direction and leaves the lazy straw-men arguments behind. I don't know much about the history of the SWP in recent decades and so it would be interesting to hear some discussion of this stuff.

Agreed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, if that's what NHIA is saying then I was completely misreading his statement. I was going off of lines like:


Is that why schools are closing, real wages are falling, unemployment is rising, and the "social welfare" model is disintegrating? Or is it because the people in political office are just "bad" guys or are making "bad" decisions?
Suggesting that the SWP's strategy was to "replace" the "bad politicians" and bring socialism from above.

I still think that using any means at our disposal for workers to rally and organize together (as long as the means further the struggle) are valid, including protest candidates. As for this particular case, while there is a big ideological gap that revolutionary workers could wedge themselves into in order to show the common ruling class strategy of both parties and be a sort of it doesn't really seem to be connected to any real class forces or movements. From what I've heard of the SWP, they have kind of entrenched themselves into a few industries so it doesn't really make sense for them to run a protest candidate that is not part of a larger movement that could maybe argue that voting for the candidate would show workers that there is a core of people out there drawing a line in the sand and not settling for the BS told to us by both parties of capitalism and austerity. So without knowing more of the SWP's reasoning, the candidacy seems like sort of a shot in the dark.

[Martin Blank]

Ok, if that's what NHIA is saying then I was completely misreading his statement. I was going off of lines like:

Suggesting that the SWP's strategy was to "replace" the "bad politicians" and bring socialism from above.

I can understand the misunderstanding. Reform demands, by their very nature, imply a belief that their advocates can manage capitalism better than those in power. And that's where the confusion sets in: on the one hand, you have the organization raising these reform demands (and implying without saying that they can do a better job managing capitalism), and, on the other hand, the organization insists it is doing it to "build socialism". The proverbial square peg in the round hole. A revolutionary organization, if they are to run candidates, should run on a revolutionary platform. Even if they don't win, they have at least devoted their time and resources to more than a string of reform demands with a lead "socialism" plum-bob at the bottom.


I still think that using any means at our disposal for workers to rally and organize together (as long as the means further the struggle) are valid, including protest candidates. As for this particular case, while there is a big ideological gap that revolutionary workers could wedge themselves into in order to show the common ruling class strategy of both parties and be a sort of it doesn't really seem to be connected to any real class forces or movements. From what I've heard of the SWP, they have kind of entrenched themselves into a few industries so it doesn't really make sense for them to run a protest candidate that is not part of a larger movement that could maybe argue that voting for the candidate would show workers that there is a core of people out there drawing a line in the sand and not settling for the BS told to us by both parties of capitalism and austerity. So without knowing more of the SWP's reasoning, the candidacy seems like sort of a shot in the dark.

I sorta think that sums up the SWP's overall strategy fairly well.

[Delenda Carthago]

I think people need to study a lil bit Lenin on Leftism. Because its kinda funny to be pretty much nobody and want to achieve everything within a blink of the eye. Its really fucked up to live in a country that might bankrupt because THE DEMOCRATS(and not the working class movements) cannot put just a lil bit taxes on the really really rich and still not feel satisfied with a struggle to tax the rich. Thats not dialectic and not cool...

[Obs]

ITT: short term gains for the working class are incompatible with revolution.

Not saying the SWP is hot shit, but of all the things you could criticise them for...

[KC]

So you bought his rhetoric about being against the wars too? Are anti-war protesters just supporting Obama when they say they are against the war?

Ah so you actually mean it when you say that you want to increase taxes on the rich:


Second, "tax the rich" as a propagandistic slogan is not offering up policy it is a response to austerity.

Oh, nevermind, I guess you don't. So it's a meaningless slogan then. That's the definition of opportunism.


Calling people with different opinions on struggle or tactics "liberals" - how old-school Stalinist of you.

I called it opportunist, not liberal.

[Revy]

I agree that "tax the rich" is reformist in a particularly reformist way because it sounds like it's suggesting our goal should be to somehow reduce class disparity through progressive taxation. The disparity between the rich and the working class will always exist under capitalism.

When socialist groups say "tax the rich" it is because it sounds more palatable than a real anti-capitalist demand. Just like "Bail out the people" after the bailouts. They never seemed to think about what the hell "bail out the people" meant.

[Coggeh]

Before i make my point i just want to say i know very little of the ISO or the SWP(US).
The point i wish to raise is I think something comrades are seriously misunderstanding(if its the case they aren't and their criticisms lie only with the SWP then fair enough).

KC:

So your slogan is "Tax the rich!" The obvious question that follows is "How much?" So how much does a revolutionary socialist organization think the rich should be taxed? Perhaps we should change the slogan to "Tax those earning over $250,000 annually at a 50% rate!" The difference, then, between the revolutionary socialist organization's "propaganda" and Obama is merely a quantitative one. You simply have different opinions on what is "fair". The significant point is that your positions are so similar that you're squabbling over numbers, 30% and 50% perhaps. Maybe the only difference between being a servant of a bourgeois state and a revolutionary socialist is a further 20% income tax increase on high income households?
I think problem your raising is of great significance to workers organisations in the current moment in time. Several organisations have come out saying "raise taxes on the rich" "make a wealth asset tax" " a tax of 2 percent could create so many jobs" etc. I think there is a problem with doing this but also a problem with not doing this.

1) Organisations that pose this, many do so in a completely reformist fashion. They call for taxes but then quickly run into walls against well formulated capitalist arguments about flight of capital etc etc. Keynesian style "new deal" economics break down pretty fast when one is debating against a capitalist economist. And so this is the incorrect method, not only are you distorting your views and providing reformist ideas as solutions but such ideas and arguments when easily discredited economically ( and i mean easily) tell workers their is no solution.

2) By not using these key points and not using a kind of stepping stone logic with regards demands then you best hang up your coat because your simply not useful to the working class. The demands of higher taxation on the rich, universal healthcare, fighting against cuts and austerity measures are the real issues of the day. There was no time warp where workers consciousness suddenly is equipped to demand a complete expropriation of the wealth and placing the means of production in the hands of workers.


So.
We have to fight for the simplest of reforms and call for the simplest of reforms but also linking them to higher phase of action and ideas. When workers win reforms they don't become docile they become stronger. They gain confidence in their power to stop the cuts, to fight against job losses and attacks on wages. The key thing holding back the workers movement in many countries is not bloody reforms that make them say " ah sure we got our medical card back, lets stop fighting" its the complete lack of political leadership from the bureaucratic trade unions.
We must use these slogans and demands but we cannot fall into the trap of reformism or hold any faith that such taxation provide a solution but we have to use them as political demands. Showing workers the mass inequality in society, showing workers what it would mean if the rich were taxed just the tiny bit but also tell people that their is no solution based within the capitalist system. That the problems of the day are inherent flaws of the market economy and for any solution capitalism must be done away with and only a socialist society could provide the solution to the crisis.

[Coggeh]

Oh, nevermind, I guess you don't. So it's a meaningless slogan then. That's the definition of opportunism.

It is only meaningless if you actually mean it as a solution. As a transitional demand is very much useful to a revolutionary party.

[Martin Blank]

It is only meaningless if you actually mean it as a solution. As a transitional demand is very much useful to a revolutionary party.

What is the point of raising a slogan or demand if it is not meant to be a "solution" (i.e., is not meant to be fulfilled)? That just sounds like IRL trolling to me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the point of raising a slogan or demand if it is not meant to be a "solution" (i.e., is not meant to be fulfilled)? That just sounds like IRL trolling to me.

If the slogan is a response to the capitalists demands for austerity I don't see how this is not a useful propagandistic slogan. When the capitalists say "there is no alternative" to cutbacks and austerity, workers movements can respond "chop from the top" or "tax the rich" in opposition to raising tuition or bus fees or attacks on collective bargining.

"Tax the Rich" is not the answer to the question, "how does the capitalist economy solve the crisis" as a Keynesian would use it, it's an answer to the things like, "but we can't pay you pensions unless you take these cuts".

Arguing "tax the rich" in 2004 would be much different than making that argument now when it is a counter to all the propaganda that workers are getting about how there is no money and the government "lives beyond it's means" by giving people pensions and whatnot. Defeating these myths would help workers to not feel defensive about fighting union battles and defending their pensions and whatnot.

I don't think socialists in the anti-war movement believe that protests will end a war... but protests can help build a movement that could make an impact on the war by rallying anti-war workers to take more serious actions like using their labor power to protest the war.

[HEAD ICE]

If the slogan is a response to the capitalists demands for austerity I don't see how this is not a useful propagandistic slogan. When the capitalists say "there is no alternative" to cutbacks and austerity, workers movements can respond "chop from the top" or "tax the rich" in opposition to raising tuition or bus fees or attacks on collective bargining.

"Tax the Rich" is not the answer to the question, "how does the capitalist economy solve the crisis" as a Keynesian would use it, it's an answer to the things like, "but we can't pay you pensions unless you take these cuts".

Arguing "tax the rich" in 2004 would be much different than making that argument now when it is a counter to all the propaganda that workers are getting about how there is no money and the government "lives beyond it's means" by giving people pensions and whatnot. Defeating these myths would help workers to not feel defensive about fighting union battles and defending their pensions and whatnot.

I don't think socialists in the anti-war movement believe that protests will end a war... but protests can help build a movement that could make an impact on the war by rallying anti-war workers to take more serious actions like using their labor power to protest the war.

I don't think that is a good slogan. That basically turns austerity into a crisis of leadership rather than a crisis of capital. Yeah, obviously we can continue paying out pensions if we raise taxes on the rich. But the reason why that isn't being done isn't because leaders haven't been held accountable or that the government is mean. For capitalism to resist going into crisis it needs profits, and a quick and easy way to do that is taking it from the working class.

[Coggeh]

What is the point of raising a slogan or demand if it is not meant to be a "solution" (i.e., is not meant to be fulfilled)? That just sounds like IRL trolling to me.
It is a political demand. It raisies the idea among workers that a) we should not pay for they're crisis b)the rich should pay but a and b always need to be followed by c) no solution on the basis of capitalist reforms.

Take the scenario of a health protest, its no good to show up to workers calling for an end to capitalism as the only solution within pointing to the immediate reforms. Such a call would only deter workers in which case they would react by saying 2 things: Ya like thats going to happen anytime soon and I'm not a socialist!. We need to point the way forward both for the future (an end to capitalism) and the immediate( an end to the cuts, calls for a universal health care system etc).

[KC]

Except for the fact that a) and b) are "solutions on the basis of capitalist reforms."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's kind of strange for Jimmie to portray his off-topic response to my post as a misunderstanding of my position, since we've already had this same discussion before, more than once.

You can read it (and my arguments against reformism in leftist activism) in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/iso-challenges-wwp-t150897/index.html) (pages 5-7), so I won't bother making the same arguments here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think that is a good slogan. That basically turns austerity into a crisis of leadership rather than a crisis of capital. Yeah, obviously we can continue paying out pensions if we raise taxes on the rich. But the reason why that isn't being done isn't because leaders haven't been held accountable or that the government is mean. For capitalism to resist going into crisis it needs profits, and a quick and easy way to do that is taking it from the working class. Any strike - wildcat and spontanious to top-down union controlled is workers negotiating the terms of their own exploitation - in the abstract that is refomism. But strikes potentially help workers learn and organize themselves and can help put the working class in better footing under capitalism. An anti-austerity or anti-budget cut movement can also help organize people to resist and learn about how the state and the capitalist act and what their interests are. "Tax the Rich" in that context of workers in Wisconsin whose "high wages and entitlements" are being scapegoated for the state budget crisis. Here in California, a Democratic Governor is proposing regressive taxation as a source of new revenue and as the alternative to cuts on workers - he knows it's a doomed strategy and then he can say he has no choice but to cut workers. "Tax the rich" is a useful, if shallow, answer to this that fits onto a sign and speaks to the real experience of many workers right now who are not fully class-conscious but are angry and want to fight. I think in non-revolutionary times - and especially in the situation like in the US where there is very low organization and low fight-back - radicals should be helping to get people to take self-action and help those who are already trying to fight. Without fightback I think most workers will probably just be pushed more into the capitalist camp and consciousness. With both Democrats and Republicans saying "the country is broke and you are going to have to make some sacrifices" - not trying to mount some kind of defense just causes workers to fight over crumbs amongst each-other.

So what's the alternative strategy? I've heard people argue that this isn't effective, well let's be constructive about it - what kinds of demands in the absence of a working class movement should radical call for, what should they be arguing to the small protests and budget-cut or anti-war coalitions?


It's kind of strange for Jimmie to portray his off-topic response to my post as a misunderstanding of my position, since we've already had this same discussion before, more than once. Do you want an apology? I'm sorry for misinterpreting your posts. I was harsh because I thought you were consciously misrepresenting the positions of a group you disagree with and I was wrong about that.

In my defense, the first post was vague and suggested, to me, a troll-y one-liner about how the SWP thought that winning office is the road to revolution and the second post was a list of rhetorical questions that I misread as a straw-man argument about the SWP strategy. When you said, "is the goal replacing bad politicians" I thought you were speaking directly to the SWP strategy. Simple as that. Please see the exchange I had with Miles and don't imply I am being untruthful.

[Soldier of life]

I have heard about the SWP, that apparently has a small and declining membership number and has taken a generally cultist (I mean, uhm workerist) turn in the past decades.

Yet I was baffled to see that this small party still managed to gather so many signatures (over 7000!) in just four days for a special New York U.S. House race It seems now that the SWP will be the only third party on the ballot, except if the Green Party fields a candidate.

My question is just, how did they pull this off?


Can't post links yet, but for more info just go to ballot-access.org or the website of the Militant.

7,000! They must all be closet socialists and the SWP are on the rise!

[Fopeos]

I've been a subscriber to the Militant for for over 10 years. It's a great source for news on the international class-struggle. The SWP is for a Bolshevik strategy of trying to put members into union jobs to agitate and advance the interests of all workers. They also throw their support to many progressive actions like strikes, defense of abortion clinics, and immigrant rights rallies. I've attended some of their "labor forums" and participated in a march or two with them. They participate in elections to present a working-class alternative and get more people talking about socialism. It's just using the political space that's available. I think the whole "tax the rich" thing is about placing the burden of capitalisms crises on the capitalists themselves. Plus, workers like to hear that sort of thing. They are for international revolution and not reform.
I'm not a member of SWP but i do believe they do some good to further our cause.

[redhotpoker]

I Realize that this topic is a little old but I just want to point out that "Tax The Rich!" has to my knowledge never been one of the SWP's slogans.
However, "Higher taxes or layoffs of
teachers? A fake trade-off" is one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As noted recently, the SWP is notorious for its "enraged liberalism," which stems from the absence of any sort of substantive political program.

EDIT: Wrong party, US vs. UK, my apologies.

[Q]

As noted recently, the SWP is notorious for its "enraged liberalism," which stems from the absence of any sort of substantive political program.

True, only that this thread is about the US SWP and Macnair was talking (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2011/08/23/cu-2011-the-cpgb-draft-programme/) about the UK one ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ My apologies to the US SWP posters in this thread. :(

[Hit The North]

^^^ My apologies to the US SWP posters in this thread. :(

You should be apologising to the SWP (UK) for your slander. :glare:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's not my "slander"; I merely quoted someone else's criticism (Q's link). And no, that wasn't "gossip" or "rumour," but a substantive criticism.

[Q]

You should be apologising to the SWP (UK) for your slander. :glare:

As DNZ noted it flows from some serious criticism of the explicit anti-programmatic stance of the SWP. In short summary Macnair makes the case that a reformistic parties can work perfectly well without a programme, because it merely reflects the conditions of "what is possible" within the framework of capital. A communist party however can not work without a programme, because an explicit strategy has to be pointed out against reformism, against stalinism (and more broadly bureaucratism) and for a strategy of the independent working class, organised democratically on a global level. This is what a programme does, it is indeed the core around which everything a communist party does revolves.

The SWP's lack of a programme means, according again to Macnair's argument, that it cannot but collapse into opportunism (as the leadership, not the programme, is the nexus of the party) and into "enraged liberalism" as opposed to a working class strategy.

I suppose you could hear the argument yourself in the link I posted earlier.

[Luís Henrique]

If there's a rich class, does that mean there wll be a poor class?

There is a rich class. And there is a poor class.

Luís Henrique

[Delenda Carthago]

Except for the fact that a) and b) are "solutions on the basis of capitalist reforms."
And while this society is so close to a revolution, it would be such a turnback to do so...

[Luís Henrique]

President Obama wants to tax the rich ffs

No kidding?

What leads you into the idea that Obama "wants" to tax the rich?


EDIT: Wanted to add another point. So your slogan is "Tax the rich!" The obvious question that follows is "How much?" So how much does a revolutionary socialist organization think the rich should be taxed? Perhaps we should change the slogan to "Tax those earning over $250,000 annually at a 50% rate!" The difference, then, between the revolutionary socialist organization's "propaganda" and Obama is merely a quantitative one.

How about "revert the tax cuts of the latest 30 years"? How about "for a progressive tax system"?


You simply have different opinions on what is "fair".

Well, evidently. That's the point. We are communists, we think that private property is unfair. We think that a bourgeois State is unfair. If we have a bourgeois State to protect private property, why should it be funded by the poor, when the rich are the ones benefiting from it?


The significant point is that your positions are so similar that you're squabbling over numbers, 30% and 50% perhaps. Maybe the only difference between being a servant of a bourgeois state and a revolutionary socialist is a further 20% income tax increase on high income households?

Nope, but the difference between a revolutionary socialist and a petty bourgeois philistine is that the latter always finds a "radical" justification for apathy and inaction.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

You should be apologising to the SWP (UK) for your slander. :glare:
It's only slander if it's not true.

[The Idler]

There is a rich class. And there is a poor class.

Luís Henrique
Yeah, but you'd hope that wouldn't be the case after the revolution. Hence why I used the future tense.