The Hipster Left [Archive]

jake williams

2nd November 2011, 08:14

The fact that unionized labor (in the States) makes up a laughably small fraction of the working class sort of makes it totally pointless right off the bat, I think.
Some of the greatest revolutionary surges and most important victories in working class history have followed periods of seriously low levels of unionization. Those struggles always brought workers into conflict with the more dysfunctional parts of small labour organizations, but those unions that did exist were still critically important. In fact, for most of modern capitalist history (ie. the last 200 years, say), only a tiny fraction of the working class has been organized.

:shrugs: the alternative is really that there is "no alternative". what i mean is that institutionalized organs are basically in utter rot right now and i think anybody who aligns with them is going to wind up in the dustbin of history. i think its a pipe dream to think that the "institutionalized left" which basically belongs to specific demographics, in particular the better off, stable, public and blue collar types, has any opportunity of spreading beyond those confines, and it is probably destined to collapse anyhow. the "Real alternative" is not our responsability, we are not the masterminds of history. but, we can see the real alternative emerging organically out of the rot, assemblies, the oakland "wildcat strike", etc. it is not clear what is the real alternative yet, but it is becoming quite clear that the institutionalized left is more or less taking the side of capital.
Okay, go do no alternative.

I'm fatalistic neither in the analytical sense nor in the normative sense. Workers collectively absolutely have the capacity to enact radical social change, substantively and shockingly quickly. But this doesn't happen magically or spontaneously. It happens through the messy work of real-world organization, including using what resources and institutions are available to workers, which significantly includes existing trade unions. A huge part of the slowly-emerging modernizations of labour organizing are being funded through unions. But we do actually have to do the work.

What "emerges organically out of the rot" can be pretty horrible, something history has amply demonstrated. We neither can nor should try to control history as individuals, but work we do collectively can be determinative.

black magick hustla

2nd November 2011, 08:36

Okay, go do no alternative.
everyone does

I'm fatalistic neither in the analytical sense nor in the normative sense.
me neither actually. i made fun of dnz for calling me a nihilist.

It happens through the messy work of real-world organization, including using what resources and institutions are available to workers, which significantly includes existing trade unions. messy "real world organization" is only meaningful if it is done contingent to the material conditions of the situation. there are plenty of people who have engaged in "messy real world" work and have nothing to show for it except a burnout ghetto of isolated activists.

What "emerges organically out of the rot" can be pretty horrible, something history has amply demonstrated. We neither can nor should try to control history as individuals, but work we do collectively can be determinative.

history is a terrible thing, it is a nightmare. but it is real, compared to the dreams of ideological cadre which amount to nothing

tir1944

2nd November 2011, 08:53

...and i thought "hipster communism" was a joke-tendency like anarcho-trotskysm.:laugh:

Blackscare

2nd November 2011, 09:02

I don't know much about this "hipster communism" but I do tend to avoid hipsters in real life. Not because I'm one of those doofuses that love to rant about how much they hate hipsters (or hippies, for that matter), but because I just haven't met a whole lot of them that weren't self-indulgent pricks. So I guess I sort of assume that hipsterism channeled into a leftist political discourse would leave just as bad of a taste in my mouth.

black magick hustla

2nd November 2011, 09:06

...and i thought "hipster communism" was a joke-tendency like anarcho-trotskysm.:laugh:

its half serious half real

citizen of industry

2nd November 2011, 10:12

The fact that unionized labor (in the States) makes up a laughably small fraction of the working class sort of makes it totally pointless right off the bat, I think.

And just because we don't have a ready alternative doesn't mean we should keep charging down what is clearly a dead-end road.

Unless one doesn't think it's a dead end, I guess.

Laughably small, but growing recently. It would seem the downward spiral is over. On top of that, industries that cannot be moved overseas to save labor, for example port workers, infrastructure, transportation, education, etc. are largely unionized. Take ILWU, for example. A lot of unions are endorsing OWS, many of them recently split from AFL-CIO, for example the Teamsters, and are expressing discontent with the democrats. There's a lot of potential there.

I don't understand the anti-union sentiment. If you are a worker, you don't try to organize your workplace? You just take whatever the boss dishes out because you think unions are futile?

Unions are organizations of the working class. As are parties. If you think they are "dead-ends" then what else is there? Unorganized and atomized workers. Any form of worker organization is good, especially when the majority is not organized. Fighting you employer is fighting capital, and it is a valuable experience and puts you in contact with other organized workers.

black magick hustla

2nd November 2011, 10:30

I don't understand the anti-union sentiment. If you are a worker, you don't try to organize your workplace? You just take whatever the boss dishes out because you think unions are futile?
not really. there are many reasons why some communists criticize the unions. the gist of the criticism is that unions are thoroughly integrated to the state, and that due to the nature of capital today, they are unable to be "revolutionary" (hence no strike clauses, banning of political strikes, etc). I don't think strikes need a union, and more importantly, a lot of strikes in order to make a statement have to go beyond union sanctions and become wildcat. Another argument is that unions have basically stagnated around certain layers of the working class, and it is a pipe dream to think that "casualized labor" today will go through significant unionization drive. The union leadership is more or less in bed with the bosses, perhaps the most recent example where the oct 20 street battles in athens, after the communist trade union federation PAME protected parliament against a mob of angry protesters.

Anyhow, unions are irrelevant to most people's lives. i don't get the obsession the left has with them.

Unions are organizations of the working class. As are parties. If you think they are "dead-ends" then what else is there? Unorganized and atomized workers. Any form of worker organization is good, especially when the majority is not organized. Fighting you employer is fighting capital, and it is a valuable experience and puts you in contact with other organized workers.

i don't think unions today are meant to "fight employees", at least in the west. in the U.S. unions are simply a wing of management, which pitch in on who can be employed, what are the wage raises/cuts, etc. as i said, unions are irrelevant to most people's lives, certainly people in the twentysomething age bracket.

citizen of industry

2nd November 2011, 11:36

not really. there are many reasons why some communists criticize the unions. the gist of the criticism is that unions are thoroughly integrated to the state, and that due to the nature of capital today, they are unable to be "revolutionary" (hence no strike clauses, banning of political strikes, etc). I don't think strikes need a union, and more importantly, a lot of strikes in order to make a statement have to go beyond union sanctions and become wildcat. Another argument is that unions have basically stagnated around certain layers of the working class, and it is a pipe dream to think that "casualized labor" today will go through significant unionization drive. The union leadership is more or less in bed with the bosses, perhaps the most recent example where the oct 20 street battles in athens, after the communist trade union federation PAME protected parliament against a mob of angry protesters.

Anyhow, unions are irrelevant to most people's lives. i don't get the obsession the left has with them.

i don't think unions today are meant to "fight employees", at least in the west. in the U.S. unions are simply a wing of management, which pitch in on who can be employed, what are the wage raises/cuts, etc. as i said, unions are irrelevant to most people's lives, certainly people in the twentysomething age bracket.

These are the same reasons communists have always criticized the unions. Nothing has fundamentally changed about them since Marx's day. Wildcat strikes are good things, sure, but not always possible. If you employer locks you out or replaces you, then what? If some Walmart or fast-food workers decide to wildcat and walk off the job, what do you think will happen?

No-strike clauses, prohibitions against political strikes, etc. are an obstacle, sure. But there was a time when unionizing itself was illegal (and still is in some countries), and unions managed to win first the 12 and then the 8 hour day, and two day weekends. Unions fight employers every day - look at the news, look at how many strikes are occurring right now, as we speak. What would you guess the state of class-consciousness is in Greece right now? I'd bet much better than in the US, and that is probably due to the fact that the majority of the workforce is organized.

Unions aren't a part of most workers lives, sure. But it doesn't have to be that way. It is a very easy thing to have a chat with some of your coworkers, get a union branch started and start battling your boss (of course that doesn't mean you will win, by any means).

And it is very possible for unions to be "revolutionary." Look at ILWU battling the police, standing on the tracks and blocking grain shipments. Look at the solidarity demonstrations around the globe in support of ILWU, demonstrating against Itochu HQ in Tokyo, refusing to unload scab grain shipments in Australia, Japan, etc. Look at the internationalism. Unions lending their weight to and endorsing political struggles. I know plenty of unionists who are more "revolutionary" than some socialists I know.

A big part of the problem is the disconnect between unions and socialism, that didn't used to exist to the extent it does now. Part of our task is to try and make that reconnection.

citizen of industry

2nd November 2011, 11:47

I don't think strikes need a union, and more importantly, a lot of strikes in order to make a statement have to go beyond union sanctions and become wildcat

Historically, most wildcat strikes were made by unionized workers striking against the decisions of their conservative union leadership. What makes you think non-unionized workers whom you admit unionism plays no part in their lives, will 1)organize without an organization, and then 2) go on strike

#FF0000

2nd November 2011, 14:05

These are the same reasons communists have always criticized the unions. Nothing has fundamentally changed about them since Marx's day. Wildcat strikes are good things, sure, but not always possible. If you employer locks you out or replaces you, then what? If some Walmart or fast-food workers decide to wildcat and walk off the job, what do you think will happen?

If some wal-mart or fast-food workers decided to unionize, what do you think will happen?

No-strike clauses, prohibitions against political strikes, etc. are an obstacle, sure. But there was a time when unionizing itself was illegal (and still is in some countries), and unions managed to win first the 12 and then the 8 hour day, and two day weekends

No one is denying any of this, though. What we are saying is that now the unions are just a part of capitalism. They're another part of management.

Unions fight employers every day - look at the news, look at how many strikes are occurring right now, as we speak. What would you guess the state of class-consciousness is in Greece right now? I'd bet much better than in the US, and that is probably due to the fact that the majority of the workforce is organized.

There's a lot more to it than that. I think that American unions are so small partly because the lack of class-consciousness in the first place. And whether or not unions = class consciousness, that doesn't really help us now when a lot of the workforce is extremely temporary. It isn't just retail or fast food work -- every factory and warehouse on the mountain I live on is run by a skeleton crew for most of the year, and goes and pays for temp labor when they need them. Every factory or warehouse job I've ever had was on a temporary basis with almost no chance whatsoever of ever getting in permanently.

Unions aren't a part of most workers lives, sure. But it doesn't have to be that way. It is a very easy thing to have a chat with some of your coworkers, get a union branch started and start battling your boss (of course that doesn't mean you will win, by any means).

And having a union doesn't mean you're going to start battling your boss, either. You bring up the ILWU, but they're a spectacular exception to the rule. Even in Madison, Wisconsin where the unions managed to get half the fucking city to camp outside or in the capital building of Wisconsin, the unions still agreed to take every single cut Gov. Walker proposed, and only took issue with tossing out collective bargaining.

And even in Madison, I'm not sure that most people there were union anyway.

A big part of the problem is the disconnect between unions and socialism, that didn't used to exist to the extent it does now. Part of our task is to try and make that reconnection.

No. The problem is that unions now are simply part of management, and that unions are almost completely irrelevant to virtually the entire working class -- especially the increasing number who work on a temporary basis.

You might as well try and elect socialists to congress -- you'll achieve just as much.

citizen of industry

2nd November 2011, 15:12

If some wal-mart or fast-food workers decided to unionize, what do you think will happen?

Wal-mart would probably close the damn store to keep it from being unionized, but the union workers couldn't be fired legally. If they did a wildcat Walmart would just fire them and that would be that.

No one is denying any of this, though. What we are saying is that now the unions are just a part of capitalism. They're another part of management.

Unions were always part of capitalism. But in principle they are in opposition to capital. Any gains made by the union are a loss to profits, some of the surplus value is reclaimed. There are a lot of class-collaborationist company unions, sure, but there are thousands who are not as well. It is a mistake to make a sweeping generalization and write off all unions based on the actions of the leadership of some of them, notably the high profile ones who make the media and get the scorn of the right, not the thousands of unions struggling every day who you don't hear about.

And whether or not unions = class consciousness, that doesn't really help us now when a lot of the workforce is extremely temporary. It isn't just retail or fast food work -- every factory and warehouse on the mountain I live on is run by a skeleton crew for most of the year, and goes and pays for temp labor when they need them. Every factory or warehouse job I've ever had was on a temporary basis with almost no chance whatsoever of ever getting in permanently.

This is the best justification I've heard for unionization. I'm a temp worker too, actually the company calls us "independent contractors," a loophole to avoid labor law and paying benefits. This is why I try to unionize my workplace, against union busting.

And having a union doesn't mean you're going to start battling your boss, either.

It is if you want to battle your boss. You are the union. Usually the complancency sets in only after the first collective bargaining contract is won after a hard struggle and people forget that have to keep fighting to keep/improve it.

The problem is that unions now are simply part of management, and that unions are almost completely irrelevant to virtually the entire working class -- especially the increasing number who work on a temporary basis.

Again, a sweeping generalization. In 2010, there were 11 major work stoppages involving over 1,000 workers, idling over 45,000 workers for 302,000 lost workdays. This doesn't take into account countless small strikes and work-to-rule actions. When the 2011 figures are released they will be much larger. Were these workers part of management?

The workers who are temporary, IMO, have an even greater incentive to organize, because they have less to lose. And attempts are being made to organize the "precariat," look at the U.S. Freelancer's union, Starbucks, Montpelier downtown workers union, Madison downtown workers union, Jimmy Johns, general unions, etc.

ComradeOm

2nd November 2011, 15:39

This while many groups on the traditional left are still fascinated by the idea of trade union leadership. The former base of working class power (the worker with a semi-stable position in a unionized workplace, in an institutionalized occupation) is crumbling to dustYes, the working class is facing an assault on a scale not seen in the West since the Interbellum. Lets therefore abandon the cause of organised labour!

The fundamental problem with some of the attitudes expressed in this thread is that they essentially buy into the arguments aggressively pushed by the capitalist media. Instead of seeing low union membership as a reflection of the supremacy of the bourgeoisie - and as such something to be corrected - they instead accept the premise that unions are useless and basically play a negative role in society. Instead of protesting the slump in union numbers, with the accompanying collapse of the proletariat's power, you accept the degradation of working conditions and suggest that we adjust ourselves to this reality. I mean, the notion that unions are irrelevant because their membership has withered under capitalist pressure is a simply bizarre acceptance of bourgeois hegemony*

This is despite the fact that there is no better indicator as to the relative strength of the working class in society than the power of the union movement. This is not a fetishisation of the "trade union leadership" but a simple acknowledgement that organised labour remains the best defence of worker rights and conditions. If you can't see the worth of unions then I suggest that you give up your weekends, annual holidays, minimum wage, eight hour day and any other benefit that unionised workers fought and suffered to win

Note: not revolution because that's not their role. But anyone who can stand up and argue in favour of weaker unions and intensified exploitation on the basis that it better fits their concept of a future revolution... well, they're simply ignorant dickheads

*Things that are also irrelevant: revolution, anarchism, socialism, working class militancy, communism, etc, etc

Franz Fanonipants

2nd November 2011, 16:30

i really like alt-country and i am a leftist so

La Comédie Noire

2nd November 2011, 20:47

People who hate hipsters are just mad because when they wore a fedora nobody gave a fuck.

Ele'ill

2nd November 2011, 20:53

They have their own lunch table that's invite only.

Franz Fanonipants

2nd November 2011, 21:47

People who hate hipsters are just mad because when they wore a fedora nobody gave a fuck.

hipsters have fedoras? are they 13 year old girls or

HEAD ICE

2nd November 2011, 22:50

Yes, the working class is facing an assault on a scale not seen in the West since the Interbellum. Lets therefore abandon the cause of organised labour!

This wasn't Explosive Situation's argument (I think), and neither is it mine (because I agree with it). He didn't say that because unions in contemporary society, especially in the American (and I am assuming he/she is an American) situation that unions are so meaningless that we should abandon organized workers. What he said, and I agree with 100%, is the tactic of "capturing" the unions through obtaining leadership positions.

The fundamental problem with some of the attitudes expressed in this thread is that they essentially buy into the arguments aggressively pushed by the capitalist media. Instead of seeing low union membership as a reflection of the supremacy of the bourgeoisie - and as such something to be corrected - they instead accept the premise that unions are useless and basically play a negative role in society.

Instead of taking the position that since their inception the unions were a bulwark against the bourgeoisie, the changing nature of capitalism also fundamentally changed the nature of the unions, especially in the advanced capitalist countries. In many cases unions do play outwardly negative and reactionary roles in the struggle of the class. They are not worthless - they are worse than worthless. They actively seek to crush the working class.

The "hipster communist" (my argument as well) is that when unions are extremely conservative and behave as actors of the bourgeoisie, it has nothing to do with "betrayals" of the "leadership." It has to do with the fundamental form of the union itself.

This is despite the fact that there is no better indicator as to the relative strength of the working class in society than the power of the union movement.

I don't believe this is true at all. A lot of European countries have higher unionization rates than the USA, and I don't see them any closer to "power" than us over here. Also, I don't believe union membership is necessarily a reflection of working class consciousness in general. In some instances in history, it was the rejection of the union form and the leaving of the unions that was a reflection of a high level of class consciousness. I'm speaking of the unionen and the KAPD's correct tactic of asking workers to leave the trade unions.

This is not a fetishisation of the "trade union leadership" but a simple acknowledgement that organised labour remains the best defence of worker rights and conditions. If you can't see the worth of unions then I suggest that you give up your weekends, annual holidays, minimum wage, eight hour day and any other benefit that unionised workers fought and suffered to win

You are responding to an argument with something that has nothing to do with it. The struggles won by union workers has nothing to do with criticizing the tactic of "capturing" trade union leadership.

Note: not revolution because that's not their role. But anyone who can stand up and argue in favour of weaker unions and intensified exploitation on the basis that it better fits their concept of a future revolution... well, they're simply ignorant dickheads

It isn't of arguing for "weaker unions", but a stronger working class movement. The working class is not "the unions." If you are speaking of struggling "against" the union, this is in many cases an absolute necessity. You can list the many great things workers have won through their struggles, I can also list many times the unions torpedoed the struggle of workers (one I had personal involvement in, the Los Angeles supermarket strike of 2003). Not because of "betrayal" of the union leaders, but the union form itself.

bricolage

2nd November 2011, 22:57

This is despite the fact that there is no better indicator as to the relative strength of the working class in society than the power of the union movement.
Although this isn't always the case, in 1978 union density in the UK was 58%, in Denmark and Sweden it was nearer 70%, where was the militancy though?
If you look here (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/trade-unions-around-the-world/) at the high points the top countries are all Scandinavian (and New Zealand) yet what happened there was the strong unions were amalgamated into the welfare state and even anarcho-syndicalist unions like SAC are involved in distributing state welfare funds. Only the Scandinavian countries and Belgium are seeing increases in union membership within the EU but would we say the level of working class strength is higher there than say France were density is only 9%? I mean even on that graph Greece is relatively low.

I think the point is that the 'unions are always part of the state' and the 'unions are always progressive' arguments both miss the point that they can be both. Trade unions serve both as a vehicle for struggle as well as a vehicle for pacifying struggle, while the former will be heightened during periods of low class militancy history has shown that when this translates into open labour revolt it's the second tendency that comes to prominence. Going back to my brief comment on the 1970s its hardly surprising that then Ted Heath was talking of how the problem with unions was that 'they are too weak', yet when the tide turned in favour of the neo-liberal consensus Thatcher quite clearly wanted them to be a lot weaker.

To say 'organised labour remains the best defence of worker rights and conditions' is indeed the case but the question then remains once we get past the defensive and onto the offensive, what happens then?

I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of 'weaker unions and intensified exploitation' but asking the questions of whether the same structures that worked in the past can still be put to the same use now. Trade union organised labour flourished in a manufacturing base where workers were socially and spatially seperated from their bosses, often lived in the same nearby communities, could easily identify with workers doing similar jobs and could physically envisage a practical halt to labour that would have severe economic impact upon society. The point is these conditions in many countries (especially the UK) do not exist and there is little conception of how new precarious workers can fit into this. Explosive Situation mentioned 'black market' jobs, are trade unions that rely on legal recognition going to be involved in organising off the book jobs? Even beyond that there are questions that need to be asked, why have trade unions found it so hard to organise within new service sectors? Why are they largely confined to the public sector?

There seems to be a problem with both the 'anti-union' and 'pro-union' position in that there might be something in between, especially in more 'formal' jobs for example I read this SolFed pamphlet called Workmates: direct action workplace organising on the London Underground (http://libcom.org/library/workmates-direct-action-workplace-organising-london-underground) lately that talks about being 'both inside and outside the existing union, the RMT', in which the group could organise temp workers in a way that the official union couldn't/wouldn't. Dunno really.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd November 2011, 23:28

Yes, the working class is facing an assault on a scale not seen in the West since the Interbellum. Lets therefore abandon the cause of organised labour!

Is the choice really one between "same old, same old" and "TOTAL SURRENDER TO CAPITAL"? :confused: Is that really how my post came off to people? I ask this because it seems that multiple people have commented from that angle, i.e. ES and his ilk think we should abandon the unions.

That's not my position, actually. I view unions as flawed institutions, yes, but unions also provide a forum in which to struggle for basic quality-of-life improvements. I agree with the Italian autonomists, in that every economic action is inherently political, and every successful workplace action, union authorized or not, represents a plus in labor's column and a minus in capital's column, and should therefore be supported. Unions also provide a framework in which ideas can be propagated, etc.

My first real political experience involved a strike, and my mother practically indoctrinated me with respect for unions. If people are trying to imply that I think unions are worthless, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

However, there are obvious flaws with unions. Anyone who knows anything about the trajectory of US labor history knows this. This is just in regards to present functioning unions in the United States today...when we get into the non-unionized population, we have a whole other set of problems. For one, it's extremely difficult to organize the busboys, dishwashers, valets, crewmembers, and day laborers of the world. Some (like the IWW, with Jimmy John's) have tried this, and more power to em. But for the most part, the organized left here has zero in the way of viable solutions for these people. That's the reality, and this segment of the workforce (low income, under-employed) is growing.

they instead accept the premise that unions are useless and basically play a negative role in society.

Wow, my post really did come off that way! :ohmy:

*Things that are also irrelevant: revolution, anarchism, socialism, working class militancy, communism, etc, etc

I think most of those things, as they are portrayed on this board, are indeed irrelevant. A militant working class isn't irrelevant, it can change things, even *shudder* UNIONIZED workers. We saw that in Egypt recently, with the political upheaval there. If there was a huge movement across China to achieve political and economic rights, akin to what happened in the midwest during the 1930's in the USA, that would basically be the end of the world as we know it. Yes, unions helped bring us things like the eight hour workday, that's wonderful. Sooner or later the left is going to have to realize that it in fact isn't living in the early 20th century, though, and start connecting with people's lives outside of the ideological ghetto a large number of them seem to be trapped in.

black magick hustla

3rd November 2011, 04:17

Yes, the working class is facing an assault on a scale not seen in the West since the Interbellum. Lets therefore abandon the cause of organised labour!

i can't abandon something i have never been part of, including my friends and most people of my generation.

The fundamental problem with some of the attitudes expressed in this thread is that they essentially buy into the arguments aggressively pushed by the capitalist media. Instead of seeing low union membership as a reflection of the supremacy of the bourgeoisie - and as such something to be corrected - they instead accept the premise that unions are useless and basically play a negative role in society. Instead of protesting the slump in union numbers, with the accompanying collapse of the proletariat's power, you accept the degradation of working conditions and suggest that we adjust ourselves to this reality. I mean, the notion that unions are irrelevant because their membership has withered under capitalist pressure is a simply bizarre acceptance of bourgeois hegemony*

i never accepted the "degradation" of working conditions, that is you putting words in my mouth. a lot of the oldskoolers here think that it is just a matter of talking with your pals in the workplace, and tada, we will build the one big union and we will all sing kumbayah. so easy right? then why the most degraded segments of the working class are not building this magical unions? why is it that the unions are kept in the same old industries (that where very faborable for unionization, as ES mentioned) and we don't see the servers, baristas, and cashiers, barring very specific and few exceptions, unionized? maybe the struggle has changed? maybe unions as vehicle of struggle are incompatible with this new terrible situation we are facing"

This is despite the fact that there is no better indicator as to the relative strength of the working class in society than the power of the union movement. [/qoute]
this has already been answered.

[quote] If you can't see the worth of unions then I suggest that you give up your weekends, annual holidays, minimum wage, eight hour day and any other benefit that unionised workers fought and suffered to win
again, more empty rhetoric and strawmen. first, history is not static, the capitalism of yesterday was different in some aspects as today, same with the role of unions. third, this were not gained by unions but by class struggle, whether unions have a tendency to attract the most militant sections of the class, that is another question.

Note: not revolution because that's not their role. But anyone who can stand up and argue in favour of weaker unions and intensified exploitation on the basis that it better fits their concept of a future revolution... well, they're simply ignorant dickheads
well, phew thank goodness that i dont stand for "weaker unions", because surely if that was my argument i would be an ignorant dickhead

*Things that are also irrelevant: revolution, anarchism, socialism, working class militancy, communism, etc, etc

class militancy is not irrelevant. communism, anarchism, etc, well i am happy to accept my insignificance, that is why i base my ideas on the struggle of the class and the configuration of capital here and now, not in failed attempts of reviving the old dinosaur left and its institutions.

Veovis

3rd November 2011, 04:25

I'm not thin enough to be a hipster (leftist).

ComradeOm

3rd November 2011, 09:26

I think I've addressed everything below. Please let me know if I've missed anything. ES, thanks for clarifying your position

This wasn't Explosive Situation's argument (I think), and neither is it mine (because I agree with it). He didn't say that because unions in contemporary society, especially in the American (and I am assuming he/she is an American) situation that unions are so meaningless that we should abandon organized workersAnd yet you go on to say that:

"In many cases unions do play outwardly negative and reactionary roles in the struggle of the class. They are not worthless - they are worse than worthless. They actively seek to crush the working class"

Organised labour - that is, the organisation of workers into corporate bodies for the defence/furthering of their economic interests and position - is the union movement. There is no getting away from this. That's what unionisation is. You cannot expect organised workers (or indeed any workers) to adequately defend their class interests in the absence of union structures

What he said, and I agree with 100%, is the tactic of "capturing" the unions through obtaining leadership positions.Something that I also believe is a waste of time. But then that is very different from deriding unions as being essentially reactionary bodies. That was not true a century ago and it is not true today. Even when their leaderships have abandoned their members' interests (not as common as some make out) there are obvious advantages in workers organising en masse for a collective purpose

I don't believe this is true at all. A lot of European countries have higher unionization rates than the USA, and I don't see them any closer to "power" than us over hereAnd this is the issue that most people here seem to have missed. In short: unions are not inherently revolutionary organs. They can be, in a revolutionary environment, but their fundamental purpose is not to 'put workers in power'. No one has seriously argued that for almost a century now

What unions do is defend the economic interests of their members within the workplace. Relative class strength is not a binary scenario where you have the bourgeoisie on top and the proletariat curled up in a foetal position below. There is a constantly shifting battle for power within the factory or office. The bourgeoisie is dominant, obviously, but to varying degrees. Even today, the very height of capitalist development, the position of workers in the West is infinitely stronger than that of a century ago

Most obviously this manifests itself in the reforms that the unions wrung from the capitalist state in the past century. The most significant of which I referred to in my previous post. These were not baubles given freely by a generous bourgeoisie but concessions that had to be wrenched from the capitalist class through the mass mobilisation of the working class via the union movement. A great of time and effort is today spent, largely successfully, by bourgeois parties to roll back these victories by emasculating the most obvious vehicle of working class opposition and mobilisation - the unions

A distinction completely lost in silly claims about unions 'being part of the state' or whatever. People who fail to see the importance of defending workers' rights, preferring instead to dream solely of some future revolution, are simply keyboard warriors

And, to tie this back to your statement, it is patently obvious that the strength of the union movement makes a huge difference in this area. Those "European countries" with high unionisation rates may not be about to break into revolution* but they provide better standards of living, lower inequalities, more workplace protection, etc, etc, to their workers than the 'de-unionised' (for lack of better term) US or UK. That's what they do

*Why would anyone expect that in the absence of revolutionary conditions? Unions cannot 'make' a revolution any more than a handful of bearded students can

Also, I don't believe union membership is necessarily a reflection of working class consciousness in general. In some instances in history, it was the rejection of the union form and the leaving of the unions that was a reflection of a high level of class consciousness. I'm speaking of the unionen and the KAPD's correct tactic of asking workers to leave the trade unions.Sorry, but anyone who holds the KAPD up as a model to be followed automatically loses. A revolutionary party that somehow marginalised itself in one of the most revolutionary scenarios Europe has ever witnessed is not a success story. Incidentally, the same applies to the KPD

But it is interesting to note just how many German revolutionaries had a background in the union movement. Whether or not unions are a suitable vehicle for a revolutionary proletariat - and that is a discussion worth having, with historical evidence for both positions - there is no questioning that the unions were an incubator for a whole generation of German revolutionaries

You are responding to an argument with something that has nothing to do with it. The struggles won by union workers has nothing to do with criticizing the tactic of "capturing" trade union leadership. In case you missed it, my post was more a broadside against the attitudes displayed in this thread (ie, the bizarre notion that unions have been "thoroughly integrated to the state" or the "necessity" "struggling against the union") than one specific point

It isn't of arguing for "weaker unions", but a stronger working class movementI love how you, and others, protest that you are not anti-union or "for weaker unions" and then go on to lambaste the unions as reactionary. If the latter is indeed the case then stronger unions, most obviously through broader unionisation of the working class, is in fact a Bad Thing. Your protests otherwise don't really convince

There is absolutely no contradiction between 'strong unions' and a "stronger working class movement". (Historically the two have gone hand in hand. Indeed it's almost certainly no coincidence that today the strength of both unions and the broader working class movement are both at low ebb.) There is absolutely no compulsion for people to organise in or around unions; we have other, more explicitly revolutionary, organs that are also of use. But to rail against the unions or the union "form" is at best pointless and at worst anti-worker. Like it or not, the unions remain the best defence of workers' rights that we have

To say 'organised labour remains the best defence of worker rights and conditions' is indeed the case but the question then remains once we get past the defensive and onto the offensive, what happens then?As I said above, that's an entirely different discussion, one probably best not held here. For the record, I do not think that unions will lead any revolutionary effort. That is just not their job and I am no syndicalist who believes otherwise. That said, it's likely that their role in any future revolution will be positive; in revolutionary circumstances you get revolutionary unions. Both Spain and Russia demonstrate that

A militant working class isn't irrelevantAh but is when following your argument. A tiny minority of workers, in the West at least, are overtly militant or involved in political actions against the bourgeoisie. Therefore, according to the logic of 'low union membership = irrelevancy' a militant working class is irrelevant

i can't abandon something i have never been part of, including my friends and most people of my generationThe "cause of organised labour". I don't have to have breasts to support efforts to reduce breast cancer :rolleyes:

Personally of course, I'd have loved to have had the protection of the union throughout my working life to date. It gets a bit shit working on contractor with zero job protection and the minimum of rights, you know? But then perhaps I'm just a representative of the "dinosaur left" to be pining for things that would actually make my working life better...

then why the most degraded segments of the working class are not building this magical unions? why is it that the unions are kept in the same old industries (that where very faborable for unionization, as ES mentioned) and we don't see the servers, baristas, and cashiers, barring very specific and few exceptions, unionized? maybe the struggle has changed? maybe unions as vehicle of struggle are incompatible with this new terrible situation we are facing"Or maybe, just maybe, the difficulty of starting a new union is related to the difficulties faced by current unions: unremitting hostility from a strengthened bourgeoisie backed strongly by state actions. That is, an anti-union campaign that kicked off in the early 1980s and hasn't let up since

This whole notion of 'some industries are un-unionisable' is a red herring. You can look at any industry and see the same trend of declining labour organisation. An automobile factory built today will not have a union. This isn't because building engines is somehow difficult to unionise. No, it's because the bourgeoisie is relatively far stronger - with the proletariat correspondingly weaker - than thirty years ago. Simple as

Setting up a union when the balance of power within the workplace has shifted so dramatically towards management is obviously difficult. Workers trying to organise union face intense pressure and obstruction (fully backed by the state) whether they're making coffee or German cars. But then that's the sort of nuance that you lose when you can't look further back for fear of seeing dinosaurs

this were not gained by unions but by class struggleTo be honest, I'm not sure as to whether I should let this stand without any comment. It should be so evidently inane as to not require any. And you accuse me of "empty rhetoric"?

One small question though: isn't it possible that the vehicle through which the working class struggled for these rights was actually the union? Or if they are somehow (bizarrely) completely separate then perhaps you can demonstrate how, with references to specifics, 'class struggle' won these rights? Because from my uneducated viewpoint it looks very much like the union movement was right at the forefront of the various campaigns that won the freedoms/benefits that we have today

robbo203

3rd November 2011, 10:26

I
And yet you go on to say that:

"In many cases unions do play outwardly negative and reactionary roles in the struggle of the class. They are not worthless - they are worse than worthless. They actively seek to crush the working class"

Organised labour - that is, the organisation of workers into corporate bodies for the defence/furthering of their economic interests and position - is the union movement. There is no getting away from this. That's what unionisation is. You cannot expect organised workers (or indeed any workers) to adequately defend their class interests in the absence of union structures

Absolutely correct. The need for labour to organise - and that means trade unions - is absolutely indispensable but it is also true that, in practice, the union movement also plays an "outwardly negative and reactionary roles in the struggle of the class.". The formal links that continue to exist between this movement and unambiguously capitalist political parties such as the so called "Labour" Party in Britain is an obvious case in point

And this is the issue that most people here seem to have missed. In short: unions are not inherently revolutionary organs. They can be, in a revolutionary environment, but their fundamental purpose is not to 'put workers in power'. No one has seriously argued that for almost a century now

True. This is why I consider the policy of revolutionary political organisations actively and explicitly getting involved as organisations in the nitty gritty business of trade unionism itself to be folly and counterproductive. It does nothing but to reduce the trade union movement to a political battleground for rivals sects jockeying for power and influence. Nothing wrong with individuals putting across their revolutonary ideas to fellow trade unionists on a one to one basis but what makes a trade union strong is unity and unity cannot be forged on the basis of political differences. It can come only through focussing on what workers have in common - on their particular interests in any given conflict they are embroiled in - and this calls for the setting aside of political differences in order to pursue those interests most effectively and singlemindedly

black magick hustla

3rd November 2011, 10:44

Sorry, but anyone who holds the KAPD up as a model to be followed automatically loses. A revolutionary party that somehow marginalised itself in one of the most revolutionary scenarios Europe has ever witnessed is not a success story. Incidentally, the same applies to the KPD

ill reply to the rest of your posts later, but this is an important issue to address because i think it lies in the root of our disagreements. head ice and myself have origins in the organized communist left (even if i myself broke with it), so to us it was never a question of popularity contest (i.e. being marginal or not). the "realistic" communists that "didn't marginalize" themselves ended supporting sides in WWII, that to me, was the greatest treachery of the international communist movement, and a signal of the utter defeat of the working class and the triumph of the counterrevoluion. its interesting that you talk about "marginalization" though, because you take up so strongly the cause of unions and in my opinion, that is a part of why the left is marginalized.

ComradeOm

3rd November 2011, 11:38

Well no, popularity is pretty damned important when you are a revolutionary party/group in a revolutionary scenario. If you are surrounded by a militant proletariat and you still end up isolating and marginalising yourself (as both the KPD and KAPD somehow managed to do) then it is worth questioning both your approach and ideals. The failings of others, both today and yesteryear, don't excuse this

So for example, when the KPD boycotted the first republican elections in early 1919 they were essentially cutting themselves off from all political discussion at the exact time when they should have been looking to build a mass movement to challenge the bourgeoisie. WWII was merely a reflection of the failure of the interbellum socialists to achieve this. So no, not a particularly successful strategy or something to emulate

Now I don't really care if the various communist sects indulge in glorious isolation today because they're all a useless shower of bastards anyway. That (the isolation, not the uselessness) will change as the slide into a major revolutionary crisis. Militant workers will find these parties or, if they're not to their liking, start new ones. Unions however are different: they have real responsibilities and a real role to play right now. They're far from perfect but they do represent the first line of defence against the ongoing assault on the working class. Belittling them, cutting ourselves off from them, or generally demeaning the role they play (or have played and can play) in the defence of workers' rights helps no one but the bourgeoisie

HEAD ICE

3rd November 2011, 14:07

Organised labour - that is, the organisation of workers into corporate bodies for the defence/furthering of their economic interests and position - is the union movement. There is no getting away from this. That's what unionisation is. You cannot expect organised workers (or indeed any workers) to adequately defend their class interests in the absence of union structures

And you can't expect them to win within the confines of union structures. When unions, especially in the USA, begin being dealmakers in the service of the bourgeoisie, the union presents nothing else but an obstacle. Are you going to criticize the League of Revolutionary Black Workers from Detroit who broke with the UAW because it was worse than inadequate, it was an "essentially reactionary" body?

Something that I also believe is a waste of time. But then that is very different from deriding unions as being essentially reactionary bodies. That was not true a century ago and it is not true today. Even when their leaderships have abandoned their members' interests (not as common as some make out) there are obvious advantages in workers organising en masse for a collective purpose

Here we go, betrayals of leaders. Of course there are obvious advantages in joining a union, but that depends of the situation you find yourself in. Not all unions are the same. Some unions are outwardly reactionary, others more conservative. What is being argued is that to use the trotskyist slogan "defend the gains", the unions are completely inadequate in even doing that. That the bosses and the union both are roadblocks in achieving their class demands. In fact, thinking just of the USA, I can't think of much strikes or actions under the auspices of "organized labor" that was not defeated by the union. The state doesn't bring out the national guard anymore. Why have cops when you have a union to break the strike instead? And this has nothing to do with the errors and faults of union leadership.

And this is the issue that most people here seem to have missed. In short: unions are not inherently revolutionary organs. They can be, in a revolutionary environment, but their fundamental purpose is not to 'put workers in power'. No one has seriously argued that for almost a century now

In fact, nobody, not Karl Marx no one, believed that unions could be organs of revolution, not even having "possibility."

Most obviously this manifests itself in the reforms that the unions wrung from the capitalist state in the past century. The most significant of which I referred to in my previous post. These were not baubles given freely by a generous bourgeoisie but concessions that had to be wrenched from the capitalist class through the mass mobilisation of the working class via the union movement. A great of time and effort is today spent, largely successfully, by bourgeois parties to roll back these victories by emasculating the most obvious vehicle of working class opposition and mobilisation - the unions

Thank you for reminding me of stuff that happened over a century ago. I am fully aware that the bourgeoisie never gives concessions to the workers from the kindness of their heart. I am talking about capitalism now, and what the role of unions are now. Even in the case of a strike, the biggest threat is the union and not the bosses. It is typical for unions to support piddling contracts and then declare it a victory after a majority of workers support it because they know that whatever comes next will be even worse. I saw union truck drivers (Teamsters) drive through picket lines during a grocery store strike. The effectiveness of unions today, not a hundred years ago, is drastically different.

A distinction completely lost in silly claims about unions 'being part of the state' or whatever. People who fail to see the importance of defending workers' rights, preferring instead to dream solely of some future revolution, are simply keyboard warriors

Kind of like being a social patriot and defending NATO's and the rebel's wanton killing in Libya?

*Why would anyone expect that in the absence of revolutionary conditions? Unions cannot 'make' a revolution any more than a handful of bearded students can

I don't have a beard.

Sorry, but anyone who holds the KAPD up as a model to be followed automatically loses. A revolutionary party that somehow marginalised itself in one of the most revolutionary scenarios Europe has ever witnessed is not a success story. Incidentally, the same applies to the KPD

Actually, the KAPD was just as large as the KPD and had a far greater presence and integration with the working class than the KPD. The marginalization of the KAPD coincides with the retreat of the revolutionary wave, while the KPD grew stronger in being a pro-capitalist reactionary party.

But it is interesting to note just how many German revolutionaries had a background in the union movement. Whether or not unions are a suitable vehicle for a revolutionary proletariat - and that is a discussion worth having, with historical evidence for both positions - there is no questioning that the unions were an incubator for a whole generation of German revolutionaries

True. But for my generation, the unions have not been that "incubator." The Third International has long passed comrade.

I love how you, and others, protest that you are not anti-union or "for weaker unions" and then go on to lambaste the unions as reactionary. If the latter is indeed the case then stronger unions, most obviously through broader unionisation of the working class, is in fact a Bad Thing. Your protests otherwise don't really convince

Understanding the role played by unions does not mean supporting union busting or whatever you are trying to pin on me. What I am saying is that workers militancy and consciousness exists independent of the unions. The "stronger" the union usually means the workers that make it up are more militant.

There is absolutely no contradiction between 'strong unions' and a "stronger working class movement". (Historically the two have gone hand in hand. Indeed it's almost certainly no coincidence that today the strength of both unions and the broader working class movement are both at low ebb.)

Again, you are thinking completely ahistorical. Maybe during the rise of capitalism a strong working class correlated with strong unions (strong only in the sense of membership), but capitalism has changed since the founding of the Third International. The possibility of a steady job is for many people long gone.

robbo203

3rd November 2011, 14:47

Now I don't really care if the various communist sects indulge in glorious isolation today because they're all a useless shower of bastards anyway. That (the isolation, not the uselessness) will change as the slide into a major revolutionary crisis. Militant workers will find these parties or, if they're not to their liking, start new ones. Unions however are different: they have real responsibilities and a real role to play right now. They're far from perfect but they do represent the first line of defence against the ongoing assault on the working class. Belittling them, cutting ourselves off from them, or generally demeaning the role they play (or have played and can play) in the defence of workers' rights helps no one but the bourgeoisie

Is anyone actually doing this though? I think it is quite reasonable to criticise some of the things unions are actually doing and the links they maintain with capitalist political parties such as the Labour party in the UK. Such criticism does not have to translate into belittling the unions or cutting ourselves off from them. It could actually be motivated by the desire to see the unions become much stronger and more effective in pushing our class interests in the industrial struggle. Completely breaking all links with the friggin Labour Party, for instance, would be a massive step in the right direction and frankly it couldnt come soon enough

ComradeOm

3rd November 2011, 15:57

And you can't expect them to win within the confines of union structuresExcept that people do. Seriously, I don't know whether this is a US-centric thing but I find the notion that unions are entirely useless to be bizarre. Given the current capitalist onslaught on the working class, I consider it a minor "win" when a union worker is guaranteed a decent wage and some job security because of their union membership. The contrast with non-unionised labour should be glaringly obvious - the comparison has already been made between the US and Europe. Even within the US, you really don't care that union members get paid on average about 20% more than non-unionised equivalents?

But then I increasingly find myself at odds with those who don't care about, to use your phrase, "defending the gains". As if defending workers' rights was somehow a distraction to the more serious business of revolution. They're one and the same. When a plant of twenty years is shut down so that the company can relocate and reopen a non-unionised facility, that is a blow to the workers involved and it is a blow to the working class. And that's a personal example right there

In fact, nobody, not Karl Marx no one, believed that unions could be organs of revolution, not even having "possibility."I suggest that you look up 'syndicalism'. If the idea of actual history isn't too abhorrent

Thank you for reminding me of stuff that happened over a century ago. I am fully aware that the bourgeoisie never gives concessions to the workers from the kindness of their heart. I am talking about capitalism now, and what the role of unions are nowYeah, there's been a lot of that in this thread. A lot of assumptions that capitalism has transformed and that the role of unions is radically different. All of which is bullshit really

Let me make this clear: the purpose of unions remains exactly same as it did a century ago. That is, the defence of workers' rights. How well it does that depends on the relative strength of the two antagonistic classes.

It is typical for unions to support piddling contracts and then declare it a victory after a majority of workers support it because they know that whatever comes next will be even worseYeah, strikes aren't easy in this day and age; they tend to bring swift retribution from employers. I have no idea what your objection is to union members voting to accept a proposal however. Would it suit you better if they were to hold out for a police assault? Perhaps that would be more romantic and grand... but not in keeping with the day-to-day battle to maintain living standards

There's been a lot of assumptions in this thread that capitalism has transformed and that the role of unions today is radically different. All of which is bullshit really. The only thing that's changed is the relative strength of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. We don't have the great unions of a century ago not because the nature of unionism has inherently changed but because the working class is infinitely weaker than it was then. Unions haven't so much 'sold out' (and I can point to examples of poor union leadership in the past) as been increasingly forced on the defensive by capitalism. It's not the first time we've seen this

What's strange is that some people react to this not by protesting the state of the unions but by condemning them. I don't know whether it's short-sightedness or stupidity but it amounts to an acceptance of the anti-worker line that unions are relics that we shouldn't try to resuscitate. What else can you call a rejection of the structures that have and continue to done more to safeguard worker conditions than anything else?

Kind of like being a social patriot and defending NATO's and the rebel's wanton killing in Libya?I want to make this clear. You don't know me and you evidentially don't know my positions. I don't know you and have not engaged with you before. So don't think you can drag any shit in here and expect me to take notice

Actually, the KAPD was just as large as the KPD and had a far greater presence and integration with the working class than the KPD. The marginalization of the KAPD coincides with the retreat of the revolutionary wave, while the KPD grew stronger in being a pro-capitalist reactionary partyI honestly don't care about the first part and you're dead wrong about the second. Both the KPD and KAPD were piddling little sectarian outfits in the middle of one of the greatest revolutionary upheavals in Western Europe. If they'd spent half the time that they wasted on petty feuding (Ruhle had taken his section out of the KAPD within six months of it's formation) on actual activism... well, who knows what difference they'd have made. Instead by the KAPD's numbers had collapsed long before the final passing of the revolutionary wave in 1923. The KPD wasn't much better. That the latter later recovered (not into anything impressive, mind you) is neither here nor there

What I am saying is that workers militancy and consciousness exists independent of the unionsAnd who is saying otherwise? I'm fairly sure that I've spelt out at least once in previous posts that this is perfectly possible

Is anyone actually doing this though?See some of the above posts. Every denial is almost immediately followed by a reassertion that the union form is obsolete or reactionary

Which - and I'm again at pains to point this out - does not mean that I uncritically support union leaderships or obsess about 'fighting unions' or the like. Obviously there are serious issues with the union movement and the current state of bourgeois hegemony over them. This should not overshadow the real role that unions today play in maintaining worker rights/conditions and the need to support them in the face of capitalist attacks

What Would Durruti Do?

3rd November 2011, 16:36

So does hipster just mean someone with new ideas/outlooks that have developed with a changing world as opposed to your typical mainstream "let's read what a bunch of old dead white guys said and do exactly what people have always done" traditional left?

It's kind of silly to believe capitalism and the class struggle have not transformed since the 19th century.

citizen of industry

3rd November 2011, 23:10

My union endorsed OWS and joined occupy Tokyo. We hosted Cindy Sheehan, defend worker and especially migrant worker rights. We activilly work with other militant unions and join political struggles, in addition to the daily nitty gritty of fighting corporations thousands of times stronger than us. It is a direct democracy, not representative, in fact, each branch is a seperate legal entity, so there is no risk of bad leadership. Explain to me how my union is obsolete or reactionary. And we are a general union of mostly service workers, not traditional factory workers.

Le Rouge

3rd November 2011, 23:12

hipster communism represent

What the hell does that means?

Kitty_Paine

3rd November 2011, 23:19

What the hell does that means?

I believe he is stating that he is a "Hipster Communist". Which even after reading this thread... I can't make heads of tails of. But having "Hipster" in the name automatically makes me think negatively of it...

Oh, well... I'll just continue to dislike what I don't understand. :rolleyes:

black magick hustla

3rd November 2011, 23:23

What the hell does that means?

its a joke term i made up for certain "tendencies" that share more or less a vector with left communism/council communism - insurrectionism, nihilist communism, communization theory, etc

Le Rouge

3rd November 2011, 23:31

its a joke term i made up for certain "tendencies" that share more or less a vector with left communism/council communism - insurrectionism, nihilist communism, communization theory, etc

Hipter communism represent don't means anything for me... I don't catch the joke.

Magón

3rd November 2011, 23:33

Hipter communism represent don't means anything for me... I don't catch the joke.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=687

Le Rouge

3rd November 2011, 23:50

Trendsters

the Left™

3rd November 2011, 23:50

So hipster leftists are basically just chic "faddish" leftists who act revolutionary for the counter-cultural allure?

AmericanCommie421

4th November 2011, 00:13

It exists but you've probably never heard of it.

bricolage

4th November 2011, 00:16

So hipster leftists are basically just chic "faddish" leftists who act revolutionary for the counter-cultural allure?
no, it's not a real thing.

for some reason on this website the term has been associated with the 'ultra-left' tendencies, but I doubt anyone outside of revleft would really know what you were talking about.

Os Cangaceiros

4th November 2011, 00:21

It exists but you've probably never heard of it.

We were into communism before it was cool.

ZeroNowhere

4th November 2011, 00:27

no, it's not a real thing.

for some reason on this website the term has been associated with the 'ultra-left' tendencies, but I doubt anyone outside of revleft would really know what you were talking about.
That's 'cos it's not mainstream.

Искра

4th November 2011, 00:35

Biggest hipster on revleft iz DNZ cause he likes Kautsky.

NewLeft

4th November 2011, 03:03

Where do I find these hipster communists? I've only met the so-called 'social liberal, economically conservative' hipsters who don't have much to say about politics in general.

Trendsters

Who knew that communism was so fashionable!

Ocean Seal

4th November 2011, 03:08

What's refered to as "hipster communism" on this site is a shorthand for any number of different ideologies, ranging from insurrectionism to situationism to some forms of left communism. That makes critiquing it's tenets difficult.

Now, if we're critiquing leftists who happen to be hipsters, I don't know...are there Stalinist hipsters out there? There must be.

Anyway, "hipster communism" is much more interesting and insightful than most of the traditional left. I'll give you an example: in 2009, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (a body commissioned by some 30 states in order to promote free trade) estimated that 1.8 billion people, or half of all the world's workers, operate in the "black market". And by that I don't mean that they were dealing drugs or anything like that, but that they were working jobs that were not regulated, registered, or taxed, and they were getting paid in cash. The body estimated that in another 10 years, a majority of the world's workers will be in these jobs.

This while many groups on the traditional left are still fascinated by the idea of trade union leadership. The former base of working class power (the worker with a semi-stable position in a unionized workplace, in an institutionalized occupation) is crumbling to dust. People like the authors of "the Call" or "Nihilist Communism" understand this on some level. It seems to me like many of these people come to their beliefs because their idealism was brutally assaulted and left for dead by it's encounter with modern left activism.

There is a lot of nonsense that comes out of the hipster communist milieu as well, of course, but overall I'd say that it's far more interesting than the latest birdcage liner that the WWP puts out. :thumbup1:

Stalin was a total fucking hipster don't hate.

ComradeOm

4th November 2011, 10:46

So does hipster just mean someone with new ideas/outlooks that have developed with a changing world as opposed to your typical mainstream "let's read what a bunch of old dead white guys said and do exactly what people have always done" traditional left?*Shrugs* It's pretty much the same argument I've been having with various 'post-left' tendencies here for years. Some people don't see the value in defending workers' rights through industrial unionism, others see it as pretty much essential. The former tend not to place any real emphasis on the proletariat as a revolutionary force or the workplace as an incubator for social change

The specific arguments, and posters, change but it's the same themes being rehashed time and time again

It's kind of silly to believe capitalism and the class struggle have not transformed since the 19th century.Show me how it has. So me how the fundamental conflict between the interests of workers and bosses has changed. Then show me how it's done so in the past forty years in which unions have been declining. And no, a twitter account does not distinguish you from previous generations

Everyone thinks that they are living in unique times, that we are witnessing something that no previous generation has. It's a vanity borne largely of ignorance. Specifics change but the underlying social mechanics/forces remain largely the same

promethean

5th November 2011, 07:03

Both the KPD and KAPD were piddling little sectarian outfits in the middle of one of the greatest revolutionary upheavals in Western Europe.Taking such a dismissive stance over these parties which were formed in what was the actual center of the world revolutionary wave seems counter-productive. Bolsheviks, including Lenin and Trotsky, actually looked to Germany to take the center stage of the world revolution. The reasons why the KAPD were defeated and the SPD and the KPD became parties of nationalist betrayal are very useful to anyone interested in knowing the history of the communist movement. You, as an individual, may not care about these crucial historical lessons, but the working classes of today and future certainly have more to learn from the historical events in a failed revolution in an advanced highly developed country like Germany, as compared to going through the minutiae of another failed revolution in an impoverished and largely rural country. This is after considering that much of the world today actually is capitalist and the peasant-dominated society of Russia holds little relevance today. The reasons for the Bolshevik dominance in the field of historiography are easy to come by, considering they actually grabbed state power, and consciously attempted to convert international communists to foot-soldiers of the Russian state much before the Stalinist counterrevolution took over doing the same thing in a literal sense.

If they'd spent half the time that they wasted on petty feuding (Ruhle had taken his section out of the KAPD within six months of it's formation) on actual activism... well, who knows what difference they'd have made. Unfortunately, history does not quite work in such a manner, revolution is not made by the conscious will of small bands of men, but by broad masses guided by historical imperatives. Ruhle followed an ideology which was clearly opposed to the pro-party line held by the majority of the KAPD and hence his exclusion from the party was not such an extraordinary event.

Instead by the KAPD's numbers had collapsed long before the final passing of the revolutionary wave in 1923. The KPD wasn't much better. That the latter later recovered (not into anything impressive, mind you) is neither here nor thereThe Bolsheviks initially never considered numbers inside a party to be the decisive factor in determining the course of history. The same goes for KAPD. That major sections of the working class came to the side of the Bolsheviks was more of a historical necessity than because of some magical will held produced in the heads of some revolutionaries. The KPD was competing with the Nazis in their pre-state days to be appear more nationalistic to the German people. Added to this, the Russian state's diplomatic and military support of the German nation, for example, the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo, having labelled the latter an "oppressed nation", while the German ruling party continued to massacre communists did not help maters much.

Rocky Rococo

5th November 2011, 07:30

I don't think this original question can be addressed without opening the thornier can of worms that is the question of the emerging "precariat". I'm still in the middle on that one, as to whether the precariat represents a distinct new class emerging in a new stage of capitalism, or if it is a new subdivision of the proletariat, or even of the petty bourgeoisie.

Clearly the precariat experiences work in a social context and an organization of production radically different from the large scale, centralized long-term fixed capital socializaiton of the traditional industrial proletariat. Large sections of the precariat likewise seem placed in what I would call a false petty bourgeoisie, made into "subcontractors" and "independent contractors"not because of the character of their labor or relation to large capital, but because it serves the bureaucratic interests of capital to avoid the taxes and regulations that government has imposed on the employment of labor over the decades. (How many "independent contractors" are "independent contractors" only because the company that they work for doesn't want to pay the employer share of the social security tax? Are Fedex drivers genuinely petty bourgeois independent business operators?)

Socially and culturally, a lot of "hipsterism" shares the demographics of much of the emerging precariat. It's my gut instinct that in the rise of the occupy movement, we see that element for the first time playing a self-conscious role in the larger political and economic struggles of contemporary capitalism.

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 08:29

Personally of course, I'd have loved to have had the protection of the union throughout my working life to date. It gets a bit shit working on contractor with zero job protection and the minimum of rights, you know? But then perhaps I'm just a representative of the "dinosaur left" to be pining for things that would actually make my working life better...

personally you know, i would love to have my own castle. i would also like having a spaceship. also, i would also like to make all girls feel irresistible to me. i hope for a lot of things.

Or maybe, just maybe, the difficulty of starting a new union is related to the difficulties faced by current unions: unremitting hostility from a strengthened bourgeoisie backed strongly by state actions. That is, an anti-union campaign that kicked off in the early 1980s and hasn't let up since

yep, the old workers' movement was liquidated in the 1980s, by the thatchers, regans, neoliberals etc. nobody denies that. they fought honorably but they lost. and with the death of the old workers' movement there came a reconfiguration of capital. that is why we have not seen mass struggle in the west for 30 years or so.

This whole notion of 'some industries are un-unionisable' is a red herring. You can look at any industry and see the same trend of declining labour organisation. An automobile factory built today will not have a union. This isn't because building engines is somehow difficult to unionise. No, it's because the bourgeoisie is relatively far stronger - with the proletariat correspondingly weaker - than thirty years ago.
i agree the class is more or less weak today.

Setting up a union when the balance of power within the workplace has shifted so dramatically towards management is obviously difficult. Workers trying to organise union face intense pressure and obstruction (fully backed by the state) whether they're making coffee or German cars. But then that's the sort of nuance that you lose when you can't look further back for fear of seeing dinosaurs

:shrugs: the class faced horrible pressure when they started unionizing. the worse you face today in places like the US is get fired. before you had hired detectives with a gun down your throat, and motherfuckers with suspenders and bats having a nice conversation with you in the basement of a warehouse. the unions were built on the blood of a lot of brave and valiant men.

however, before there where many things that made unionization much easier. for one, you identified more or less with your trade forever and communities were static and the bosses and the workers where much more segregated. thousands of peoplle worked side by side in the same place etc. i don't accept your explanation of "pressure from the bosses". i think it is more along the lines of you being in love with dinosaurs. i am scared of them, they have sharp teeth and shit.

One small question though: isn't it possible that the vehicle through which the working class struggled for these rights was actually the union? Or if they are somehow (bizarrely) completely separate then perhaps you can demonstrate how, with references to specifics, 'class struggle' won these rights? Because from my uneducated viewpoint it looks very much like the union movement was right at the forefront of the various campaigns that won the freedoms/benefits that we have today
well in my own uneducated and "ignorant dick" viewpoint, the unions were just the particular form the militant working class organized themselves in. in the same way in the 19th century the militant working class organized itself around the SPD and parliamentary socialism. we know how that ended tho.

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 08:33

*Shrugs* It's pretty much the same argument I've been having with various 'post-left' tendencies here for years.

i am not a post-left ok. i am a fuckin communist ok

Die Neue Zeit

5th November 2011, 08:36

:shrugs: the alternative is really that there is "no alternative". what i mean is that institutionalized organs are basically in utter rot right now and i think anybody who aligns with them is going to wind up in the dustbin of history. i think its a pipe dream to think that the "institutionalized left" which basically belongs to specific demographics, in particular the better off, stable, public and blue collar types, has any opportunity of spreading beyond those confines, and it is probably destined to collapse anyhow. the "Real alternative" is not our responsability, we are not the masterminds of history. but, we can see the real alternative emerging organically out of the rot, assemblies, the oakland "wildcat strike", etc. it is not clear what is the real alternative yet, but it is becoming quite clear that the institutionalized left is more or less taking the side of capital.

More nihilist slander.

The ad hoc, ephemeral, "real alternative" you speak of crumbles to dust EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

BTW, lots of posters here focus too much on trade union organization and the mere "labour movement." What is really needed is a mass party-movement (note to ComradeOm: cue the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD), without which there can, for all practical purposes, NEVER be a revolutionary period for the working class.

Just because existing institutions are rotten to the core doesn't negate the necessity of organizing new institutions.

So for example, when the KPD boycotted the first republican elections in early 1919 they were essentially cutting themselves off from all political discussion at the exact time when they should have been looking to build a mass movement to challenge the bourgeoisie. WWII was merely a reflection of the failure of the interbellum socialists to achieve this. So no, not a particularly successful strategy or something to emulate

The ultra-left KPD never sought to build a mass movement in the first place! Unlike a certain Realo role model for left politics today which "paid attention to the daily demands and needs of workers without yielding its claim to revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics" (Bartsch), the KPD nutters didn't take with them key party institutions for alternative culture, mutual aid, etc.

i made fun of dnz for calling me a nihilist.

I'm calling your politics out for what they really are.

i don't think unions today are meant to "fight employees", at least in the west. in the U.S. unions are simply a wing of management, which pitch in on who can be employed, what are the wage raises/cuts, etc. as i said, unions are irrelevant to most people's lives, certainly people in the twentysomething age bracket.

What he said, and I agree with 100%, is the tactic of "capturing" the unions through obtaining leadership positions.

So why aren't you two for a state monopoly on private-sector collective bargaining representation?

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 08:39

More nihilist slander.

The ad hoc, ephemeral, "real alternative" you speak of crumbles to dust EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

against everything for nothing :tt2:

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 08:50

So why aren't you two for a state monopoly on private-sector collective bargaining representation?

hey dont you have someone else to bore to death

Die Neue Zeit

5th November 2011, 08:52

Although this isn't always the case, in 1978 union density in the UK was 58%, in Denmark and Sweden it was nearer 70%, where was the militancy though?

[...]

I think the point is that the 'unions are always part of the state' and the 'unions are always progressive' arguments both miss the point that they can be both. Trade unions serve both as a vehicle for struggle as well as a vehicle for pacifying struggle, while the former will be heightened during periods of low class militancy history has shown that when this translates into open labour revolt it's the second tendency that comes to prominence.

[...]

The point is these conditions in many countries (especially the UK) do not exist and there is little conception of how new precarious workers can fit into this. Explosive Situation mentioned 'black market' jobs, are trade unions that rely on legal recognition going to be involved in organising off the book jobs? Even beyond that there are questions that need to be asked, why have trade unions found it so hard to organise within new service sectors? Why are they largely confined to the public sector?

I know you called yourself a "mere labour strugglist" in response to my anti-economistic polemics on mere labour disputes, but it seems here you don't have the typical left-com position towards unions. On the level of immediate struggles, what's your solution for public policy on private-sector collective bargaining representation?

[You mentioned the Scandinavian countries, so suggestions like "universal unionization" are implied in my question.]

Die Neue Zeit

5th November 2011, 09:09

Biggest hipster on revleft iz DNZ cause he likes Kautsky.

Very funny. :glare: :thumbdown: :rolleyes:

Hipsterism tends to have no care in the world whatsoever about the bureaucracy question, if it isn't downright hostile towards it. Hipsterism tends to be apolitical as well, if not anti-political.

But if you're referring strictly to the "hip" Kanye Glasses in my avatar, then I apologize for overreacting.

I don't think this original question can be addressed without opening the thornier can of worms that is the question of the emerging "precariat". I'm still in the middle on that one, as to whether the precariat represents a distinct new class emerging in a new stage of capitalism, or if it is a new subdivision of the proletariat, or even of the petty bourgeoisie.

Left-coms have fetishized the "precariat" phenomenon, when in reality it is becoming more and more a social stratum encompassing insecure elements in both the proletariat and one or two non-worker classes (heavily indebted petit-bourgeoisie vs. truly independent freelancers that I don't consider petit-bourgeois).

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th November 2011, 09:31

The fact that unionized labor (in the States) makes up a laughably small fraction of the working class sort of makes it totally pointless right off the bat, I think.

I don't know about all that, partner. A lot of unionized labor is concentrated in industries absolutely essential to the functioning of capitalist society.

See for example the Transit Workers in New York, that shut down the world capital of finance with their 3 day strike a few years ago. Not long after being threatened for arrest and more during the strike, the local's leader was marching hand-in-hand with the Democratic Attorney General that was looking to lock him up in an ethnic parade and endorsing his election bid(!).

I think that matters quite a bit.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th November 2011, 10:04

Also:

"Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system." - Karl Marx

"One of the things George Rawick said is, 'Unions don’t organize workers. Workers organize unions.' Workers’ self-activity does create organizations create unions and other institutions, which may become bureaucratized and turn against the worker. Unions are not a secret plot designed to fool the workers. Workers organize them and then they get out of control." - Martin Glaberman

"Full-time status for the union committeeman, which began as a means of freeing the union representative from the pressures of management, became a means of freeing the representative from the pressure of the workers." - Martin Glaberman

"...reformism presupposes a reformable capitalism. So long as capitalism has this character, the revolutionary nature of the working class exists only in latent form. It will even cease being conscious of its class position and identify its aspirations with those of the ruling classes. Some day, however, the continued existence of capitalism will no longer be able to rely on a 'reformism in reverse'; it will see itself forced to recreate exactly those conditions which lead to the development of class consciousness and the promise of a proletarian revolution. When this day arrives, the new capitalism will resemble the old, and will again find itself, in different conditions, facing the old class struggle." - Paul Mattick

ComradeOm

5th November 2011, 11:37

Taking such a dismissive stance over these parties which were formed in what was the actual center of the world revolutionary wave seems counter-productiveI'm not dismissing them, I merely consider them to be almost unqualified failures. Neither the KPD or KAPD is something to emulate today

Unfortunately, history does not quite work in such a manner, revolution is not made by the conscious will of small bands of men, but by broad masses guided by historical imperativesThe actions of a revolutionary party in a revolutionary scenario are hardly irrelevant to the outcome of said revolution. To argue that "historical imperatives" condemned the German Revolution to defeat is vulgar Marxism of the worst order. Men make their own history and the German communists failed miserably to capitalise on the situation presented to them. The whole history of that revolution is one of wrong decisions and missed opportunities

Ruhle followed an ideology which was clearly opposed to the pro-party line held by the majority of the KAPD and hence his exclusion from the party was not such an extraordinary eventI could not care less about Ruhle. I used him as an example of the rate at which the KAPD rapidly decomposed. I could just as easy have used Schroder in Essen or any number of other expulsions/splits. The KAPD tore itself to pieces in a fashion that would impress any of today's Trotskyist sects and it managed to do so in a period of near-unprecedented state of heightened class warfare. By the end of the revolutionary wave in 1923 the party's membership was down to the low thousands

i hope for a lot of thingsBut not apparently for the support of a collective workers' body in providing job security, higher wages, better conditions, etc, etc

yep, the old workers' movement was liquidated in the 1980s, by the thatchers, regans, neoliberals etc. nobody denies that. they fought honorably but they lost. and with the death of the old workers' movement there came a reconfiguration of capital. that is why we have not seen mass struggle in the west for 30 years or so.Well that's a very discrete way of looking at things. The bomb was dropped, the battle's over, nothing to see here. Except... well, it's not over. If it were then why is the capitalist assault as intense as ever? The 1980s didn't signify the end of the workers' movement, it was simply the start of the campaign against organised labour. There's been no let up since

And that's because the tendency to organise for collective benefit is a deeply ingrained one. It is a natural and automatic reaction to class conflict within the workplace. It's really the only real weapon that workers have. Union numbers would not remain low without the anti-strike legalisation, without media campaigns, without the efforts of employer organisation, etc, etc. It is not the natural order of things (aside from the bourgeoisie's tendency to stamp on the working class) and it is not okay to simply accept it as such. Oh well, unions are dead, c'est la vie. That is, again, simply accepting the bourgeois narrative. And since when are we supposed to accept the status quo presented to us by the capitalist state?

(Incidentally, the idea of no "mass struggle" is a very US/UK centric one. There are still countries where the unions are powerful enough to stage mass protests and strikes against government policy)

i don't accept your explanation of "pressure from the bosses". i think it is more along the lines of you being in love with dinosaurs. i am scared of them, they have sharp teeth and shit.Nihilism is the wrong term. I'm going to stick with ignorance. There's no other way to describe someone who doesn't believe that workers attempting to unionise face intense pressure from employers. No, it must be that the workers themselves no longer care. Yes, let's blame the workers again!

Don't kid yourself, you're not a "fucking communist"

well in my own uneducated and "ignorant dick" viewpoint, the unions were just the particular form the militant working class organized themselves in. in the same way in the 19th century the militant working class organized itself around the SPD and parliamentary socialism. we know how that ended tho.So we shouldn't organise at all then? Try telling that to the 16m unionised workers in the US alone who rely on unions to defend their working conditions

And your history lesson is off. Militant unions emerged in the 19th and were prominent throughout the 20th C. To compare them to something as specific as the SPD is simply silly

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 11:58

But not apparently for the support of a collective workers' body in providing job security, higher wages, better conditions, etc, etc

that too. in fact i also support them having ferraris and mansions.

Well that's a very discrete way of looking at things. The bomb was dropped, the battle's over, nothing to see here. Except... well, it's not over. If it were then why is the capitalist assault as intense as ever? The 1980s didn't signify the end of the workers' movement, it was simply the start of the campaign against organised labour. There's been no let up since

i never said class struggle is over. i said the old workers' movement, with its mass parties, unions, institutions, etc is more or less over. dont put words in my mouth. laborism is not the working class, it is the politics of a particular segment of it.

And that's because the tendency to organise for collective benefit is a deeply ingrained one. It is a natural and automatic reaction to class conflict within the workplace. It's really the only real weapon that workers have. Union numbers would not remain low without the anti-strike legalisation, without media campaigns, without the efforts of employer organisation, etc, etc. It is not the natural order of things (aside from the bourgeoisie's tendency to stamp on the working class) and it is not okay to simply accept it as such. Oh well, unions are dead, c'est la vie. That is, again, simply accepting the bourgeois narrative. And since when are we supposed to accept the status quo presented to us by the capitalist state?

you are obsessed with pinning at me some "bourgeois narrative" or whatever. of course employer organizations and anti-strike legislation exists. they have always existed. in the 1920s and 30s there where the pinkertons, the baldwin felts, and of course, governments shooting down striking workers. and you know what, the unions grew strong. what defeats the working class in general is almost never physical violence. you cant murder off a class.

(Incidentally, the idea of no "mass struggle" is a very US/UK centric one. There are still countries where the unions are powerful enough to stage mass protests and strikes against government policy)

notice i said the west. in some places, like india, south asia, korea, etc the discussion is another.

Nihilism is the wrong term. I'm going to stick with ignorance. There's no other way to describe someone who doesn't believe that workers attempting to unionise face intense pressure from employers. No, it must be that the workers themselves no longer care. Yes, let's blame the workers again!

Don't kid yourself, you're not a "fucking communist"

you lying motherfucker, i am not blaming anybody for what is happening.please tell me where i "blame workers". i dont think workers "dont care". i do think a lot of workers dont care about unions and the left in general though, seeing as how they have been a let down, and it has been the governments that essentially are the governments of unions (social democracy in europe) that have been in front of the austerity cuts.

So we shouldn't organise at all then? Try telling that to the 16m unionised workers in the US alone who rely on unions to defend their working conditions

yay for them? i dont wish for unions to be dismantled or whatever. you seem to take everything personally.

And your history lesson is off. Militant unions emerged in the 19th and were prominent throughout the 20th C. To compare them to something as specific as the SPD is simply silly

nah it isnt, "labor parties" and "social democracy" have been pretty much universal

eyedrop

5th November 2011, 12:01

black magick hustla

5th November 2011, 12:06

I can see the appeal of unionism being a useless tactic for the typical temp service worker (I've been there for years and can certainly see why unionism doesn't work there), but I don't see why people like 'black magick hustla' who is a physicist and should move into stable blue collar work dismisses it.

Unionism still works perfectly well in those kind of occupations.

i dont see unions as "useless". i see them more of like some sort of insurance plan. anyway my point is that i doubt unions will become the most important forms of struggle anymore.

eyedrop

5th November 2011, 12:35

i dont see unions as "useless". i see them more of like some sort of insurance plan. anyway my point is that i doubt unions will become the most important forms of struggle anymore.

I can see that radical unionism won't be the dominant struggle for most of society, but for high-tech industrial workers? Another thing is that those workers that are in jobs suitable for workers coincides with those workers that are the most important for society to function.

An engineer is in a way better position to bring down capitalism than a service worker. Capitalism depends on the cooperation of the industrial workers, the service workers can just be displaced by the army of the unemployed.

promethean

5th November 2011, 15:28

I'm not dismissing them, I merely consider them to be almost unqualified failures. Neither the KPD or KAPD is something to emulate todayI don't think you understand the difference between a defeat of the class as a whole and the splits within one revolutionary minority within the class. Also, I don't think it is even possible to emulate the left parties of the 19th and 20th century today. If we were to judge the ideas put forth by communists on the basis of how big their military prowess was etc, this would transform from a rational discussion into a dick-measuring contest. The analysis and politics of those parties, especially the KAPD and its affiliated factory organization, AAUD, is something we can definitely take away from the German revolution.

The stance taken by the KAPD on the unions was based on a materialist analysis of the state of the working class at that time. Their position towards trades unions was not something they came up with artificially. The majority of the KAPD, 95%, were workers who had experience with the trades union movement and applied a materialist analysis based on their experience. Their experience consisted of seeing the biggest workers party, the SPD, egged on by the nationalism of its affiliated trade union, the ADGB, supporting World War I and later, entering the government and carrying out the massacre of revolutionaries.

Given such a setting, it is not very surprising that those Geman revolutionaries took their opposing stance on the usefulness of the trades unions, as a form, in the stage that capitalism had entered into after World War I. Capitalism had transformed from its previous ascendant phase into its descendant one after this world war. Lenin clumsily put forth some "analysis" of this transformation of capitalism in his pamphlet, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. His understanding of this transformation was flawed from the beginning and has no empirical evidence to support it.

Nonetheless, the transformation of the mode of capitalism after World War I did actually happen. One of the things that changed after this transformation was the conversion of the trades unions and the parliaments from reformist organs of capital into ones that were inherently counter-revolutionary, because of their being integrated into the bourgeois state.

Most trades unions, along with (shockingly) parliaments have become integral parts of the bourgeois state since World War I.

The actions of a revolutionary party in a revolutionary scenario are hardly irrelevant to the outcome of said revolution. To argue that "historical imperatives" condemned the German Revolution to defeat is vulgar Marxism of the worst order. Men make their own history and the German communists failed miserably to capitalise on the situation presented to them. The whole history of that revolution is one of wrong decisions and missed opportunitiesHere, you are displaying a clearly putschist attitude. To imagine that those communists could somehow make the right decisions and change the course of history is a laughably ignorant statement. To complete your quote from Marx, "Men make their own history, but they do not do it as they please".