Capitalism is not in crisis? [Archive]

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 10:03

I know it's not a particularly popular point of view, especially since everyone thinks the revolution is imminent (more of less), but what if capitalism isn't in crisis? It looks like it's in crisis and the media talk about it as if it's in crisis, indeed for many people suffering austerity measure it may seem like it's in crisis. But in actual fact the forces of capital have so far been particularly adroit at reconstituting capitalism and avoiding any major catastrophes. The Eurozone being an example of that.

The 'crisis' narrative is being used as an excuse by governments to implement ideologically motivated austerity measures. In the UK for example, these measures are being widely accepted by the working class, especially the aspirational working class, who have seemingly been convinced by the coalition government that austerity is necessary.

Of course, public sector workers are resisting the austerity cuts, but in terms of revolutionary progress, the public sector workers are not remotely interested in alternatives to capitalism, since their interests are divergent to that need. Their interests lay in a stronger public sector and government investment, not in the overthrow of capitalism. In any case, even if this section of the working class did have revolutionary objectives, their power to actually affect capitalism in any meaningful way is severely hindered by the fact they are not essential workers and therefore have no ability to directly affect capitalism.

All of this, coupled with the political weakness, lack of cohesion, fetishism with pacifism and general rabid liberalism of the occupy movement, the state of play is far less optimistic than people are suggesting. The idea that a revolutionary force is developing is fundamentally lacking any sense of actual analysis of the situation, not least of all because many occupy groups are pro-capitalist and means that the threat to capitalisms existence is in fact negligible.

What I'm basically saying is:

1. Capitalism is not in crisis
2. The ruling class are winning the austerity argument
3. The interests of those workers most effected are not revolutionary and have no ability to be anyway
4. The occupy movement ultimately has only liberal objectives to reform captial

Of course, it's not just pessimistic (sort of). In Greece the ruling class is very much in crisis and capitalism as a system is rejected on a widespread level. There is a large revolutionary tradition in Greece as well as mass social unrest.

The austerity measures (again the UK) haven't been fully implemented yet, so who knows what will happen in a years time (although whether essential worker will be effected is difficult to know - probably not). There is also a national debate about capitalism and a feeling of discontent towards it

Also, there are elements within the occupy movements that are pushing more radical agendas, but the problem is they are just as incoherent and lacking a real sense of purpose, so it's unsure whether or not they will be effective.

Jimmie Higgins

6th November 2011, 11:23

The system is in a long-term crisis and has been at least since the late 1990s. The economy might recover, might find new bubbles, might have a small war and reshuffle things to stave off problems for now. But really, the system can't figure out what to do with integrating China and other big countries with large industries in the long run. It could take decades before they can "recover" - the last time there was a crisis like this it went from the late 60s to the late 80s and was based on austerity for Latin America and other places and the re-shuffling of world imperialism when one of the two super-powers collapsed. The time before that it took two world wars for capitalism to "solve" their crisis. In my opinion, we will soon look back to the last decade as one of relative peace compared to the wars and imperialist conflicts that may develop out of this crisis as imperialist powers compete to try and gain the upper-hand in a quickly evaporating pool.

Greece hasn't collapsed quite yet, but it will because the plans offered so far couldn't begin to really fix the problems even on capitalist terms. If Greece goes then the other weaker economies are really in danger and even countries like France will become a "PIIGS" nation (... PIGFIS?) because of all the Greek debts they hold. So basically if Greece goes, there will be a shitstorm in Europe which will also impact the US and China.

Sure all these countries are trying austerity and more or less passing a lot of it - they are also all cracking down on the ability of workers to fight back. In the US they are per-emtivly trying to dismantle union rights, in Greece they are subverting democratic checks on the economy (such as they were to begin with) and trying to allow police to enter campuses etc. And sure the OWS and Indignato movements are a political swamp of mixed ideas, but what leftists should recognize in them are people rejecting the establishment parties and trying to build democratic movements - for the US, especially, this is a big step forward and a potential beginning for independent working class actions and organizing.

There has been a 30+ year one-sided class war - our side is not currently winning or gaining the upper-hand. In fact we are still loosing big-time. What the last year has signaled, however, is an end to the one-sided war and the beginning of a two-sided war. It's still up in the air how our side will organize, how effectively it will mount a struggle, etc. But that's all the more reason for people who have looked at the history of struggle and attempted to learn from past movements of workers to actually get out there and be a part of building these new movements which have the potential to lead to a new left being organized in the US and other places where the left and or worker's movements have stalled or declined.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 11:46

The system is in a long-term crisis and has been at least since the late 1990s.

For whom has it been in crisis? Even if you're right on some economically technically level, the reality is that the capitalist class have not been affected in any meaningful way. The economic system has continued to function perfectly well for the ruling class and continues to do so now.

The economy might recover, might find new bubbles, might have a small war and reshuffle things to stave off problems for now. But really, the system can't figure out what to do with integrating China and other big countries with large industries in the long run.Why can't they figure these things out and what relevance does it actually have to the continued survival of capitalism?

I think the thing to differentiate here is between capitalism being technically in crisis and the kind of crisis we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant. Unfortunately there seems to be a conflation of the two.

While capitalism may technically be in a state of crisis, it's not in some imminent meltdown, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it will be. There are problems, some major problems, but not problems that are unfixable. In that respect, capitalism is not in crisis.

So basically if Greece goes, there will be a shitstorm in Europe which will also impact the US and China.That's not going to happen. The Eurozone will continue to prop up Greece for a long as it takes. It's just not ever likely that Greece will be "let go".

And sure the OWS and Indignato movements are a political swamp of mixed ideas, but what leftists should recognize in them are people rejecting the establishment parties and trying to build democratic movements - for the US, especially, this is a big step forward and a potential beginning for independent working class actions and organizing.This is just standard lefty optimism. Stating that these movements are "political swamps" and then going onto to the standard a-to-b leftist rhetoric dismisses the fundamental problem in the first place: That there is a political swamp.

But let me ask. What evidence do you have that the occupy movements are in any way the "potential beginning for independent working class action". What is the class dynamic of these movements? In the UK it's mainly just spectacle hoppers and full time activists who have no links to the working class. The working class have absolutely nothing to do with them. That's not to mention that many of these occupy groups etc are pro-capitalist.

There has been a 30+ year one-sided class war - our side is not currently winning or gaining the upper-hand. In fact we are still loosing big-time. What the last year has signaled, however, is an end to the one-sided war and the beginning of a two-sided war.How is that the case? Do you honestly believe the occupy movements are the beginning of a war against capital? I don't understand how you can possibly think that.

It's still up in the air how our side will organize, how effectively it will mount a struggle, etc.But I reject the idea that there is any confusion. It's not effective and will not be able to mount any effective struggle. There simply isn't the necessary demographic nor political will.

But that's all the more reason for people who have looked at the history of struggle and attempted to learn from past movements of workers to actually get out there and be a part of building these new movements which have the potential to lead to a new left being organized in the US and other places where the left and or worker's movements have stalled or declined.Yes, let's all get out history books out. If we did that, we could see clearly that what we are not remotely connected to historical working class struggles. What we have now are an amalgamation of pacifism, liberalism, reformism and aspiration.

And can you explain what a "new left" is? What does "getting out there" actually mean? What is the vague strategy you're referring to?

The Idler

6th November 2011, 12:36

Permanent Revolution are usually very good on this.
ISJ 132: Joseph Choonara and Guglielmo Carchedi: Review (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/3375)

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 13:02

Except of course that Trotskyism isn't the solution.

The Idler

6th November 2011, 13:07

I agree but I thought you were asking if capitalism is in crisis?

World growth rose to its highest levels since the 1970s, and even accounting for the recession and stagnation of the West since then, has grown over 4% in 2010 and 2011. Refuted on profits, productivity and growth, there is not much left of the stagnationist critique.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 13:13

It was more of rhetorical question. I don't think that capitalism is in crisis.

I'm instantly suspicious of anything written by a Trotskyist though. But yeah, I dig part of their analysis.

But obviously their conclusion is to built a Trotskyist party, which I would violently reject.

Jimmie Higgins

6th November 2011, 13:18

For whom has it been in crisis? Even if you're right on some economically technically level, the reality is that the capitalist class have not been affected in any meaningful way. The economic system has continued to function perfectly well for the ruling class and continues to do so now.They are managing the crisis and trying to push the effects on our backs - that doesn't mean there isn't an economic crisis. Stalling manufacturing and investing is a big problem - right now the companies are sitting on their wealth and/or the big fish are gobbling up the less-stable ones. Profits are being made, but it's cannibalism and gambling, not a return to real profitability. Capitalists made money during the Great Depression but it was still a crisis and it took destroying the means of production and re-ordering the imperialist division of the globe before they could "fix" the crisis.

I think the thing to differentiate here is between capitalism being technically in crisis and the kind of crisis we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant. Unfortunately there seems to be a conflation of the two. If capitalism was on a cliff edge, then it would be too fucking late for revolutionary ideas anyway. The current crisis is, in fact, allowing radical ideas to have resonance - at least here in the US. The occupation of the Wisconsin state house is an example - the 99% concept is a beginning of a recognition of class in a country where everyone is officially supposed of be some shade of "middle class".

While capitalism may technically be in a state of crisis, it's not in some imminent meltdown, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it will be. There are problems, some major problems, but not problems that are unfixable. In that respect, capitalism is not in crisis.Capitalists can't actually produce things and make money like their system is supposed to work... that's a problem for them. The world economy can't absorb the productive capabilities of the old Industrial West plus China, India, Brazil and so on and that is causing a series of problems starting with the Asian crisis in the late 1990s.

That's not going to happen. The Eurozone will continue to prop up Greece for a long as it takes. It's just not ever likely that Greece will be "let go".How far down can they really push Greek wages - will they ever be low enough to make them a more attractive labor force than the impoverished and depressed workers of Eastern Europe some 100 km away? Even if Greece used all their tax revenue to pay down the debt, what it would take another decade and a half to pay it off? How are they going to pay off debts if China owns their ports and shipping and that's the major industry other than tourism in the country? Even German bankers now acknowledge that Greece can not pay off these debts. At this point they are mearly trying to manage a soft collapse that will hit workers, but allow the system to remain intact. I don't have a crystal ball, but if I had money to bet, I'd wager that the Greek economy is going to send the world into a second phase of recession.

This is just standard lefty optimism. Stating that these movements are "political swamps" and then going onto to the standard a-to-b leftist rhetoric dismisses the fundamental problem in the first place: That there is a political swamp.Just like every movement in history. Sorry if the working class isn't pure enough for you.

But let me ask. What evidence do you have that the occupy movements are in any way the "potential beginning for independent working class action". What is the class dynamic of these movements? In the UK it's mainly just spectacle hoppers and full time activists who have no links to the working class. The working class have absolutely nothing to do with them. That's not to mention that many of these occupy groups etc are pro-capitalist.Most workers are pro-capitalist. First of all as much as these protests owe to Egypt and the Indignatoes movement, I think it also wouldn't have happened without the Wisconsin labor protests... which were in the form of an occupation. In the US it was rank and file labor who saved the Wall Street occupation from being evicted by police. In Oakland it was the support of workers in pushing their unions to support the movement that allowed the occupation to shut down the port of Oakland. Public sector unions who are about to go on strike or battle cuts have begun to adopt the language of the occupy movement.

How can you not see the connection - this is nascent class consciousness in a country which a year earlier was convinced that the "tea-party" represented "real Americans" and any non-neoliberal ideas were alien. Right now this is more left-populist than class-based, but out of that general rebellion there is a chance for distinct working-class demands and actions to develop.

How is that the case? Do you honestly believe the occupy movements are the beginning of a war against capital? I don't understand how you can possibly think that.No I think it's a political space in a country where two parties with the same agenda have a monopoly on what political ideas are acceptable. Anarchists and Socialists are participating in that and no one blinks an eye here in Oakland if you say you are against capitalism.

But I reject the idea that there is any confusion. It's not effective and will not be able to mount any effective struggle. There simply isn't the necessary demographic nor political will.If you are expecting the occupy movement to be the thing that takes down capitalism, then yes, you will be disappointed. As for demographics... Occupy Oakland seems to be a multi-racial mix of young workers - employed, unemployed, or underemployed.

Yes, let's all get out history books out. If we did that, we could see clearly that what we are not remotely connected to historical working class struggles. What we have now are an amalgamation of pacifism, liberalism, reformism and aspiration.Yes and radical ideas in the mix as well.

Why would these movements be connected in concrete ways to historical movements? The Left in the US was destroyed starting in the late 1970s and I don't think it was that much different in the UK after the mid-80s. Where do you expect movements to start after 30 years of inaction? Do you really think people will just read some good ideas, watch some awesome riot-porn, and then become revolutionaries? No, masses of people will more likely come to radical ideas through their own experiences and needed ideas to explain new situations and experiences that do not jell with the common ideas handed down to them. People in large numbers will not question most common ideas until their reality/experiences challenge those notions. Most people in Occupy Oakland thought that the liberal mayor was being genuine in saying she supported the movement - now 1,000s of people in Oakland have learned first hand that liberals are just as much of a problem as right-wingers when it comes to fighting for change. Many people also thought that the police wouldn't harm peaceful protesters - now many know better.

And can you explain what a "new left" is? What does "getting out there" actually mean? What is the vague strategy you're referring to?By a new left I mean a left-wing independent of the Republicans and Democrats: a broad group encompassing labor, social movements, and (if it will be effective) radicals - like the "Old Left" of the 1930s/40s and the old "New Left" of the 1960s/70s. Out of that broader group it will be more possible to actually build working class radicalism and militancy.

By "getting out there" I mean don't sit on your hands and complain. At least here in Oakland, radical anarchists and marxists have been involved in organizing as well as holding teach-ins on radical politics; we have been able to use the political space created by the movement to start to bring in rank and file allies and people in social movements. With the police raid, radical arguments have more currency since what we'd been arguing about the city and the police (not being on the side of the protesters) turned out to be correct.

Iron Felix

6th November 2011, 14:10

Capitalism is in a crisis, this can't be denied. The eurozone can collapse even before this year ends(but it will collapse for sure), in the US you'll soon have another recession with unemployment rates reaching 40-50 percent, the rest of the world is equally fucked.

Capitalism has been in crisis before but like always, it will probably re-invent itself.

Jimmie Higgins

6th November 2011, 14:14

Capitalism has been in crisis before but like always, it will probably re-invent itself.Yeah either on our backs or with our blood unless our class can organize some resistance.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 14:16

Capitalism is in a crisis, this can't be denied.

I just did deny it.

The eurozone can collapse even before this year ends(but it will collapse for sure), in the US you'll soon have another recession with unemployment rates reaching 40-50 percent, the rest of the world is equally fucked.

Yeah, it could collapse, but it won't.

Capitalism always goes through recessions. There is always unemployment. Sometimes it's high, sometimes low, but it's not an indication that capitalism is crisis. The world economy has grown over the last year, so I don't understand why you think there is some major crisis.

There's a working class crisis, for sure, but capitalism is just as tough as ever.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 14:17

I'll respond to Higgins when I have more time.

tir1944

6th November 2011, 14:27

How is capitalism not in a crisis in the US and Europe?

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 14:31

How is capitalism not in a crisis in the US and Europe

There's no instability or danger of capitalism collapsing. The world economy has got bigger. While there are symptomatic problems, these are not problems that capitalism is unused to dealing with. Recession and unemployment are normal aspects of the eb and flow of capital.

Capitalism is not teetering on the brink of collapse and the left is foolish for thinking it is.

Thirsty Crow

6th November 2011, 14:33

How is capitalism not in a crisis in the US and Europe?
A better question would be, something like, why there are so little investments, deduced from unemployment, as Jimmie noted that in the last two years, companies have been sitting on their wealth, NOT investing in any kind of accumulation.

Jimmie Higgins

6th November 2011, 14:37

Well if you are talking about a collapse, then I agree with you. Capitalism won't just fall, but that doesn't mean it's not in a crisis.

S.Artesian

6th November 2011, 14:39

There's no instability or danger of capitalism collapsing. The world economy has got bigger. While there are symptomatic problems, these are not problems that capitalism is unused to dealing with. Recession and unemployment are normal aspects of the eb and flow of capital.

Capitalism is not teetering on the brink of collapse and the left is foolish for thinking it is.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events. The world economy has hardly returned to the growth rates experienced in the 2003-2007 period, much less the 1993-2000 period.

The problems of capitalism are quantitatively different than those manifested in previous contractions, which is why this contraction is the most severe since the Great Depression. You might as well be arguing that the Great Depression was "normal."

The issue isn't collapse-- the issue is recovery, and with 2 trillion dollars in non-performing housing-based debt in the US alone, and an even greater mass of non-performing debt of all kinds in Europe, recovery is conspicuous only in its absence.

You think it's an "everyday event" when the governments of France and Germany order the government of Greece to do certain things? Or transparently work to replace the government Italy?

You think it's normal for overcapacity in the shipping industry to drive rates to new lows, with more capacity about to come on line? It certainly is all part of capitalism, but it certainly means capitalism cannot go on as it did before. Which why the attacks on living standards, wages, benefits, employment can only increase-- and that increase will itself not create any "recovery."

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 14:54

Well if you are talking about a collapse, then I agree with you. Capitalism won't just fall, but that doesn't mean it's not in a crisis.

As I said, there needs to be a differentiation between this popular idea on the left that capitalism is about to collapse and the problems that capitalism is facing. People tend to conflate these two things and they are not connected.

The Insurrection

6th November 2011, 14:58

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events. The world economy has hardly returned to the growth rates experienced in the 2003-2007 period, much less the 1993-2000 period.

Right, but it's grown nevertheless.

The problems of capitalism are quantitatively different than those manifested in previous contractions, which is why this contraction is the most severe since the Great Depression. You might as well be arguing that the Great Depression was "normal."

I'm sure that's true.

The issue isn't collapse-- the issue is recovery, and with 2 trillion dollars in non-performing housing-based debt in the US alone, and an even greater mass of non-performing debt of all kinds in Europe, recovery is conspicuous only in its absence.

Right. And capitalism will recover. There's no indication to the contrary.

You think it's an "everyday event" when the governments of France and Germany order the government of Greece to do certain things? Or transparently work to replace the government Italy?

You think it's normal for overcapacity in the shipping industry to drive rates to new lows, with more capacity about to come on line? It certainly is all part of capitalism, but it certainly means capitalism cannot go on as it did before. Which why the attacks on living standards, wages, benefits, employment can only increase-- and that increase will itself not create any "recovery."

No, I don't think those things are everyday or normal, they are a consequences of problems within the economic system. They not, however, an indication that capitalism is unstable.

But I think there is generally some confusion about terms here. When someone says "ciris", what does that indicate? When people talk about instability what does that mean? It can mean various different things for different people. For the left, we want the word "crisis" and "instability" to mean the beginning of collapse, and it's this which we need to be rejecting.

Tim Cornelis

6th November 2011, 15:17

An economic or financial crisis if when the economy shrinks rather than grows. In 2008 there was an economic crisis, but now the economy is again growing. So no, there is no economic crisis.

Psy

6th November 2011, 15:34

An economic or financial crisis if when the economy shrinks rather than grows. In 2008 there was an economic crisis, but now the economy is again growing. So no, there is no economic crisis.
The problem is the economy is growing but just barely to the point the ruling class could question how much statistics are being fudges to get that dinky 1% growth. Even if growth is bit stronger the trend is growth shrinking and we are at 1% now thus next year we are going to have below 1% growth and the risk of another contraction rather then growth.

Now the weak growth is just the top of the ice berg, what we have is credit markets melting down while we have 1% grown so if the credit industry collapses it will really contract the global economy as we are already starting from insignificant growth.

La ComÃ©die Noire

6th November 2011, 15:49

Well it could "recover", but only at the cost of so much productive capital and human life. It's what the talking heads call a "market correction" and it's a word that conceals the devastation involved in crisis. Marx didn't see any one final crisis ending capitalism, nor did he see it as something abnormal, he saw disequilibrium and crisis as the normal functioning of capitalism.

I would hope though that the world working class is ready this time to make a revolution and complete political tasks.

Though there are qualitative differences about this crisis.

S.Artesian

6th November 2011, 16:20

Comrade_Stalin

6th November 2011, 17:27

As I said, there needs to be a differentiation between this popular idea on the left that capitalism is about to collapse and the problems that capitalism is facing. People tend to conflate these two things and they are not connected.

If capitalsim is not in crisis right now, then I would hate to see what it would look like when it is. Maybe it would return to it Nazi germany level.

I would note to anyone here that even if it is, we will not be able to take over as there has been 60+ year of anti-commuist, let alone anti-Left talk in this country. Right now the best the US and the EU can hope for is to become the next african, with little functioning armies and goverments.

Psy

6th November 2011, 18:06

If capitalsim is not in crisis right now, then I would hate to see what it would look like when it is. Maybe it would return to it Nazi germany level.

I would note to anyone here that even if it is, we will not be able to take over as there has been 60+ year of anti-commuist, let alone anti-Left talk in this country. Right now the best the US and the EU can hope for is to become the next african, with little functioning armies and goverments.

Yet we don't see the same police repression that we saw in the late 1990's where protests against that economic crisis was dealt with swift police brutality. Now the American ruling class is currently far more hesitant sending the riot police to crush the occupation. So we have a political element in the economic crisis where the ruling class has lost some confidence that it can keep workers in line with state power.

The Insurrection

7th November 2011, 09:54

Crisis is exactly that, critical, essential, necessary to capitalism as a countervailing tendency to the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. It's function is to concentrate, centralize, capital, drive marginal producers out, drive wages down, disable X portion of fixed assets, increasing the rate of extraction of surplus enough to offset the decline in profitability.

...Right...

The current predicament of capital is a bit more than a "crisis" as the devaluation of capital, the contraction of production hasn't really worked-- without recreating the exact same conditions leading to the initial contraction, and reproducing them on a greater scale.

So the increases in productivity have been the result of lowering the wage bill.

Overproduction of the means of production has in fact increased, as this year's delivery of container ships, tankers, and dry bulk carriers in the shipping industry have made so abundantly clear.

Likewise in semiconductor fabrication, the expansion of capital spending by the major fabricators has dropped the market price for D-RAM chips by 2/3 over the course of the year.OK...

Right, there's no economic crisis. Sure, there just happens to be much more than an economic crisis-- which is the inability to sustain earnings growth and thus postpone the massive defaults on sovereign, consumer, and financial institution debt. So what?

If what you are attempting to claim is that capitalism doesn't automatically collapse by itself... that's a rather mundane point. So it doesn't, big deal.No, what I'm saying is that capitalism isn't in some state of crisis that will see a rise in revolutionary activity

The fact is, the left have gotten all excited about some impending doom, have seen a rise in oppositional movements and a 'wait-and-see' strategy, in the hope that capitalism will get worse and worse.

You read any left-wing commentator and they will talk about the emergence of new movements; "out moment is here"; "capitalism is collapsing" and all this bullshit. It's just not happening and it means that we're not actually addressing the real issues and developing concrete strategies that are based on reality.

What counts is what the bourgeoisie do, are compelled to do, by the specter of such a collapse when profitability declines.

They'll recover and the ruling class will become stronger.

The Insurrection

7th November 2011, 10:22

They are managing the crisis and trying to push the effects on our backs - that doesn't mean there isn't an economic crisis. Stalling manufacturing and investing is a big problem - right now the companies are sitting on their wealth and/or the big fish are gobbling up the less-stable ones. Profits are being made, but it's cannibalism and gambling, not a return to real profitability. Capitalists made money during the Great Depression but it was still a crisis and it took destroying the means of production and re-ordering the imperialist division of the globe before they could "fix" the crisis.

But they fixed it and there's no indication they're not going to fix it again.

If capitalism was on a cliff edge, then it would be too fucking late for revolutionary ideas anyway. The current crisis is, in fact, allowing radical ideas to have resonanceWhere? I don't see that. Please provide an example where "radical" politics is having resonance, I mean truly having resonance? Sure, good things are happening in Oakland and have happened in Wisconsin, but generally speaking the Occupy movements etc oppose militant tactics, have embraced liberalism and in many cases re pro-capitalist.

- at least here in the US. The occupation of the Wisconsin state house is an example - the 99% concept is a beginning of a recognition of class in a country where everyone is officially supposed of be some shade of "middle class". That was an example of spontaneous worker militancy, but it was a flash, not an ongoing acceptance of radical politics.

Capitalists can't actually produce things and make money like their system is supposed to work... that's a problem for them. The world economy can't absorb the productive capabilities of the old Industrial West plus China, India, Brazil and so on and that is causing a series of problems starting with the Asian crisis in the late 1990s.What does this prove?

How far down can they really push Greek wages - will they ever be low enough to make them a more attractive labor force than the impoverished and depressed workers of Eastern Europe some 100 km away? Even if Greece used all their tax revenue to pay down the debt, what it would take another decade and a half to pay it off? How are they going to pay off debts if China owns their ports and shipping and that's the major industry other than tourism in the country? Even German bankers now acknowledge that Greece can not pay off these debts. At this point they are mearly trying to manage a soft collapse that will hit workers, but allow the system to remain intact. I don't have a crystal ball, but if I had money to bet, I'd wager that the Greek economy is going to send the world into a second phase of recession.The Eurozone and the IMF will find a solution. But I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Just like every movement in history.Yeah, tell me about it, and people keep plugging the same tired strategies.

Sorry if the working class isn't pure enough for you.In my experience the working class have very little to do with it. I'm talking about the menagerie of political organisations, spectacle hoppers and full-time activists that populate these occupy movements and who inevitably dilute any radical politics before it has chance to engage a wider working class.

Most workers are pro-capitalist.I don't really accept that. I think workers have a massive disdain for capitalism, but also are suspicious of the spectacle of occupation.

First of all as much as these protests owe to Egypt and the Indignatoes movement, I think it also wouldn't have happened without the Wisconsin labor protests... which were in the form of an occupation. In the US it was rank and file labor who saved the Wall Street occupation from being evicted by police. In Oakland it was the support of workers in pushing their unions to support the movement that allowed the occupation to shut down the port of Oakland. Public sector unions who are about to go on strike or battle cuts have begun to adopt the language of the occupy movement.I can only speak to the UK experience.

If you are expecting the occupy movement to be the thing that takes down capitalism, then yes, you will be disappointed.Erm, clearly I don't expect that. The problem is that the occupy movement does, but not even on a class basis, on some bizarre liberal notion that capitalism can be reformed.

As for demographics... Occupy Oakland seems to be a multi-racial mix of young workers - employed, unemployed, or underemployed.This is the standard response. I'm not from America and I don't live in Oakland, so I can't really know about what you're saying.

By a new left I mean a left-wing independent of the Republicans and Democrats: a broad group encompassing labor, social movements, and (if it will be effective) radicals - like the "Old Left" of the 1930s/40s and the old "New Left" of the 1960s/70s. Oh god. Let's just recreate the past, because that has been so successful.

What would be the objectives of this broad social movement? Who controls these groups? How do you combat liberalism and reformism in such a movement? Uniting every Tom, Dick and Harry into a popular movement will be about as effective as sitting on the floor. Except of course if your objective is to control it a broad movement.

Out of that broader group it will be more possible to actually build working class radicalism and militancy. No it won't. It never has.

I can predict what will happen: Movement forms; does protests; militant elements confront the state; liberal elements condemn it; there's argument; there's a split; liberal elements side with the state and win argument against violence, marginalising the radical elements and then use reformist tactics to win some concession, calling it a victory; militant element repressed by the state.

Text book. Perhaps it's time to do something differently.

By "getting out there" I mean don't sit on your hands and complain. At least here in Oakland, radical anarchists and marxists have been involved in organizing as well as holding teach-ins on radical politics; we have been able to use the political space created by the movement to start to bring in rank and file allies and people in social movements. With the police raid, radical arguments have more currency since what we'd been arguing about the city and the police (not being on the side of the protesters) turned out to be correct.Yeah, all very inspiring. It makes me want to go and sit in the cold on some irrelevant piece of concrete and resist non-violently to the police.

The Insurrection

7th November 2011, 10:24

But anyway Higgins, let's be honest here, you're in the ISO, so we all know what forming broad movements means to you. It means getting into a position where you're able to control it.

Psy

7th November 2011, 22:34

No, what I'm saying is that capitalism isn't in some state of crisis that will see a rise in revolutionary activity

It already has just look at Greece where the ruling class of Greece is growing more and more worried of austerity measures leading to a Greek worker revolution that overthrows the Greek bourgeoisies state.

Then you have the movements in the US where police repression didn't work, every time riot police brutally cleared protesters the protesters were back the very next day, also these protests are digging in for a long occupation as they winterize their camps.

The fact is, the left have gotten all excited about some impending doom, have seen a rise in oppositional movements and a 'wait-and-see' strategy, in the hope that capitalism will get worse and worse.

You read any left-wing commentator and they will talk about the emergence of new movements; "out moment is here"; "capitalism is collapsing" and all this bullshit. It's just not happening and it means that we're not actually addressing the real issues and developing concrete strategies that are based on reality.

The left has learned from Paris May 1968 where they thought exactly like you, that the workers of France could not become radical and wouldn't join in the growing student movement. The growing militancy of the proletariat around the world means the capitalist class already has a fight on their hands trying to get the proletariat pay for the recovery of the rate of profit.

They'll recover and the ruling class will become stronger.
How? There is nowhere left for capitalism to displace the crisis to and workers are putting up increasing amount of resistance to austerity measures. The ruling class may overcome the current crisis but they will be much weaker due to a lower rate of profit and more militant working class.

S.Artesian

7th November 2011, 23:17

They'll recover and the ruling class will become stronger.

Recover from what? If there's no crisis, or no structural decline, the exactly what do the bourgeoisie have to recover from? There's nothing wrong, is there? You could get a job being a PR man for the Koch Bros., Alan Greenspan.

And you remark to Higgins is just piss-poor. You're the disingenuous one around here, playing your dilettante games.

Jimmie Higgins

8th November 2011, 02:44

But anyway Higgins, let's be honest here, you're in the ISO, so we all know what forming broad movements means to you. It means getting into a position where you're able to control it.

I am honest (to workers and other radicals, not to cops or bosses) and I mean exactly what I said. Let's be honest here, you know nothing of honesty if you spew sectarian bullshit like that.

Building broad movements means opening up the possibility for regular people to begin to learn how to take control over their own lives - learning how to work together - learning who their real allies and enemies are. You know, trying to fight for the self-emancipation of the working class. Building the left and building broad movements means that people will be taking action and this radicalizes people more than any amount of theory or propaganda alone. People have to be trying to fly for the theories of areodynamics to be relevant. Out of the broader movements, class politics will become clearer to more people. For example in Occupy, the direct democracy and discussion might inspire rank and file workers to fight for more democracy and self-action in their unions and work-places. Thousands of people in Occupy Oakland means that when the cops attack led by a liberal mayor, then thousands of people just learned first-hand which side these are on.

u.s.red

8th November 2011, 03:16

Surely, 2008 was a crisis for capitalism? Loss of trillions of value in the stock market and housing market. Trillions then transferred from people to capitalist class in direct money transfers and shifting of junk mortgages to government books. Why is this not a crisis and a Keynesian recovery? The difference with 1929 and 1980 is that unemployment has not returned to pre-crisis levels.

With unemployment compensation and food stamps running out and millions of college graduates with no hope of employment and trillions of student loan debt...that could be the next capitalist crisis....with no ww II or cold war spending possible then capitalism may not be able to recover from the next crisis....

just a few thoughts

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 19:00

It already has just look at Greece where the ruling class of Greece is growing more and more worried of austerity measures leading to a Greek worker revolution that overthrows the Greek bourgeoisies state.

Have you been to Greece?

It's the case that there is a strong workers movement, but the state only narrowly failed in succeeding to adequately split the workers movement. There is a strong radical presence, but it's not as nearly as strong as it needs to be. Had the referendum gone through, it would have done a lot of damage to the anti-austerity/workers movement as liberal forces within it would have claimed a victory, marginalising the need for radical politics even further.

Yes there is a situation in Greece. Yes capitalism is having problems. But the movement is fragile and it's not as clear cut as you think.

Then you have the movements in the US where police repression didn't work, every time riot police brutally cleared protesters the protesters were back the very next day, also these protests are digging in for a long occupation as they winterize their camps.

But what do you think that actually means? I don't know a great deal about the protest movements in the US, although I've read some analysis, and from what I can tell, bar a few exceptions, the political nature of this movement leaves a lot to be desired.

Leftists like Higgins will try and convince us that this is the start of a movement and that using the same historical, not to mention failed, strategies of "building" the movement, which in actual fact translates into taking it over, will somehow magically succeed in pushing radical politics.

The fact is, you can't build working class resistance when a) the working class are a negligible force within these movements, b) the essential working class is siding with the ruling class and c) radical ideas come from struggle and how can you building working class liberationist ideas when you cannot/are not organising in the essential working class.

The left has learned from Paris May 1968 where they thought exactly like you, that the workers of France could not become radical and wouldn't join in the growing student movement. The growing militancy of the proletariat around the world means the capitalist class already has a fight on their hands trying to get the proletariat pay for the recovery of the rate of profit.

Please demonstrate to me the "growing militancy" of the proletariat? I don't see it...

The workers of the 60's were living in a fundamentally different social, political, economic and cultural time. You cannot compare the interests of the French working class in 1968 to the global working class in 2011...The world is a completely different place.

How? There is nowhere left for capitalism to displace the crisis to and workers are putting up increasing amount of resistance to austerity measures.

First of all that's just not true. You're just inflating the importance of these movements. Workers are not putting up increasing amounts of resistance, they are, in many respects, siding with the forces of reaction. Right wing governments are consistently winning elections throughout the whole of Europe. A report in the Guardian has discovered the growing strength of the far-right.

There are public sector struggles, but the interests of this section of the working class are very different to unemployed, skilled and essential workers. This section of the working class are interested in establishing a Keynesian government that will invest in the public sector. Their interests are not the destruction of capitalism. In the UK it is a decidedly privileged and liberal section of the working class. Attempts to radicalise them will not work.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 19:02

Recover from what? If there's no crisis, or no structural decline, the exactly what do the bourgeoisie have to recover from? There's nothing wrong, is there? You could get a job being a PR man for the Koch Bros., Alan Greenspan.

I've clearly stated that capitalism is suffering problems. I've not denied that there are currently problems facing capitalism...

And you remark to Higgins is just piss-poor. You're the disingenuous one around here, playing your dilettante games.What is disingenuous about calling out a Trotskyist for what they are. Any one who has any rudimentary understanding of Trotskyist tactics will know that they are entryist and seek leadership. The ISO and it's tradition decidedly so. Trying to deny the nature of Trotskyist tactics is what is disingenuous.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 19:07

I am honest (to workers and other radicals, not to cops or bosses) and I mean exactly what I said. Let's be honest here, you know nothing of honesty if you spew sectarian bullshit like that.

I'm not part of the Trotskyist movement, so I don't know how you can legitimately call me a sectarian. But are you honestly denying that your political party wishes to have leadership of these movements?

Building broad movements means opening up the possibility for regular people to begin to learn how to take control over their own lives - learning how to work together - learning who their real allies and enemies are.This is just vague nonsense. Who are "regular" people? What does beginning to learn mean? What does "controlling" their lives mean? You're just saying words.

But taking these vague, standard lefty platitudes, how does any of this actually manifest itself in terms of realpolitik? These soundbites are all good and well, but you are part of a political organisation, with a political leadership and a political agenda.

You know, trying to fight for the self-emancipation of the working class.Under the leadership of the ISO?

Building the left and building broad movements means that people will be taking action and this radicalizes people more than any amount of theory or propaganda alone. People have to be trying to fly for the theories of areodynamics to be relevant. Out of the broader movements, class politics will become clearer to more people. For example in Occupy, the direct democracy and discussion might inspire rank and file workers to fight for more democracy and self-action in their unions and work-places. Thousands of people in Occupy Oakland means that when the cops attack led by a liberal mayor, then thousands of people just learned first-hand which side these are on.You have a unique situation in Oakland and I wish you well. But what you are proposing isn't a strategy. It's a "hope for the best".

S.Artesian

8th November 2011, 19:49

I've clearly stated that capitalism is suffering problems. I've not denied that there are currently problems facing capitalism...

Problems? Capitalism always has problems. The question is are these problems that have manifested themselves in these ways since 2007 more acute, quantitatively and qualitatively, then the problems that were manifest in the 2003-2007 period; the 2001-2003 period; the 1993-2000 period-- in fact every period since the end of WW2?

That's how Marxists approach the question.

What is disingenuous about calling out a Trotskyist for what they are. Any one who has any rudimentary understanding of Trotskyist tactics will know that they are entryist and seek leadership. The ISO and it's tradition decidedly so. Trying to deny the nature of Trotskyist tactics is what is disingenuous.

Here's what you said:

But anyway Higgins, let's be honest here, you're in the ISO, so we all know what forming broad movements means to you. It means getting into a position where you're able to control it.

You are stating, and explicitly, that the only reason comrade Higgins advocates a mass movement opposed to capitalism is so that his group could control it. That's hardly an accurate assessment of program, strategy, or tactics. Entry-ism as advocated by Trotsky in the 1930s re the French Socialists is hardly about controlling a mass movement-- as anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of Trotsky's writings on this subject would understand.

All you're doing is adopting a pose, an attitude.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 19:59

Problems?

Yes, that's what I said.

Capitalism always has problems.Yeah, you're right.

The question is are these problems that have manifested themselves in these ways since 2007 more acute, quantitatively and qualitatively, then the problems that were manifest in the 2003-2007 period; the 2001-2003 period; the 1993-2000 period-- in fact every period since the end of WW2?

That's how Marxists approach the question. You're repeating yourself. Look, I'm not arguing or disagreeing with what you're saying, so I don't understand why you keep trying to convince me of something I don't disagree with. If you want to ask the question are the problems of capitalism worse than another part of history then do that, I'm sure it will be easy to conclude that it is...In fact, you've already explained that to me.

You are stating, and explicitly, that the only reason comrade Higgins advocates a mass movement opposed to capitalism is so that his group could control it. That's hardly an accurate assessment of program, strategy, or tactics.It's a lazy assessment, but it's not inaccurate.

Entry-ism as advocated by Trotsky in the 1930s re the French Socialists is hardly about controlling a mass movement-- as anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of Trotsky's writings on this subject would understand. No, you're right, it wasn't, but since he's not in France in the 1930's, he's in the States in 2011 and the Trotskyist movement is dealing with "broad movements", then one would would expect me to be addressing that current situation.

If you want to deny that the ISO seeks to form political leadership over movements (and I use that word in its broadest sense to include, interest groups, campaign groups and workers organisation) then that's up to you. But say that.

All you're doing is adopting a pose, an attitude.I don't deny that either. I don't see any problem with adopting a pose or an attitude towards authoritarian socialists.

S.Artesian

8th November 2011, 20:12

OK so capitalism is manifesting problems that are qualitatively and quantitatively more acute and more severe than in any period since WW2.

You don't like the word crisis? Neither do I. But this period is distinct, and fundamentally different than previous contractions since WW2, and the response of the bourgeoisie has been and will continue to be qualitatively different.

But there's more to this than that-- you're claiming that there is no increase in working class militancy. Your real issue is that you want to claim there's no increased working class militancy so by definition there can be no crisis for the bourgeoisie.

a) that's simply incorrect. Economic crisis, capital's need to radically devalue its own valuations, occurs with or without the consent of the bourgeoisie, with or without the resistance of the working class.

b) you really haven't been paying attention to current events-- last year's strikes in France, and Greece; the Tekel workers leading actions against the government in Turkey; plant seizures in the US, France, and China-- are indexes to the conflict at the heart of capital-- between labor and the conditions of labor-- a conflict that is growing and is becoming just as quantitatively, qualitatively more acute as is the predicament of the bourgeoisie.

Re Trotsky-- you were the one who brought up the issue of "rudimentary understanding" of Trotskyist tactics... so go to the source if you want to have such an understanding. Your remarks about ISO are sectarian-- confusing an organization with the struggle itself.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 20:37

b) you really haven't been paying attention to current events-- last year's strikes in France, and Greece

There are always strikes in France and Greece. I can't remember a time in my life when there weren't strikes in France. Honestly. The French always strike. There's a huge tradition of striking in France. There's practically one every month, or so the joke goes. The same for Greece. There have been many strikes. But I don't accept that you can measure an increase in resistance by workers doing something that they already do. An increase would be an acceleration of resistance, not just examples of the same kind of resistance.

the Tekel workers leading actions against the government in Turkey; plant seizures in the US, France, and China-- are indexes to the conflict at the heart of capital-- between labor and the conditions of labor-- a conflict that is growing and is becoming just as quantitatively, qualitatively more acute as is the predicament of the bourgeoisie. These kinds of activities happen all the time. This isn't an increase in working class resistance, it's simply different examples of it.

Re Trotsky-- you were the one who brought up the issue of "rudimentary understanding" of Trotskyist tactics... so go to the source if you want to have such an understanding.I was talking about the tactic as a tactic. Not how the tactic was first used...

Your remarks about ISO are sectarian-- confusing an organization with the struggle itself.I can't be a sectarian. We're not part of the same movement. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's just a very lazy accusation to make.

I am not confusing anything. I am stating very clearly that the ISO is a Trotskyist organisation part of a tradition that seeks to control political and economic movements. You're yet to deny that.

S.Artesian

8th November 2011, 20:55

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 21:04

No, the French workers don't always strike like they struck last year, shutting down the petroleum refining industry for 10 days at a clip, taking over factories, shutting down ports for a week or so, forming defense committees that crossed union-boundaries-- that's what happened in 2010.

No, the Turkish workers don't always strike like the Tekel workers struck, and received support, widespread support from other workers. That's why the strike lasted so extra-ordinarily long. Ye

In Greece, the first wave of strikes had the intention of entering the parliament and preventing the votes on the austerity measures. No, that doesn't happen all the time in Greece.

You're not addressing my point. You're just repeating yourself, only with more words. Yes, there are new strikes and occupations. There may be more strikes and occupations than there were a year ago. This is not evidence that there is an acceleration in working class resistance. It's evidence that there are new strikes and occupations. Something that isn't new or original in class politics in Europe.

You have to be a fool to not see the more serious, qualitatively different nature of this ongoing crisis for the bourgeoisie-- when was the last time 5 major European economies were in such deep financial extremis that the currency union was called into question; that the economic union was called into question?

When was the last time 1/4 of those holding mortgages in the US owed more on the mortgages than the value of the homes behind those mortgages? When was the last prior to 2008 that the FDIC in the US had 800 banks on its "watch" and "problem" lists?

When was the last time the Bank of England announced a plan to buy the corporate bonds of small and medium sized corporations in the UK [a pointless move since most small companies don't issue bonds, but still......]?

When was the last time the US govt. sponsored enterprises guaranteeing mortgages in the US accounted for 95% of the mortgages underwritten in the US, despite the fact that these GSE's are effectively bankrupt?

When was the last time, prior to 2009 that the ECB had to extend unlimited liquidity lines to any and all banks in the EU?

When, prior to 2008, did the US Fed Reserve have to establish open-ended currency swap lines with the ECB, Bank of Japan, Brazilian Central Bank, Swiss central bank, etc. in order to make dollars available to prevent the collapse of world trade as private banks would not issue letters of credit?

When was the last time unemployment in the EU was at 10%; when was the last time almost half the unemployed in the US had been out of work for 42 weeks or more?

When's the last time median household income in the US declined more in the 2 years following the recession than in the 2 years of the recession?I don't understand why you think presenting your same argument with more statistics is somehow going to refute my point.

Yes. Capitalism is facing problems. Major problems. Yes, workers are striking and occupying factories (something that's not new. It's happened throughout the last 40 years).

You simply don't know what you are talking about.I'm not entirely sure what you think it is I've said that I'm not capable of fully understanding. I mean, since you've taken so much time to provide me with lots of facts and statistics, surely I'm now more than adequately informed. Unfortunately for your ego I am disagreeing with your conclusion and rejecting your misguided optimism. I guess you'll just have to come to terms with that somehow.

To reiterate: There has been no acceleration of working class resistance, nor any fundamental break down of capitalism. No matter how much you want to believe it to be true. I'm sorry if that point of view is frustrating for you, but you're more than welcome to believe whatever it is you want.

Lenina Rosenweg

8th November 2011, 21:24

Four European governments have been toppled in the past 7/8 months, three and a half middle eastern govt's have been overthrown, a general strike occured in Oakland , California run by people calling themselves the "Oakland Commune", the seventh largest hedgefund collapsed two weeks ago, Greece is literally being driven back into the neolithic while 100s of thousands of workers attempt to storm Parliament, Italy and Spain are about to be treated like Greece, 19th century mass emigration is again beginning in the Emerald Isle, but naw, capitalism isn't in crisis, the working class isn't beginning resistance.

I just don't see it.:rolleyes:

GatesofLenin

8th November 2011, 21:28

Capitalism is in a state of constant crisis as the few live-off the hard work of the many.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 21:37

Four European governments have been toppled in the past 7/8 months

Toppled? What Europe do you live in?

three and a half middle eastern govt's have been overthrownWith the establishment of pro-capitalist, anti-worker, liberal, pro-western democracies.

a general strike occured in Oakland , California run by people calling themselves the "Oakland Commune"There was not a general strike in Oakland. That's just not true. Look up the definition of the term 'General Strike' and in no way can you apply that to Oakland. There was not a critical mass of workers out of work. Most workers went to their jobs...

the seventh largest hedgefund collapsed two weeks agoAnd...

Greece is literally being driven back into the neolithicAre you honestly telling me you cannot see the absurdness of that sentence...

while 100s of thousands of workers attempt to storm ParliamentErm...Seriously. You need to put down whatever glasses you're viewing the world through, because they're fucking up your perspective. Hundreds of thousands of people did NOT try and storm Parliament. If hundreds of thousands of people tried to storm the Parliament they would have succeeded...

Italy and Spain are about to be treated like Greece, 19th century mass emigration is again beginning in the Emerald Isle, but naw, capitalism isn't in crisis, the working class isn't beginning resistance.The working class is [I]always resisting. The question is whether there's an increase in that resistance. Yes, there are new strikes, maybe even more strikes than last year, but that's not an acceleration of resistance, that's just more strikes. Something that is pretty common.

But sure, if we were to believe what you are saying, we could all get on board, but since it's largely fantasy I think I'll just stick to the views I have.

I mean it's this kind of bizarre, fantastical rhetoric that's causing the fucking problem in the movement. Everyone has just lost their minds and with it a grip on reality.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 21:38

Capitalism is in a state of constant crisis as the few live-off the hard work of the many.

Haha, well can I accept that ;)

28350

8th November 2011, 22:09

Ocean Seal

8th November 2011, 22:19

What I'm basically saying is:

1. Capitalism is not in crisis

We are in crisis and we should continue to emphasize this based on the fact that we are crisis theorists.

2. The ruling class are winning the austerity argument

I wouldn't call it winning if the people en masse are trying to burn your parliament down.

3. The interests of those workers most effected are not revolutionary and have no ability to be anyway

:confused:. That doesn't make any sense. The interest of every worker is revolutionary. Unless of course your proposing some kind of relativism ala third worldism.

4. The occupy movement ultimately has only liberal objectives to reform captial

Which is why we accept that at the moment it isn't revolutionary.

Psy

8th November 2011, 22:20

Have you been to Greece?

It's the case that there is a strong workers movement, but the state only narrowly failed in succeeding to adequately split the workers movement. There is a strong radical presence, but it's not as nearly as strong as it needs to be. Had the referendum gone through, it would have done a lot of damage to the anti-austerity/workers movement as liberal forces within it would have claimed a victory, marginalising the need for radical politics even further.

You are looking for revolution, revolution does not equal crisis. The ruling party of Greece has to ally with the opposition party just to pass the austerity measures the pretty much all bourgeoisie economists agree is too little too late. So all these friction just for a token response to the crisis of capital.

But what do you think that actually means? I don't know a great deal about the protest movements in the US, although I've read some analysis, and from what I can tell, bar a few exceptions, the political nature of this movement leaves a lot to be desired.

Leftists like Higgins will try and convince us that this is the start of a movement and that using the same historical, not to mention failed, strategies of "building" the movement, which in actual fact translates into taking it over, will somehow magically succeed in pushing radical politics.

The fact is, you can't build working class resistance when a) the working class are a negligible force within these movements, b) the essential working class is siding with the ruling class and c) radical ideas come from struggle and how can you building working class liberationist ideas when you cannot/are not organising in the essential working class.

The bulk of ruling class is siding with the protesters, this is why the police is having a hard time escalating their tactics, as they don't want the labor unions that are currently supporting the protests via donations to shut down the USA through general strikes.

Please demonstrate to me the "growing militancy" of the proletariat? I don't see it...

If you go back even 5 years most workers would not have such protests.

The workers of the 60's were living in a fundamentally different social, political, economic and cultural time. You cannot compare the interests of the French working class in 1968 to the global working class in 2011...The world is a completely different place.

Yes, in 1968 workers had much higher living standards, meaning there is more pressure on workers to become militant.

First of all that's just not true. You're just inflating the importance of these movements. Workers are not putting up increasing amounts of resistance, they are, in many respects, siding with the forces of reaction. Right wing governments are consistently winning elections throughout the whole of Europe. A report in the Guardian has discovered the growing strength of the far-right.

When you have a revolutionary situation there is a polarization of the masses meaning you can not have workers gain class consciousness and become militant without reactionaries also becoming militant. Yet here in North America the reactionary forces are a non-factor, they are not the threat to the occupy movement, the threat is the reformers that are trying to turn the movement into just one that reforms capitalism.

There are public sector struggles, but the interests of this section of the working class are very different to unemployed, skilled and essential workers. This section of the working class are interested in establishing a Keynesian government that will invest in the public sector. Their interests are not the destruction of capitalism. In the UK it is a decidedly privileged and liberal section of the working class. Attempts to radicalise them will not work.
The protests like Occupy Wall Street are primary the unemployed, the reason you had two overdose cases in the Occupy Vancouver protest is the movement sucked in all the homeless of Vancouver. The unemployed are the backbone of the movement as they don't have jobs to go to.

S.Artesian

8th November 2011, 22:59

You're not addressing my point. You're just repeating yourself, only with more words. Yes, there are new strikes and occupations. There may be more strikes and occupations than there were a year ago. This is not evidence that there is an acceleration in working class resistance. It's evidence that there are new strikes and occupations. Something that isn't new or original in class politics in Europe.

I don't understand why you think presenting your same argument with more statistics is somehow going to refute my point.

Yes. Capitalism is facing problems. Major problems. Yes, workers are striking and occupying factories (something that's not new. It's happened throughout the last 40 years).

I'm not entirely sure what you think it is I've said that I'm not capable of fully understanding. I mean, since you've taken so much time to provide me with lots of facts and statistics, surely I'm now more than adequately informed. Unfortunately for your ego I am disagreeing with your conclusion and rejecting your misguided optimism. I guess you'll just have to come to terms with that somehow.

To reiterate: There has been no acceleration of working class resistance, nor any fundamental break down of capitalism. No matter how much you want to believe it to be true. I'm sorry if that point of view is frustrating for you, but you're more than welcome to believe whatever it is you want.

And you're simply engaging in a denial of historical reality. Just so the point is clear... I'm repeating myself and providing more evidence not so you will agree with me, but so others viewing the thread will see how shallow, superficial and basically ignorant your pose is.

Repeat yourself all you want-- put on your ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times as you repeat, "nothing's changed, nothing's changed, nothing's changed; any day now capitalism will resume its upward course."

Won't make any difference, this isn't Kansas, and there is no Oz.

Lenina Rosenweg

8th November 2011, 23:02

Toppled? What Europe do you live in?

I don't live in any Europe, I live in America. I meant "toppled" in the parliamentary sense. A few hours ago Berlusconni announced he'll step down. Papendroueo is stepping down. Iceland and Ireland have new governments.

With the establishment of pro-capitalist, anti-worker, liberal, pro-western democracies. Yes, well Mubarak was overthrown and this is an assertion of working class power.Regimes in Tunisia and Libya have been overthrown. It is far from what I would like to see but it is a reflection of the global crisis. The ruling cannot continue to rule in the same way.

There was not a general strike in Oakland. That's just not true. Look up the definition of the term 'General Strike' and in no way can you apply that to Oakland. There was not a critical mass of workers out of work. Most workers went to their jobs...
The fifth largest port in the US was shut down. Whether or not it fit the dictionary definition of a "general strike" it was a magnificent accomplishment.

And...

Are you honestly telling me you cannot see the absurdness of that sentence...

Erm...Seriously. You need to put down whatever glasses you're viewing the world through, because they're fucking up your perspective. Hundreds of thousands of people did NOT try and storm Parliament. If hundreds of thousands of people tried to storm the Parliament they would have succeeded...

I exagerated somewhat. Greece and the EU is quite obviously in crisis which the ruling classes do not know how to manage.

The working class is [I]always resisting. The question is whether there's an increase in that resistance. Yes, there are new strikes, maybe even more strikes than last year, but that's not an acceleration of resistance, that's just more strikes. Something that is pretty common.
Something like what occured in France in '09 or is occuring in Greece right now does not happen every day. France was tettering on the brink of an even bigger social explosion.The US Occupy movement is largely liberal but its still a very significant development. Tens of thousands of people were marching though Oakland carrying signs saying "Death To Capitalism". Even in its nascent form this is clearly a challenge to the ruling class.

But sure, if we were to believe what you are saying, we could all get on board, but since it's largely fantasy I think I'll just stick to the views I have.

I mean it's this kind of bizarre, fantastical rhetoric that's causing the fucking problem in the movement. Everyone has just lost their minds and with it a grip on reality.
You are mising the bus.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 23:15

You are looking for revolution, revolution does not equal crisis.

Not I'm not.

The ruling party of Greece has to ally with the opposition party just to pass the austerity measures the pretty much all bourgeoisie economists agree is too little too late. So all these friction just for a token response to the crisis of capital.

And what do you expect will happen now?

The bulk of ruling class is siding with the protesters

That's fantasy.

this is why the police is having a hard time escalating their tactics, as they don't want the labor unions that are currently supporting the protests via donations to shut down the USA through general strikes.

Do you think the police won't use brute force if they need to?

If you go back even 5 years most workers would not have such protests.

There were a considerable amount of strikes across the world in 2006, including in France and Oaxaca.

Yes, in 1968 workers had much higher living standards, meaning there is more pressure on workers to become militant.

You think the western worker of 2011 has a lower standard of living than a French worker in 1968...How is that even possible?

When you have a revolutionary situation there is a polarization of the masses meaning you can not have workers gain class consciousness and become militant without reactionaries also becoming militant.

You also have a collapse of capitalism and disintegration of state power. Neither of which are occurring.

The protests like Occupy Wall Street are primary the unemployed, the reason you had two overdose cases in the Occupy Vancouver protest is the movement sucked in all the homeless of Vancouver. The unemployed are the backbone of the movement as they don't have jobs to go to.

How do you expect to build a movement capable of challenging capitalism if the majority of people in that movement don't have any relationship to the means of the production?

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 23:21

And you're simply engaging in a denial of historical reality

Except I've repeatedly acknowledged your statistics as correct...

Just so the point is clear... I'm repeating myself and providing more evidence not so you will agree with me, but so others viewing the thread will see how shallow, superficial and basically ignorant your pose is.

What do you think the purpose of my views are? Calling my views shallow and superficial is based on what exactly? What do you think my agenda is right now? I mean the fact you're having to resort to practically calling me names is pretty weak. I mean, what is this pose you think I'm taking? I challenge the misconception that the revolution is imminent and you get belligerent and resort to snide attacks...

You've provided evidence that there are problems with capitalism; problems that haven't occurred before or for many years and that workers are resisting. Neither of those things have I rejected. They are true. You are correct in your views.

Repeat yourself all you want-- put on your ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times as you repeat, "nothing's changed, nothing's changed, nothing's changed; any day now capitalism will resume its upward course."

Why would I do that? Clearly I don't think "nothing's changed", so that would seem a pretty strange thing to want to do.

Won't make any difference, this isn't Kansas, and there is no Oz.

Right. We're not on the cusp of some revolutionary moment either.

Lenina Rosenweg

8th November 2011, 23:28

I also wanted to ad that Greece has seen 12 general strikes in the past year. The only thing that has been propping up the Greek state is the class collaboration of the unions. With any sort of half decent leadership the workers would have been able to exit the capitalist mode of production long ago.

As far as a relationship to the means of production, this applies to everyone, even the unemployed.Their role is to be vast army lowering wage rates. I doubt the majority of Occupy protesters are unemployed, and if hey are there have been historically effective ways of organizing the unemployed. AJ Mustie's Workers Party is one.

Maybe we are using different language. What is your definition of a crisis if we are not experiencing one now?

Manic Impressive

8th November 2011, 23:31

Are people in this thread really expecting revolution to be around the corner? :blink:

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 23:35

I don't live in any Europe, I live in America. I meant "toppled" in the parliamentary sense. A few hours ago Berlusconni announced he'll step down. Papendroueo is stepping down. Iceland and Ireland have new governments.

They weren't toppled. Italy has had 4 governments in the last 6 years. Proportional representation always causes this kind of politic. Belgium hasn't had a functioning government for years. Governments routinely lose power when there is economic downturn. None of that is particularly significant. If you think it is, can you explain why.

Yes, well Mubarak was overthrown and this is an assertion of working class power.

They have a military dictatorship that's banned strikes and broken up trade unions.

Regimes in Tunisia and Libya have been overthrown. It is far from what I would like to see but it is a reflection of the global crisis. The ruling cannot continue to rule in the same way.

Except they are doing...I don't understand what you think has happened in these countries? They have pro-western, capitalist liberal democracies. OK, that's slightly better than capitalist dictatorships, but it's not a sign to the "ruling" that they cannot continue to rule. It's a complete affirmation that this is exactly what they can do.

The fifth largest port in the US was shut down. Whether or not it fit the dictionary definition of a "general strike" it was a magnificent accomplishment.

It was shut down for a day, wasn't it? Maybe 2...

Psy

8th November 2011, 23:43

And what do you expect will happen now?

That in a few months the EU will be right back to square one with the Austerity measures having done very little

Do you think the police won't use brute force if they need to?

They did, the protesters shut down the port of Oakland in retaliation and US war veterans voiced their support for the protesters since the Oakland police sent two war vets into the hospital, and of course US soldiers are fully aware that austerity in the USA means their benefits are going to get cut back.

There were a considerable amount of strikes across the world in 2006, including in France and Oaxaca.

Not at this scale.

You think the western worker of 2011 has a lower standard of living than a French worker in 1968...How is that even possible?

In 1968 skilled workers could easily find jobs as there was scarcity in North American for skilled workers.

You also have a collapse of capitalism and disintegration of state power. Neither of which are occurring.

The rate of profit is collapsing faster then the bourgeoisie can implement austerity and austerity is even slowing down the contractions in global growth.

How do you expect to build a movement capable of challenging capitalism if the majority of people in that movement don't have any relationship to the means of the production?
Unemployment has a relationship to the means of production, their relationship is they want to sell their labor and the capitalists says no.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 23:45

We are in crisis and we should continue to emphasize this based on the fact that we are crisis theorists.

The revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is definitely in crisis.

I wouldn't call it winning if the people en masse are trying to burn your parliament down.

Sorry, when did that happen?

:confused:. That doesn't make any sense. The interest of every worker is revolutionary. Unless of course your proposing some kind of relativism ala third worldism.

The (public sector) workers I'm referring to have the ability to side with a revolution, but their interests are so that they could also side with reaction. There relationship to the means of production isn't essential. Capitalism can survive without them. What these workers need is more investment in the public sector and challenging capital and the state isn't a solution to that (as far as they are concerned).

Which is why we accept that at the moment it isn't revolutionary.

How do you imagine it will become revolutionary?

Psy

8th November 2011, 23:45

Are people in this thread really expecting revolution to be around the corner? :blink:

Could be, we can't tell when revolution will come. But what is certain is capitalism can't go back to the ways things were and we are entering another economic period were the rate of profit will be much lower.

S.Artesian

8th November 2011, 23:47

What do you think the purpose of my views are? Self-aggrandizement.

Calling my views shallow and superficial is based on what exactly?

Based on the fact that 1) you don't comprehend the meaning of "crisis," it's function in capitalism. You are confusing it essentially with overthrow, abolition, revolution as Lenina stated 2) that you claim that "workers have always..." done this done that; capitalism has always done this and that, -- and when it's pointed out that "no- that's not the case," you say "right, I admitted these things."

What do you think my agenda is right now? Self-aggrandizement

I mean the fact you're having to resort to practically calling me names is pretty weak.

I'm not calling you names. I'm characterizing your views.

I mean, what is this pose you think I'm taking? I challenge the misconception that the revolution is imminent and you get belligerent and resort to snide attacks...

Oh no you didn't. You claimed capitalism was NOT in crisis. As has been pointed out more than once, that is not the same thing as stating revolution is imminent. Nobody, at least not I, has claimed revolution is imminent. I have claimed that revolution is immanent to capitalism, and the current condition leads to the expression of that immanence. Big difference between "i" and "a"

You've provided evidence that there are problems with capitalism; problems that haven't occurred before or for many years and that workers are resisting. Neither of those things have I rejected. They are true. You are correct in your views.

Again your claim is that capitalism has recovered before and therefore it will recover. Your claim is that because capitalism is capitalism, it will cause the recovery to occur, and thus there are NO prospects for revolution. Here you shift from arguing against imminence to arguing against immanence.

There is no such certainty that capitalism will be overthrown or that it will recover. Neither is determined. What is determined that capitalism will attempt to recover, with such attempts having horrific consequences; what is determined is that the working class will need to make a revolution to prevent those consequences.

The Insurrection

8th November 2011, 23:49

That in a few months the EU will be right back to square one with the Austerity measures having done very little

Right. OK.

They did, the protesters shut down the port of Oakland in retaliation and US war veterans voiced their support for the protesters since the Oakland police sent two war vets into the hospital, and of course US soldiers are fully aware that austerity in the USA means their benefits are going to get cut back.

...Right...So, how does that relate to your previous point...

Not at this scale.

The Oaxaca uprising was virtually a revolution...

In 1968 skilled workers could easily find jobs as there was scarcity in North American for skilled workers.

Does that mean their standard of living was higher though?

The rate of profit is collapsing faster then the bourgeoisie can implement austerity and austerity is even slowing down the contractions in global growth.

Yes. Does that mean capitalism is going to collapse?

Unemployment has a relationship to the means of production, their relationship is they want to sell their labor and the capitalists says no.

That's not a relationship to the means of production. Wanting to be part of it doesn't constitute a relationship.

Psy

9th November 2011, 00:02

...Right...So, how does that relate to your previous point...

The problem is that the American bourgeoisie can't call in troops now, if they do troops probably would side with the protesters due to the police hurting war vets. On top of that they learned that the more they push the movement becomes more radical and more a of a threat to the bourgeoisie.

The Oaxaca uprising was virtually a revolution...

Again not the same scale. There would be revolution now if there was a revolutionary party guiding the militant workers.

Does that mean their standard of living was higher though?

Yes, because American employers had to pay skilled workers more or they would simply leave to work for a competing employer as there was a shortage of skilled workers in 1968.

Yes. Does that mean capitalism is going to collapse?

No, capitalism won't collapse but the system will weaken.

That's not a relationship to the means of production. Wanting to be part of it doesn't constitute a relationship.
Yes it is, everything a unemployed worker consumes is produced by the means of production.

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 00:10

Self-aggrandizement.

OK. Well, there's not a great deal I can say to that.

To justify this thread, I'm simply trying to challenge the common belief because I believe the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is making a mistake, and in so doing incorrectly organising and taking struggle for granted. If you think that's self-aggrandisement, well, I honestly don't know what to say.

It seems to me, then, impossible, to really challenge views and to develop ideas. You seem to be incredibly frustrated at the idea of contrary opinions. It's a shame really. You seem otherwise intelligent.

Based on the fact that 1) you don't comprehend the meaning of "crisis," it's function in capitalism. You are confusing it essentially with overthrow, abolition, revolution as Lenina stated 2) that you claim that "workers have always..." done this done that; capitalism has always done this and that, -- and when it's pointed out that "no- that's not the case," you say "right, I admitted these things."

1) No. I have comprehended it. What I have said is that the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is conflating capitalism having major problems with the kind of crisis we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant.

2) No again. What I have said is that the working class have always resisted in ways described and that capitalism, as you yourself have said, is always having problems. I've gone on to say that the fact these problems are significant and that this resistance exists does not mean that capitalism is about to collapse or that there has been an acceleration in resistance.

Self-aggrandizement

What do you think the purpose of that would be...

I'm not calling you names. I'm characterizing your views.

Yes, I'm aware that's not what you're doing. The way in which you're characterising my views is, nevertheless, quite petty. You might as well be calling me names.

Oh no you didn't. You claimed capitalism was NOT in crisis. As has been pointed out more than once, that is not the same thing as stating revolution is imminent.

"What I'm saying is that capitalism isn't in some state of crisis that will see a rise in revolutionary activity

The fact is, the left have gotten all excited about some impending doom, have seen a rise in oppositional movements and a 'wait-and-see' strategy, in the hope that capitalism will get worse and worse.

You read any left-wing commentator and they will talk about the emergence of new movements; "our moment is here"; "capitalism is collapsing" and all this bullshit. It's just not happening and it means that we're not actually addressing the real issues and developing concrete strategies that are based on reality."

Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2287660&postcount=26)

Again your claim is that capitalism has recovered before and therefore it will recover.

No. What I said was that capitalism has recovered before and that there is no indication that it won't do so again. We shouldn't take things for granted.

Your claim is that because capitalism is capitalism, it will cause the recovery to occur, and thus there are NO prospects for revolution.

That's not my claim.

There is no such certainty that capitalism will be overthrown or that it will recover. Neither is determined. What is determined that capitalism will attempt to recover, with such attempts having horrific consequences; what is determined is that the working class will need to make a revolution to prevent those consequences.

I agree.

Psy

9th November 2011, 00:18

No. What I said was that capitalism has recovered before and that there is no indication that it won't do so again. We shouldn't take things for granted.

Capitalism has yet to fully recover from the crisis caused by the end of the long boom, it only was able to partially recover.

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 00:18

The problem is that the American bourgeoisie can't call in troops now, if they do troops probably would side with the protesters due to the police hurting war vets. On top of that they learned that the more they push the movement becomes more radical and more a of a threat to the bourgeoisie.

I'm not sure what I can say to that. I that's genuinely what you think would happen, then who am I to tell you you're wrong.

Again not the same scale.

Not on the same scale as what? I'm sorry, but I think it's important that you become familiar with the struggle of Oaxaca and the Zapatista's. They have achieved more in their struggle against neo-liberalism in Mexico and the Mexican state than you can even imagine. People have fought and died in an attempt to establish an autonomous nation based on libertarian principles...What are you talking about?

There would be revolution now if there was a revolutionary party guiding the militant workers.

Ah. Now we come to the crux of the issue. All the workers need is a revolutionary party to guide them. :rolleyes:

How would their be a revolution if such a party existed...I mean, don't they already exist...

Yes, because American employers had to pay skilled workers more or they would simply leave to work for a competing employer as there was a shortage of skilled workers in 1968.

I don't have any data to disprove you. Do you have data to corroberate your view or is it just conjecture, because I find the assertion that western workers in 2011 have a worse standard of living than French workers in 1968 very difficult to believe.

No, capitalism won't collapse but the system will weaken.

That won't mean anything without a radicalised workers movement consisting of essential workers. A revolutionary party isn't going to achieve that. Neither is the occupy movement.

Yes it is, everything a unemployed worker consumes is produced by the means of production.

That's not how you define relationships to the means of production. This is pretty basic Marxian theory.

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 00:19

Capitalism has yet to fully recover from the crisis caused by the end of the long boom, it only was able to partially recover.

Right...

Rocky Rococo

9th November 2011, 00:23

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 00:48

How do I know that there is at minimum an approaching social crisis in capitalism? All sorts of new posters showing up at RevLeft with join dates of November 2011 proclaiming that the left is finished forever is one sure sign that some entity or entities within capital are aware that the 21st Century Social Crisis is quite real.

Whoa. Not only did you wildly misrepresent my views; attribute opinions to me that I have never expressed, you implied I am an agent of the state...That's fucking genius. Where the fuck did I "proclaim that the left is finished forever"...

:lol:

Psy

9th November 2011, 00:49

Not on the same scale as what? I'm sorry, but I think it's important that you become familiar with the struggle of Oaxaca and the Zapatista's. They have achieved more in their struggle against neo-liberalism in Mexico and the Mexican state than you can even imagine. People have fought and died in an attempt to establish an autonomous nation based on libertarian principles...What are you talking about?

That if revolution occurred in the USA right now most Americans currently would go along with it.

Ah. Now we come to the crux of the issue. All the workers need is a revolutionary party to guide them. :rolleyes:

How would their be a revolution if such a party existed...I mean, don't they already exist...

The I.W.W is a shadow of its former self yet it still is the largest revolutionary party. If there was a significant revolutionary party then the movement can be guided towards seizing the means of production.

I don't have any data to disprove you. Do you have data to corroberate your view or is it just conjecture, because I find the assertion that western workers in 2011 have a worse standard of living than French workers in 1968 very difficult to believe.

Well the increased household debt coupled with increased hours worked, American workers work longer yet are more in debt as they earn less then they did in 1968. This is how this current crisis came about.

fhCecuZGKss

That won't mean anything without a radicalised workers movement consisting of essential workers. A revolutionary party isn't going to achieve that. Neither is the occupy movement.

A revolutionary party will organize the militant workers against the capitalist class.

That's not how you define relationships to the means of production. This is pretty basic Marxian theory.
It kinda is, what Marx was talking about was relationship to means production in the workplace yet the capitalists is not in the workplace yet still has a relationship to it. The relationship the unemployed has is they need to consume the products of society and in capitalism that means selling their labor to a owner of means of production. Now the relationship unemployed has to production is different then employed workers but there is still a relationship.

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 00:57

That if revolution occurred in the USA right now most Americans currently would go along with it.

...Really...?

The I.W.W is a shadow of its former self yet it still is the largest revolutionary party. If there was a significant revolutionary party then the movement can be guided towards seizing the means of production.I don't accept that the workers need you to guide them.

A revolutionary party will organize the militant workers against the capitalist class. The workers don't require a party organise them. I find the idea that workers aren't able to do that for themselves offensive.

It kinda isDude. No.

what Marx was talking about was relationship to means production in the workplaceNo he wasn't.

yet the capitalists is not in the workplace yet still has a relationship to it.

Yes they control it.

The relationship the unemployed has is they need to consume the products of society and in capitalism that means selling their labor to a owner of means of production.OK. Let's say that I accept what you were saying (which I dont), how does that make the unemployed a revolutionary force?

I'm not going to watch that video now.

Hit The North

9th November 2011, 01:08

1) No. I have comprehended it. What I have said is that the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is conflating capitalism having major problems with the kind of crisis we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant.

The problem I have is that you make this claim but so far you've not provided any evidence that the "revolutionary anti-capitalist movement" is conflating these two positions. Some choice quotes might save your argument from collapsing into strawman irrelevancy.

What I see in the revolutionary literature I read is a welcome optimism and enthusiasm for the growing resistance against capitalism. There is also an obvious sense that this crisis is a necessary precondition for any deepening crisis and that the best way of ensuring that the ruling class are unable to solve their problems is to cheer, encourage and build opposition to their policies. So the literature I read is calling for workers to build strikes, demos, occupations, anti-cuts campaigns, and the other practical or symbolic initiatives that are already under way. But none of it is claiming that the revolution is just around the corner.

The only sentiment your 'position' appears to offer is cynicism.

"What I'm saying is that capitalism isn't in some state of crisis that will see a rise in revolutionary activitySo what kind of crisis will see a rise in revolutionary activity and where can we buy one from? We begin with the conditions we find ourselves in, unable to summon up "the right kind of crisis" at will.

The fact is, the left have gotten all excited about some impending doom, have seen a rise in oppositional movements and a 'wait-and-see' strategy, in the hope that capitalism will get worse and worse.

You read any left-wing commentator and they will talk about the emergence of new movements; "our moment is here"; "capitalism is collapsing" and all this bullshit. It's just not happening and it means that we're not actually addressing the real issues and developing concrete strategies that are based on reality."Quotations, please! And while you're at it, precisely formulate what the real issues are and what concrete strategies the left should pursue, in your opinion.

No. What I said was that capitalism has recovered before and that there is no indication that it won't do so again. We shouldn't take things for granted.
Who's taking it for granted? Quotation quotation!

Psy

9th November 2011, 01:11

...Really...?

This is why bourgeoisie liberals has given lip service to the protests as the polls show most Americans passively support the protests.

I don't accept that the workers need you to guide them.

The workers don't require a party organise them. I find the idea that workers aren't able to do that for themselves offensive.

Yhea they do, just look at Germany after WWI where there was a revolutionary situation and even a revolutionary party yet that party failed to effectively utilize the militancy of Germany workers.

Dude. No.

No he wasn't.

Yes they control it.

And how is consuming what is produced not a relationship.

OK. Let's say that I accept what you were saying (which I dont), how does that make the unemployed a revolutionary force?

Because they want access to the products of societies. The proletariat are not the only group that has grievances against capitalists.

Jimmie Higgins

9th November 2011, 09:15

To justify this thread, I'm simply trying to challenge the common belief because I believe the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is making a mistake, and in so doing incorrectly organising and taking struggle for granted.What's your alternative?

1) No. I have comprehended it. What I have said is that the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement is conflating capitalism having major problems with the kind of crisis we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant. What is the kind of crisis necessary for for revolutionary ideas to become relevant? What would these ideas becoming relevant look like?

2) No again. What I have said is that the working class have always resisted in ways described and that capitalism, as you yourself have said, is always having problems. I've gone on to say that the fact these problems are significant and that this resistance exists does not mean that capitalism is about to collapse or that there has been an acceleration in resistance.This is just historically inaccurate. You can empirically count the number of indignado protests, the number of occupations in Greece, the number of strikes in Greece, the number of revolts in North Africa etc. No these are not working class revolutions, but revolts, strikes, etc. are how the working class learns to fight the ruling class and work together. It's a potential beginning, but nothing is certain - we could have WWIII or fascism smash working class independence or a revolution. I think there's plenty of concrete evidence that things are much more unstable for the capitalist system than in the recent past.

But again, what's your alternative? Shit get really bad, people watch some riot porn, poof... revolution?

What do you think the purpose of that would be...Of your self-aggrandizement? Hmm, that's a good one. Let's see... probably it's to make yourself feel important and radical because your shitty attitude probably alienates you from most of your co-workers and other activists. So you take contrary positions on things and pick fights on with people on the left so that you can convince yourself that your social isolation and political marginalization comes from being much too radical for people to handle.

Or, I don't know maybe you're just passing the time until you inevitably decide that the working class is "part of the problem" and you become a conservative who sits around saying, "yeah I dabbled in radical politics, but the working class cares more for ipods and video-games than real revolution - so they get what's coming to them if you ask me".

You read any left-wing commentator and they will talk about the emergence of new movements; "our moment is here"; "capitalism is collapsing" and all this bullshit. It's just not happening and it means that we're not actually addressing the real issues and developing concrete strategies that are based on reality."Ok, first you are moving goal-posts by first saying there is no crisis, now you are saying that capitalism isn't about to collapse (which I think everyone here agreed with). At any rate, what are the concrete strategies you propose based on your view of reality?

GatesofLenin

9th November 2011, 10:41

The Insurrection

9th November 2011, 21:52

I was on the demo in London. Too tired to respond right now, but I will get to it. Suffice to say, you're all wrong :p

ZeroNowhere

10th November 2011, 01:36

I've noticed alot (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TRIo4br3I/AAAAAAAACv4/Zh7_GcMlRKo/s400/ALOT.png) of people saying things like "Karl Marx said capitalism kills itself, was he right?" or "capitalism is its' own demise."
Only the proletariat can end capitalism.
I've always found it amusing how often the assertion that capitalism doesn't undermine itself but must rather be ended by the proletariat is used in such a way as to remove all theoretical basis for the revolutionary nature of the proletariat.

[On the falling rate of profit:] These contradictions lead to explosions, cataclysms, crises, in which by momentaneous suspension of labour and annihilation of a great portion of capital the latter is violently reduced to the point where it can go on. These contradictions, of course, lead to explosions, crises, in which momentary suspension of all labour and annihilation of a great part of the capital violently lead it back to the point where it is enabled [to go on] fully employing its productive powers without committing suicide [this first sentence seems to have been repeated]. Yet, these regularly recurring catastrophes lead to their repetition on a higher scale, and finally to its violent overthrow. There are moments in the developed movement of capital which delay this movement other than by crises; such as e.g. the constant devaluation of a part of the existing capital: the transformation of a great part of capital into fixed capital which does not serve as agency of direct production; unproductive waste of a great portion of capital etc. (Productively employed capital is always replaced doubly, as we have seen, in that the positing of value by a productive capital presupposes a counter-value. The unproductive consumption of capital replaces it on one side, annihilates it on the other. That the fall of the rate of profit can further be delayed by the omission of existing deductions from profit, e.g. by a lowering of taxes, reduction of ground rent etc., is actually not our concern here, although of importance in practice, for these are themselves portions of the profit under another name, and are appropriated by persons other than the capitalists themselves.

Thirsty Crow

10th November 2011, 01:41

I've always found it amusing how often the assertion that capitalism doesn't undermine itself but must rather be ended by the proletariat is used in such a way as to remove all theoretical basis for the revolutionary nature of the proletariat.
I think that people you are referring to (and yes, I feel being called upon) do not argue that capialism doesn't undermine itself - when the very condition of capital is its greatest obstacle - but rather that the antagonisms inherent to capital, and the resultant social crisis, will not in itself and of itself lead to socialism as if by some kind of an automatic clockwork mechanism, implying that socialism is inevitable, while it is clear that it is not.

Klaatu

10th November 2011, 01:58

Have you ever had one of those big, painful zits on your face that just will not pop... it just gets sore when you try to squeeze it? Well it does eventually burst, and then it heals up.

Capitalism is like that big, painful boil. When we try to fix it, it just gets more painful and inflamed. But like that zit, Capitalism will burst someday (and the pus represents the criminal capitalists being squirted on the mirror) :lol:

Rocky Rococo

10th November 2011, 01:59

Whoa. Not only did you wildly misrepresent my views; attribute opinions to me that I have never expressed, you implied I am an agent of the state...That's fucking genius. Where the fuck did I "proclaim that the left is finished forever"...

:lol:

And your opinion differs from this other poster who also has a join date of November 2011 how?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/its-over-t163966/index.html?t=163966

Oh, and where did I imply you're an agent of the state? After all, global hegemony built on Reaganism-Thatcherism will always choose the private sector as its preferred means of operation, including any effort to sow despair and disillusionment among leftists in what my experience of over 30 years on the left offer themselves as the most promising times in that entire three decades.

u.s.red

10th November 2011, 15:02

So, Insurrection, you are saying that capitalism is not in a crisis now.

1. Was capitalism in a crisis in 1880s, 1907 (c), 1929, 1938, 1980, 2008? We all know Marx and Engels' theory of capitalist crisis: every 7-10 yrs, production, value, labor, etc would be destroyed and the whole process would start over.

Are you saying that 1929 was not a crisis or that 2008 was qualitatively different?

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:02

The problem I have is that you make this claim but so far you've not provided any evidence that the "revolutionary anti-capitalist movement" is conflating these two positions. Some choice quotes might save your argument from collapsing into strawman irrelevancy.

I don't really understand what you're asking me. If none of you thought that this was possible, why are you in the occupy movement trying to organise? Why does the occupy movement exist if it does not believe that this crisis is the kind we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant?

What I see in the revolutionary literature I read is a welcome optimism and enthusiasm for the growing resistance against capitalism.Presumably because they believe this 'crisis' will lead to capitalism being replaced. Or that revolutionary ideas will become relevant.

There is also an obvious sense that this crisis is a necessary precondition for any deepening crisis and that the best way of ensuring that the ruling class are unable to solve their problems is to cheer, encourage and build opposition to their policies.OK...

So the literature I read is calling for workers to build strikes, demos, occupations, anti-cuts campaigns, and the other practical or symbolic initiatives that are already under way. But none of it is claiming that the revolution is just around the corner.I never said they did.

The only sentiment your 'position' appears to offer is cynicism.Yes. I am cynical of these movements because I have seen them follow the same formulas and fail. Time and time again.

So what kind of crisis will see a rise in revolutionary activity and where can we buy one from?Oh that's cute.

I would say when essential workers are taking action that's beyond their own interests and which directly threaten capitalism, not just in their workplaces but within their communities too.

We begin with the conditions we find ourselves in, unable to summon up "the right kind of crisis" at will.Of course, but without the correct analysis and tactics you can occupy as many local authority sanctioned parks and cathedral grounds as you want, it's not going to challenge capitalism.

Quotations, please! And while you're at it, precisely formulate what the real issues are and what concrete strategies the left should pursue, in your opinion.

[...]

Who's taking it for granted? Quotation quotation!The choice phrase of most of the occupy movements, at a cursory glance is "capitalism is unsustainable". This is a phrase used in most of the Occupy websites. This is a statement steeped in "taking or granted".

I can't provide you with choice quotes (mostly because I'm lazy), but I don't know what you're trying to argue against. Presumably you think that new movements are emerging, since you pretty said as much in this post I'm replying to, and obviously people think that capitalism is collapsing since they think it's unsustainable and in crisis...Unless I've totally mis understood what these things mean, then I think its safe to say I'm not extrapolating.

As for concrete strategies, I don't have any. I don't have a solution. I could be wrong, perhaps taking strikes (that abide by the law) and occupying state sanctioned spaces around cities will start a massive workers movement that can bring down capitalism, but I just don't see how that's actually possibly.

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 00:15

What's your alternative?

I don't have one.

What is the kind of crisis necessary for for revolutionary ideas to become relevant?Scarcity of essential things most probably.

What would these ideas becoming relevant look like?When essential workers organise attacks on capitalism beyond their own interests in their workplaces and in their communities.

This is just historically inaccurate....What?...

But again, what's your alternative?I don't have one.

Shit get really bad, people watch some riot porn, poof... revolution?Oooh, good one.

Of your self-aggrandizement? Hmm, that's a good one. Let's see... probably it's to make yourself feel important and radical because your shitty attitude probably alienates you from most of your co-workers and other activists. So you take contrary positions on things and pick fights on with people on the left so that you can convince yourself that your social isolation and political marginalization comes from being much too radical for people to handle.First of all, I reject that I'm being self-aggrandising. Trying to substitute an insult for an argument against someone who disagrees with you is usually a sign of evasion.

I'm not trying to make myself look important or better. I'm simply criticising the lefts engagement, analysis and strategy against capitalism. Why don't you engage with that instead of personally insulting me and attacking me ad hominem.

Secondly, what shitty attitude. All I have done is challenge your assumptions and criticised your views (i.e. the function of debate). You're the one being rude and insulting. I have taken a contrary opinion because I believe it's right.

Thirdly, I continue to be part of these movements and am involved in community struggles as well as the students movement, so perhaps you should refrain from your prejudice.

Or, I don't know maybe you're just passing the time until you inevitably decide that the working class is "part of the problem" and you become a conservative who sits around saying, "yeah I dabbled in radical politics, but the working class cares more for ipods and video-games than real revolution - so they get what's coming to them if you ask me".Is this really your argument? Are you really this narrow-minded and arrogant to assume that you are right and any criticism of your views is basically from someone who is lazy or potentially a reactionary?

You're being incredibly prejudicial and myopic and it doesn't do you any favours.

Ok, first you are moving goal-posts by first saying there is no crisis, now you are saying that capitalism isn't about to collapse (which I think everyone here agreed with).I have not been inconsistent with my point of view.

At any rate, what are the concrete strategies you propose based on your view of realityI don't have a concrete strategy, beyond knowing that capitalism cannot be defeated unless the essential working class organise beyond their interests.

Die Rote Fahne

11th November 2011, 00:16

qOP2V_np2c0

Hit The North

11th November 2011, 02:01

I don't really understand what you're asking me. If none of you thought that this was possible, why are you in the occupy movement trying to organise? Why does the occupy movement exist if it does not believe that this crisis is the kind we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant?

Lets' begin with the formula of optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect. People organise anti-war demonstrations without thinking that this one act will end the war. People take strike action without believing that this will end their suffering under capitalism.

But your assumption that the current crisis does not make revolutionary ideas relevant is mistaken to start with. How else can society rid itself of these periodic and catastrophic crises without revolutionising itself?

Presumably because they believe this 'crisis' will lead to capitalism being replaced. Or that revolutionary ideas will become relevant.No, because they feel the need to struggle against capitalism in the hear and now. And, of course, under capitalism revolutionary ideas are always relevant.

Yes. I am cynical of these movements because I have seen them follow the same formulas and fail. Time and time again.Except you've not seen the global occupy movement in action before as it is a recent phenomenon. It isn't in itself a revolutionary movement, as you've pointed out, but the symbolic act of (re)occupation strikes a chord with a lot of people and who knows if, in the near future, workers don't begin to take the symbolism seriously and start to occupy their workplaces?

I would say when essential workers are taking action that's beyond their own interests and which directly threaten capitalism, not just in their workplaces but within their communities too. Well this is a description of a type of response to a crisis, not a description of a particular crisis.

Of course, but without the correct analysis and tactics you can occupy as many local authority sanctioned parks and cathedral grounds as you want, it's not going to challenge capitalism. Even the most genius analysis, or the greatest tactician, will not transform the occupation of cathedral grounds into a revolutionary opportunity, I'm afraid. I don't disagree with you that the occupy movement has real political weaknesses; but a collective delusion that their occupations will bring the walls of capitalism crashing down is not one of their weaknesses.

I can't provide you with choice quotes (mostly because I'm lazy), but I don't know what you're trying to argue against. Presumably you think that new movements are emerging, since you pretty said as much in this post I'm replying to, and obviously people think that capitalism is collapsing since they think it's unsustainable and in crisis...Unless I've totally mis understood what these things mean, then I think its safe to say I'm not extrapolating.
You are misunderstanding it, I think. To argue that something is unsustainable in the long term or medium term, is not the same as arguing that its collapse is imminent. Meanwhile, at the heart of any revolutionary critique of capitalism is the idea that it cannot sustain itself or sustain the further development of the species. So there's no real controversy among revolutionaries that capitalism is unsustainable. In fact, if you are arguing that the capitalist mode of production is infinitely sustainable, it is you who holds a heterodox position.

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 03:05

The Oaxaca uprising was virtually a revolution...

... in a third world country. Yes, we have seen many of those throught the years. The precise novelty is, unrest is now at the streets of London, New York, Paris, Rome, San Francisco - not just in Mexico, Colombia or Zaire. In other words, the crisis is now hitting the capitalist centre, not just the periphery. We haven't seen this, at this scale, since 1968.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 03:11

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 03:18

How would their be a revolution if such a party existed...I mean, don't they already exist...

Nope. There are cults and sects, and things that call themselves revolutionary communist parties or something to the effect, but are neither revolutinary nor communist nor even parties. At best there are revolutionary tendencies, quite severed of any actual influence within the working class movement.

That's not how you define relationships to the means of production. This is pretty basic Marxian theory.

The relation between unemployed workers and the means of production is pretty obvious: unemployed workers, just like employed workers, do not own means of production, or, better saying, they only own one mean of prodution: their labour force. They are therefore fractions of the same class, the working class, the proletariat. Now this is pretty basic Marxian theory; nowhere does Marx say anything different.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 03:26

Why does the occupy movement exist if it does not believe that this crisis is the kind we require for revolutionary ideas to become relevant?

It exists because ordinary people are no longer accepting the situation as it is. Not because they have thought of this or that strategy, but because they are not being able to make the ends meet, and because it is increasingly clear that the ruling classes are leading us into some ugly mess of a situation, and because it is starting to look as if they (the ruling class) aren't able to simply call the police or the army and shut everybody else's mouth at their whim.

If the Occupies depended on the leftist tendencies in the US to exist, we wouldn't be discussing them just now.

Luís Henrique

Marxaveli

11th November 2011, 04:37

Capitalism isn't in crisis, but rather, by its very nature, IS the crisis itself. The division and exploitation of labor, unemployment, inheritance and privilege, overproduction, imperialism and so on, are the proxy manifestations of the crisis (capitalism).

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 10:21

Lets' begin with the formula of optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect. People organise anti-war demonstrations without thinking that this one act will end the war. People take strike action without believing that this will end their suffering under capitalism.

Right, OK. So what's the purpose of your involvement then? Or the purpose of Higgins? Or the purpose of the ISO etc etc?

But your assumption that the current crisis does not make revolutionary ideas relevant is mistaken to start with. How else can society rid itself of these periodic and catastrophic crises without revolutionising itself?Says the revolutionary. And I'm not making an assumption, I'm stating a fact. Your ideas are not relevant; even less so when people talk about building revolutionary parties to "guide" the working class.

No, because they feel the need to struggle against capitalism in the hear and now. And, of course, under capitalism revolutionary ideas are always relevant.They are relevant to revolutionaries, obviously.

But actually the vast majority of these movements are pro-capitalist and find your ideas irrelevant, if not outright problematic. Of course they're relevant to you and they're relevant to me, but they're certainly not relevant to those in this struggle.

You're not going to radicalise these occupy movements because people don't believe that violence is acceptable first of all, nor do they believe the solution requires such radical action. You can try and convince them otherwise with your workshops and paper sales, but unless you're convincing them in struggle, it's not going to work, and as far as I can see they're is a great antipathy towards this kind of militancy. I don't see how that's going to change.

And in any case, changing these peoples minds is not actually going to challenge the economic foundations of capitalism because these movements aren't made up of essential workers.

Except you've not seen the global occupy movement in action before as it is a recent phenomenon.No, but I've seen enough struggle to know this will amount to nothing. There will inevitably be a divergence of ideas and tactics and the liberals will win. The nature of these movements are such that this is bound to happen. Their class composition is lacking.

It isn't in itself a revolutionary movement, as you've pointed out, but the symbolic act of (re)occupation strikes a chord with a lot of people and who knows if, in the near future, workers don't begin to take the symbolism seriously and start to occupy their workplaces?It's this "who knows" attitude which is part of the problem. "Let's have a strike and occupy a church yard, then maybe the workers will look upon us"...That's not how it works.

Well this is a description of a type of response to a crisis, not a description of a particular crisis.Scarcity most likely, or the dismantling of the essential means of production.

Even the most genius analysis, or the greatest tactician, will not transform the occupation of cathedral grounds into a revolutionary opportunity, I'm afraid. I don't disagree with you that the occupy movement has real political weaknesses; but a collective delusion that their occupations will bring the walls of capitalism crashing down is not one of their weaknesses. I guess I'm not really being clear. The political weakness of these movements is that they are predominantly liberal and pro-capitalist. That one problem. When I talk about people believing this is a point in which revolutionary ideas are relevant (as in widely accepted as being necessary), I'm referring to the left, who do believe that there is a possibility to build movements to bring capitalisms walls crashing down. Otherwise why are you involved them?

These movements are not the beginning of a revolutionary movement, nor do they have the ability to become that. Not even the public sector strikes in the UK have this ability, since their interests are to re-establish state investment in the public sector; and the public sector in the UK has generally always been liberal in its outlook.

You are misunderstanding it, I think. To argue that something is unsustainable in the long term or medium term, is not the same as arguing that its collapse is imminent.OK, but whether that's true or not, it doesn't really address my arguments. It's clear, just by this thread, that people do think that capitalisms collapse is imminent, but even if the left generally are being more cautious, it doesn't actually deal with the fact it's self-belief is misguided.

Meanwhile, at the heart of any revolutionary critique of capitalism is the idea that it cannot sustain itself or sustain the further development of the species.But that unsustainability doesn't mean that communism will succeed.

So there's no real controversy among revolutionaries that capitalism is unsustainable. In fact, if you are arguing that the capitalist mode of production is infinitely sustainable, it is you who holds a heterodox position.I'm not making that claim.

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 10:27

... in a third world country. Yes, we have seen many of those throught the years. The precise novelty is, unrest is now at the streets of London, New York, Paris, Rome, San Francisco - not just in Mexico, Colombia or Zaire. In other words, the crisis is now hitting the capitalist centre, not just the periphery. We haven't seen this, at this scale, since 1968.

Luís Henrique

You think what's happening in London and New York is unrest. Most of the occupy groups in the UK have the permission of the local authorities and the police to exist. That's not unrest. That's barely even protest.

The flash of riots we had in August. That was unrest.

yowhatitlooklike

11th November 2011, 11:01

lets all just agree to disagree :laugh:

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 16:39

You think what's happening in London and New York is unrest. Most of the occupy groups in the UK have the permission of the local authorities and the police to exist. That's not unrest. That's barely even protest.

The flash of riots we had in August. That was unrest.

We will have that again soon.

Luís Henrique

u.s.red

11th November 2011, 17:34

I don't have a concrete strategy, beyond knowing that capitalism cannot be defeated unless the essential working class organise beyond their interests.

The "essential" working class. I don't think Marx mentioned that term anywhere.

LuÃs Henrique

11th November 2011, 19:38

Capitalism isn't in crisis, but rather, by its very nature, IS the crisis itself.

May be, but in that case, the crisis is in crisis now.

Luís Henrique

Marxaveli

11th November 2011, 19:53

I look at it this way. Capitalism is the virus, what we are experiencing now is one of the symptoms. And this is part of the reason I am a revolutionary and not a reformist. We continue to attack the SYMPTOMS, and not the virus itself. But our politicians either don't see it that way, or do not realize, or both. Even in "good times", capitalism is still a crisis because #1. we only view it as a problem when it starts affecting the middle class, but it is ALWAYS shitty for the poor and working class, and #2. These recessions are an intrinsic nature of capitalism, they WILL always come back regardless of any reforms or safety nets we create. At best, they make the problem less severe, but they certainly do not eliminate it.

Revision is not an option for capitalism. It must be abolished ENTIRELY. But the only way to do this is to quit attacking the symptoms, and cure the virus itself.

Jimmie Higgins

11th November 2011, 21:03

Secondly, what shitty attitude. All I have done is challenge your assumptions and criticised your views (i.e. the function of debate). You're the one being rude and insulting. I have taken a contrary opinion because I believe it's right.Aww, poor guy. When I challenged your ideas, you called me a liar and misrepresented my views. Now you are crying and accusing others of evasion and a shitty attitude. lol.

Right, OK. So what's the purpose of your involvement then? Or the purpose of Higgins? Or the purpose of the ISO etc etc?So as soon as a worker draws revolutionary conclusions - he ceases to be a worker. If someone draws revolutionary ideas they should not try and win other workers to that view even though every second of every day the ruling class is also trying to spin the experiences of workers in a direction favorable to maintaining the system? If a group of workers get together around shared goals and ideas, suddenly they are outside the working class, no longer a part of it?

Radicals should be involved when people are confronting the state or the bosses to 1) help people win that struggle 2) to show in practice how radical ideas make sense and are important to actually wining either short-term gains or ultimately a self-liberation of the working class.

What is the kind of crisis necessary for for revolutionary ideas to become relevant? Scarcity of essential things most probably.So Hati must be in the middle of a Revolution and uprisings must be impossible in Egypt. Chinese workers must not be striking because they have been seeing increases in wages, the US underclass must all be the most revolutionary people.

In US history, the most militant years of the great depression were during "recovery" years for the US economy - hardships of the depression set the backdrop but the decisive thing was not suffering (the worse years were 31 and 32 which saw a decline in strikes and other activism) people's independent (i.e. from below) organization and confidence to fight back. In the US anti-racism movements of the 1960s - it was when gains began to be made that black people radicalized and began to organize and fight for class issues whereas mush harsher years for US blacks only saw increased demoralization and feelings of helplessness.

The recession has broken millions of people from taking for granted that neo-liberal market propaganda is either undoubtable or invincible. Now, more importantly, people are beginning to assert their discontent. People are not becoming revolutionaries in mass numbers, but it is the type of situation where, in the past, that is possible.

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 21:36

The "essential" working class. I don't think Marx mentioned that term anywhere.

OH NO. Then I guess that must mean he died 140 years ago!

The Insurrection

11th November 2011, 21:45

Aww, poor guy.

Do you think this is productive?

When I challenged your ideas, you called me a liar and misrepresented my views.Where did I call you a liar or misrepresent your views?

Now you are crying and accusing others of evasion and a shitty attitude. lol.Dude, I'm not crying, I'm just confused at your hostility. Especially when you say stupid things like "now you are crying". It's like being in a playground...

So as soon as a worker draws revolutionary conclusions - he ceases to be a worker. If someone draws revolutionary ideas they should not try and win other workers to that view even though every second of every day the ruling class is also trying to spin the experiences of workers in a direction favorable to maintaining the system? If a group of workers get together around shared goals and ideas, suddenly they are outside the working class, no longer a part of it?

Radicals should be involved when people are confronting the state or the bosses to 1) help people win that struggle 2) to show in practice how radical ideas make sense and are important to actually wining either short-term gains or ultimately a self-liberation of the working class.Right. So you've proven my point.

So Hati must be in the middle of a Revolution and uprisings must be impossible in Egypt. Chinese workers must not be striking because they have been seeing increases in wages, the US underclass must all be the most revolutionary people....What am I supposed to say to this. Can you please be direct in the points you're making, rather than just be sarcastic and vague. Please relate to what I'm saying otherwise how am I expected to continue discussing with you.

Are you trying to make the point that there is scarcity in Haiti and there wasn't a revolution therefore I'm wrong to think that scarcity will create a crisis in which revolutionary ideas become relevant to workers?

In US history, the most militant years of the great depression were during "recovery" years for the US economy - hardships of the depression set the backdrop but the decisive thing was not suffering (the worse years were 31 and 32 which saw a decline in strikes and other activism) people's independent (i.e. from below) organization and confidence to fight back. In the US anti-racism movements of the 1960s - it was when gains began to be made that black people radicalized and began to organize and fight for class issues whereas mush harsher years for US blacks only saw increased demoralization and feelings of helplessness.And they failed to materialise into anything.

The recession has broken millions of people from taking for granted that neo-liberal market propaganda is either undoubtable or invincible. Now, more importantly, people are beginning to assert their discontent. People are not becoming revolutionaries in mass numbers, but it is the type of situation where, in the past, that is possible.People always assert their discontent. Some people that time, other people this time. Let me ask this then: What is your strategy?

Psy

11th November 2011, 21:46

You're not going to radicalise these occupy movements because people don't believe that violence is acceptable first of all, nor do they believe the solution requires such radical action. You can try and convince them otherwise with your workshops and paper sales, but unless you're convincing them in struggle, it's not going to work, and as far as I can see they're is a great antipathy towards this kind of militancy. I don't see how that's going to change.

Workers abandon pacifism when it becomes counter-productive, we don't have to teach the occupy movement anything the bourgeoisie is teaching them the flaw of pacifism through the school of hard knocks (mostly via the clubs of police).

And in any case, changing these peoples minds is not actually going to challenge the economic foundations of capitalism because these movements aren't made up of essential workers.

Construction workers are not essential? railway workers, fire fighters, teachers, auto workers, because labor unions are partially funding these movements in North America. This is how occupy camps got portable toilets, construction workers donated them.

No, but I've seen enough struggle to know this will amount to nothing. There will inevitably be a divergence of ideas and tactics and the liberals will win. The nature of these movements are such that this is bound to happen. Their class composition is lacking.

The problem is the liberals are attacking the very unions funding these protests. Also these unions are starting to all go on strike as their employers try to roll back their living standards.

It's this "who knows" attitude which is part of the problem. "Let's have a strike and occupy a church yard, then maybe the workers will look upon us"...That's not how it works.

Yet the labor unions in North America did support the occupations as the unions saw a massive fight for their very right to exist as a labor union coming, thus they had to support the protests to get as much support as they could to stop the capitalists from busting the remaining unions.

These movements are not the beginning of a revolutionary movement, nor do they have the ability to become that. Not even the public sector strikes in the UK have this ability, since their interests are to re-establish state investment in the public sector; and the public sector in the UK has generally always been liberal in its outlook.

In North America the ruling class made it clear they find the usefulness of bourgeois unions has past so they have no intention of negotiating with any unions anymore. They want workers to swallow much lower living standards and they see labor unions as a obstacle to that.

u.s.red

11th November 2011, 23:05

OH NO. Then I guess that must mean he died 140 years ago!

Well then what is the essential working class, as opposed to the non-essential working class?

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 00:25

Well then what is the essential working class, as opposed to the non-essential working class?

"...the essential proletariat is that group of workers who can halt vast areas of the economy by stopping their work. These workers are employed in the economy's core industries, industries that can only operate with a relatively high level of labour input into their processes, which gives to those workers an already existing control over process; core workers' latent power can be demonstrated immediately in industrial action which spreads its knock-on effect to all businesses in the locality and beyond, producing spiralling repercussions in society. Core-workers include factory workers, dustmen, power workers, distribution workers (post, rail, road haulage, ferries, dockers, etc); in all of these examples the cessation of work causes immediate and widespread problems for the economy..."

http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-some-basic-elaborations

Jimmie Higgins

12th November 2011, 07:08

Where did I call you a liar or misrepresent your views?

I said that radicals should work side by side with people challenging the system and radicalizing: "By "getting out there" I mean don't sit on your hands and complain. At least here in Oakland, radical anarchists and marxists have been involved in organizing as well as holding teach-ins on radical politics; we have been able to use the political space created by the movement to start to bring in rank and file allies and people in social movements. With the police raid, radical arguments have more currency since what we'd been arguing about the city and the police (not being on the side of the protesters) turned out to be correct."

And you replied:

But anyway Higgins, let's be honest here, you're in the ISO, so we all know what forming broad movements means to you. It means getting into a position where you're able to control it.

So, yeah you called me a lair and are either totally ignorant of the work the group I'm in does or are intentionally misrepresenting it. You show me total disrespect after I sincerely engage in a debate with you and then expect me not to respond with sarcasm and treat you like a troll after that? Maybe you don't know how you sound but several people here have commented on the hostile tone of your posts which you then deflect and say they should not take it seriously -- but then you complain when people treat you in kind. Are you here just to pick fights, take the piss, prove how radicaler-than-thou you are? I seriously don't know.

Are you trying to make the point that there is scarcity in Haiti and there wasn't a revolution therefore I'm wrong to think that scarcity will create a crisis in which revolutionary ideas become relevant to workers?No I'm making the point that there is no mechanistic formula that X amount of hardship means people begin to radicalize. If you are waiting for a collapse of capitalism to bring about revolution, then it will likely never happen since places like Haiti are completely fucked up and people are eating food with mud mixed in for filler because there is such a lack of basic things. There were food riots, so in a sense yes hardship does cause some kind of response - but revolutionary consciousness is not automatic - often it's tyrants with all the answers who take advantage of these situations. So problems and discontent are part, but also class confidence and self-reliance and independence are also important - workers have to believe they can do better and trust their own ability to collectively reorganize society.

In May 1968 one of the slogans is "with the eating comes the hunger" meaning as people win, their hunger for more winning grows. I fully believe this is the case because there are plenty of examples of people living in fucking horrible conditions and NOT being receptive to radical ideas. People aren't drones and they aren't empty vessels waiting for either some Bob Avakian or some elite group of insurrectionist adventurers to tell or show them what to do. The economic crisis can make people begin to question things and loose faith in the invincibility of the system, but it's really people's own experiences and engagement in struggles against the system that produces revolutionary consiousness on a mass scale.

People always assert their discontent. Some people that time, other people this time. Let me ask this then: What is your strategy?In general, try and help people build their struggles in ways I think have the best chance of winning which includes also trying to promoter the radical politics necessary IMO for people to win fights against the system. Try and build class consciousness, independence and self-leadership.

In the occupy movement in particular it's to try and make links between the movement and the class by attempting to build rank and file involvement in occupy. On the other hand bring in issues of oppressed racial and sexual groups and try to make links to the working class community through anti-eviction pickets and the like. This will help broaden the movement so that it will be harder for the cops to crush it and it will bring in more working people and connect more to class issues and struggle.

So what's your strategy?

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 11:10

I said that radicals should work side by side with people challenging the system and radicalizing: "By "getting out there" I mean don't sit on your hands and complain. At least here in Oakland, radical anarchists and marxists have been involved in organizing as well as holding teach-ins on radical politics; we have been able to use the political space created by the movement to start to bring in rank and file allies and people in social movements. With the police raid, radical arguments have more currency since what we'd been arguing about the city and the police (not being on the side of the protesters) turned out to be correct."

So, yeah you called me a lair and are either totally ignorant of the work the group I'm in does or are intentionally misrepresenting it. You show me total disrespect after I sincerely engage in a debate with you and then expect me not to respond with sarcasm and treat you like a troll after that? Maybe you don't know how you sound but several people here have commented on the hostile tone of your posts which you then deflect and say they should not take it seriously -- but then you complain when people treat you in kind. Are you here just to pick fights, take the piss, prove how radicaler-than-thou you are? I seriously don't know.

So you deny that your political party wants to lead the workers movement? You deny that the ISO's objective is to have political, ideological and strategic control?

No I'm making the point that there is no mechanistic formula that X amount of hardship means people begin to radicalize. If you are waiting for a collapse of capitalism to bring about revolution, then it will likely never happen since places like Haiti are completely fucked up and people are eating food with mud mixed in for filler because there is such a lack of basic things. There were food riots, so in a sense yes hardship does cause some kind of response - but revolutionary consciousness is not automatic - often it's tyrants with all the answers who take advantage of these situations. So problems and discontent are part, but also class confidence and self-reliance and independence are also important - workers have to believe they can do better and trust their own ability to collectively reorganize society.You are attacking a position I have never taken. A) I never said there was a mechanistic formula and b) I never said that scarcity was the only thing that was required to radicalise people.

In May 1968 one of the slogans is "with the eating comes the hunger" meaning as people win, their hunger for more winning grows. I fully believe this is the case because there are plenty of examples of people living in fucking horrible conditions and NOT being receptive to radical ideas. People aren't drones and they aren't empty vessels waiting for either some Bob Avakian or some elite group of insurrectionist adventurers to tell or show them what to do. The economic crisis can make people begin to question things and loose faith in the invincibility of the system, but it's really people's own experiences and engagement in struggles against the system that produces revolutionary consiousness on a mass scale.You speak as if these views had ever been successful. You talk as if this opinion was somehow vindicated by great revolutionary acts. I mean, that's how it reads. Your tone of confidence and foresight in the things you write make what you're saying seem axiomatic; as if it should be obvious.

None of what you're saying is untrue, but it's not as simple and obvious as you're making it out to be. Struggle is important, but the struggles have to reflect revolutionary goals, otherwise all you are winning are concessions; concessions that the state is offering you and in turn reinforcing the legitimacy of liberal politics and the facade of democracy - That you can apply pressure on the state and it will concede, since that's what it's already doing. You cannot build revolutionary struggles out of reformist victories.

On the actual subject:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm

I agree with this. This is empirically the case. And I assume you believe it too, leading to a contradiction in what you're arguing. First of all you attacked me because you say that capitalism is in crisis, ergo struggle has been created and is possible. Secondly, you attack me for identifying the need for critical productive collapse as a prelude to revolutionary struggle and say that workers can be radicalised in ruling class victory. You seem to have thought of every way for me to be wrong...

Unfortunately, despite capitalisms problems and peoples realisation that something is wrong, ruling ideas are still the dominant force, since material production continues to provide and be dominated by the ruling class. Capitalism doesn't not make sense to people because they have no material basis to believe so. The most we are seeing is that people believe those who "lead" capitalism are simply corrupt. People don't see the system as a whole as the fundamental problem, but simply how the system is organised. You can try and change peoples minds, but reality is materialist, not idealist. Peoples material conditions must change before their ideas can change.

Struggle for material dominance is the prerequisite for the dominance of ideas ("life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life"). If material production continues to provide then there is no need to struggle for material dominance and therefore no ability for there to be a dominance of ideas.

In general, try and help people build their struggles in ways I think have the best chance of winning which includes also trying to promoter the radical politics necessary IMO for people to win fights against the system. Try and build class consciousness, independence and self-leadership.

In the occupy movement in particular it's to try and make links between the movement and the class by attempting to build rank and file involvement in occupy. On the other hand bring in issues of oppressed racial and sexual groups and try to make links to the working class community through anti-eviction pickets and the like. This will help broaden the movement so that it will be harder for the cops to crush it and it will bring in more working people and connect more to class issues and struggle.So basically just continue doing what you've always been doing.

So what's your strategy?I don't have one. But I certainly no it's not what you're suggesting.

LuÃs Henrique

12th November 2011, 13:33

OH NO. Then I guess that must mean he died 140 years ago!

It also means that he wasn't searching for any other revolutionary subject than the working class at large, including its "non-essential" sectors.

A revolution will need the effort of all of us, and your "essential proletariat" can't actually stop production without the support of the "non-essentials": they would be politically isolated, and would be replaced in the assembly lines by other people before you could say "industrial labour is essentially replaceable".

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 13:38

It also means that he wasn't searching for any other revolutionary subject than the working class at large, including its "non-essential" sectors.

A revolution will need the effort of all of us, and your "essential proletariat" can't actually stop production without the support of the "non-essentials": they would be politically isolated, and would be replaced in the assembly lines by other people before you could say "industrial labour is essentially replaceable".

Luís Henrique

Sure, but without essential workers, you aint got nothing.

Psy

12th November 2011, 14:43

Sure, but without essential workers, you aint got nothing.

Yet all workers are under attack as the global market is melting down due to over production that was not solved by the natural disasters in Japan and Tiland. The rate of profit has fallen below it being worth capitalists loaning money to invest in production so capitalists with capital are just hording.

What this means for all workers is unemployment is going get much much higher as capitalists that control means of production shut down production and those workers that are actually able to keep their job will see major claw backs in their wages and benefits meaning the living standards of workers are going to fall back to Great Depression levels if the bourgeoisie gets its way as that is the only way it can kick start the economy again, workers have to be working for next to nothing before they can start generating new surplus value.

LuÃs Henrique

12th November 2011, 15:00

Sure, but without essential workers, you aint got nothing.

Nobody said, or implied, or is trying to do otherwise.

The class is one class, if it is going to have a revolution, it must be united as a class. Those talks that seek to find a sector within it that is "truly" revolutionary are false and misleading, and only play into corporative pride.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 15:59

Nobody said, or implied, or is trying to do otherwise.

That's just evidently not the case. The occupy movement is precisely what we are talking about.

The class is one class, if it is going to have a revolution, it must be united as a class. Those talks that seek to find a sector within it that is "truly" revolutionary are false and misleading, and only play into corporative pride.I don't understand what is unclear about the point I'm making.

I am not denying that workers should be united, nor am I dismissing their exploitation, but the reality is that building a movement of, for example, shop assistants and call centre staff is not a particularly useful strategy in challenging capitalism. I'm not making platitudes about some workers being more revolutionary, I'm simply identifying the material reality of capitalism. Unless you have essential workers struggling beyond their interests in their workplaces and communities, nothing will be achieved, except an impotent movement. Any revolutionary strategy should be focused on that. Not on some pathetically liberal "occupy" movement, which in reality is about as useful as voting.

LuÃs Henrique

12th November 2011, 16:26

That's just evidently not the case. The occupy movement is precisely what we are talking about.

And how exactly the Occupies are denying the participation of "essential proletarians"?

Given the fact that it is centered on streets, and that the situation hasn't yet come to the point that workers can simply abandon their jobs in order to participate in demonstrations, they obviously are composed predominantly of people who don't have jobs - the unemployed, those who work for themselves, students, housewives, retired people. But if it has few factory workers, it has also few clerks or office-boys.

This isn't the issue, though. Those students are children of employed people, and the others are similarly related to the working class.

I am not denying that workers should be united, nor am I dismissing their exploitation, but the reality is that building a movement of, for example, shop assistants and call centre staff is not a particularly useful strategy in challenging capitalism.Indeed, but who is talking about a movement of shop assistants?

I'm not making platitudes about some workers being more revolutionary, I'm simply identifying the material reality of capitalism. Unless you have essential workers struggling beyond their interests in their workplaces and communities, nothing will be achieved, except an impotent movement. Any revolutionary strategy should be focused on that. Not on some pathetically liberal "occupy" movement, which in reality is about as useful as voting.People will only move for their interests. Even "essential workers". The problem is not to have people struggling "beyond their interests", but people realising their actual interests. This cannot be done except in actual practice, imperfect as it is.

My impression is that you actually don't want a revolution, and because of that, no feasible movement is going to be "revolutionary" enough for you.

Luís Henrique

Thirsty Crow

12th November 2011, 16:31

Sure, but without essential workers, you aint got nothing.
Who are these essential workers?

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 16:33

Who are these essential workers?

I answered this question already.

u.s.red

12th November 2011, 16:36

"...the essential proletariat is that group of workers who can halt vast areas of the economy by stopping their work. These workers are employed in the economy's core industries, industries that can only operate with a relatively high level of labour input into their processes, which gives to those workers an already existing control over process; core workers' latent power can be demonstrated immediately in industrial action which spreads its knock-on effect to all businesses in the locality and beyond, producing spiralling repercussions in society. Core-workers include factory workers, dustmen, power workers, distribution workers (post, rail, road haulage, ferries, dockers, etc); in all of these examples the cessation of work causes immediate and widespread problems for the economy..."

You fail to see the revolutionary power of the "service" industry. Take for example, the entertainment industry, specifically the National Football League. A determined, coordinated action by a union of football players (in the U.S.) managed to bring one of the most powerful industries in the U.S. to a complete halt. In Europe, mass demonstrations by civil servants has forced Greece to the point of bankruptcy.

Now, in the U.S. a loosely organized mass of unemployed college graduates, military veterans, etc. have the potential to "occupy wall street," as they say.

Before Adam Smith the physiocrats believed that agriculture was the only productive work; with Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the classical economists, industry and manufacture became recognized as productive work...now after Keynes, service work is seen as productive...the GDP includes both production of goods and services.

Marx would say that all workers, teachers, firefighters, bus drivers, nurses, computer operators, produce surplus value, their surplus is appropriated by the capitalist system...

All workers can unite, must unite to start a revolution against capital. In fact, that is why communists call for a "general strike."

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 16:44

And how exactly the Occupies are denying the participation of "essential proletarians"?

It's not denying them...:confused:

Given the fact that it is centered on streets, and that the situation hasn't yet come to the point that workers can simply abandon their jobs in order to participate in demonstrations, they obviously are composed predominantly of people who don't have jobs - the unemployed, those who work for themselves, students, housewives, retired people. But if it has few factory workers, it has also few clerks or office-boys.I don't know what this "it" refers to?

As far as I can see, from first hand experience (I know the nature of at least four occupations in the UK), is that the occupy movements are comprised predominantly of spectacle hoppers, full time activists, students and the homeless. None of the occupations have a clear strategy, or indeed set of politics. In fact, trying to bring about political discussion is quite difficult.

This isn't the issue, though. Those students are children of employed people, and the others are similarly related to the working class.And?

Indeed, but who is talking about a movement of shop assistants?No one is. I'm making a point.

People will only move for their interests. Even "essential workers". The problem is not to have people struggling "beyond their interests", but people realising their actual interests. This cannot be done except in actual practice, imperfect as it is.What is their "actual interests" according to you? Just so there's no confusion, I'm not being rhetorical. I'm referring specifically to moving beyond immediate interests.

My impression is that you actually don't want a revolution, and because of that, no feasible movement is going to be "revolutionary" enough for you.:rolleyes:

Then your impression is fundamentally flawed.

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 16:46

You fail to see the revolutionary power of the "service" industry. Take for example, the entertainment industry, specifically the National Football League. A determined, coordinated action by a union of football players (in the U.S.) managed to bring one of the most powerful industries in the U.S. to a complete halt. In Europe, mass demonstrations by civil servants has forced Greece to the point of bankruptcy.[/

Now, in the U.S. a loosely organized mass of unemployed college graduates, military veterans, etc. have the potential to "occupy wall street," as they say.

Before Adam Smith the physiocrats believed that agriculture was the only productive work; with Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the classical economists, industry and manufacture became recognized as productive work...now after Keynes, service work is seen as productive...the GDP includes both production of goods and services.

Marx would say that all workers, teachers, firefighters, bus drivers, nurses, computer operators, produce surplus value, their surplus is appropriated by the capitalist system...

All workers can unite, must unite to start a revolution against capital. In fact, that is why communists call for a "general strike."

You've failed to understand what is meant by "essential workers".

LuÃs Henrique

12th November 2011, 17:35

As far as I can see, from first hand experience (I know the nature of at least four occupations in the UK), is that the occupy movements are comprised predominantly of spectacle hoppers, full time activists, students and the homeless.

There were ten thousand people involved in the Oakland "general strike". I doubt it very much there are ten thousand spectacle hoppers or full time activists in Oakland. Students, yes. But students are the most volatile sector of the working class; they can attend demonstrations with much less immediate consequences than any other worker. It is completely impossible to have any social unrest without students being predominant in the first manifestations. Yes, if anything is going to be serious, they must be superceeded by other sectors of the working class; if any movement remains restricted to students, it is going to fail. But this happens when other workers take to the streets or engage in serious struggle within their workplace, and it isn't going to happen before students have their show.

None of the occupations have a clear strategy, or indeed set of politics. In fact, trying to bring about political discussion is quite difficult.

Quite certainly. This is how things begin; strategies and tactics, demands and aims are going to be built through struggle, they are not going to be delivered by anyone outside the movement.

No one is. I'm making a point.

More likely, a strawman.

What is their "actual interests" according to you? Just so there's no confusion, I'm not being rhetorical. I'm referring specifically to moving beyond immediate interests.

I see; point taken.

They are not going to move beyond their immediate interests without first struggling for their immediate interests; and they are not going to move beyond their immediate interests without a movement of the working class as a whole.

:rolleyes:Then your impression is fundamentally flawed.

Well, you have no alternatives, no tactics or strategies to propose, etc.; you merely decry what is actually happening as not revolutionary. And so that's what it looks like. Maybe you are a very sincere revolutionary willing to take actual action against capitalism. But the actual action now is this, imperfect, reformist, foolish, petty-bourgeois, aimless, non-essential, or whatever else you want to call it. With all those problems, it has a decisive advantage over any imaginary action that is not actually happening: it is real, not imaginary.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

12th November 2011, 18:07

There were ten thousand people involved in the Oakland "general strike".

Not all at once...

But yeah, that's a great achievement, and I don't aim to diminish or dismiss it.

I doubt it very much there are ten thousand spectacle hoppers or full time activists in Oakland.

You're probably right.

Students, yes. But students are the most volatile sector of the working class; they can attend demonstrations with much less immediate consequences than any other worker.

Very true.

It is completely impossible to have any social unrest without students being predominant in the first manifestations.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The August riots in London showed quite clearly this isn't the case.

Yes, if anything is going to be serious, they must be superceeded by other sectors of the working class; if any movement remains restricted to students, it is going to fail. But this happens when other workers take to the streets or engage in serious struggle within their workplace, and it isn't going to happen before students have their show.

Again, I reject that. It's not only a prescriptive attitude to take, it's empirically not the case. It's true that students can be a motivating factor or a confidence boost to other sections of the working class, but to claim that students have to exist in struggle before anyone else just doesn't make any sense. There have been various moments of unrest that have not been preceded by student protest.

The point I'm making anyway, is that without a clear acceptance of the impotency of the occupy movements etc and a strategy that focuses on building struggle amongst the essential working class, there can be no acceleration of resistance.

Quite certainly. This is how things begin; strategies and tactics, demands and aims are going to be built through struggle, they are not going to be delivered by anyone outside the movement.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. My point, in simple terms is that the occupy movements are not the arena for struggle that can build a legitimate anti-capitalist movement.

More likely, a strawman.

But you agree with my point...

They are not going to move beyond their immediate interests without first struggling for their immediate interests; and they are not going to move beyond their immediate interests without a movement of the working class as a whole.

Well, I don't know if that's true.

Well, you have no alternatives, no tactics or strategies to propose, etc.; you merely decry what is actually happening as not revolutionary.

The purpose of this thread was to debate. Thus far people have seemed to take it personally that I am criticising. Clearly people feel very attached to what is happening and clearly they don't like it being called names, but then how do we expect a proper debate and a development of ideas if none of you can discuss the possibility that you are wrong?

And I don't come here prophetically. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I don't have any answers, I'm sorry. That's partly why I started this discussion. I want to find answers. But I think there requires a serious debate amongst the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement about 'what the hell are we doing?' and serious engagement with the themes I've tried to convey. In my view, based on my experience of being involved in these movements for a considerable amount of time, we are making the same mistakes we have always made.

And so that's what it looks like. Maybe you are a very sincere revolutionary willing to take actual action against capitalism. But the actual action now is this, imperfect, reformist, foolish, petty-bourgeois, aimless, non-essential, or whatever else you want to call it.

Then it seems completely counter-intuitive to be part of it...Just saying "this is what we've got" doesn't cut it with me and I don't understand why it would for anyone else.

With all those problems, it has a decisive advantage over any imaginary action that is not actually happening: it is real, not imaginary.

So is voting.

Jimmie Higgins

12th November 2011, 23:18

So you deny that your political party wants to lead the workers movement? You deny that the ISO's objective is to have political, ideological and strategic control?Do you still deney you called me a liar?

In answer to your ill-informed accusation: we are not a party we are a democratic collective around shared goals and generally shared perspectives. On shared goal is helping rebuild a left (independent of the Democrats) in the US with radical politics a part of that and also taking part in organizing revolutionary workers. Leading movements like generals is not a good strategy in our view, we want revolution from the ground up and we think workers organizing themselves into a revolutionary party will be part of that eventually but it will not be the ISO that becomes that party by itself or just by declaring itself one, it will have to be born out of people's own initiative and organizing that make radical ideas relevant.

You are attacking a position I have never taken. A) I never said there was a mechanistic formula and b) I never said that scarcity was the only thing that was required to radicalise people.Then what is your position - if people learning to fight through challenging the state or their bosses doesn't make any difference what cases mass radicalization?

You speak as if these views had ever been successful. You talk as if this opinion was somehow vindicated by great revolutionary acts. I mean, that's how it reads. Your tone of confidence and foresight in the things you write make what you're saying seem axiomatic; as if it should be obvious.What are you on about? Was there not a mass radicalization that began in 1968? Did large numbers of people not identify with revolutionary ideas through the process of the black struggle in the US? Of course none of these led to revolution, but it was closer than what there is normally in society, it represented a mass break from those ruling ideas of the age. If you don't think those movements or radicalization could not have possibly turned out any different; or if it could have led to revolution if subjective factors like CP betrayals in France or repression and co-option of the radical black movement had been absent or more effectively countered; then the burdon of proof is on you to argue why there are no ways in which such movements could have succeeded and what a sucessful alternative would look like.

The Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution only lasted a few months or a few years, so does that mean no revolution can ever succeed? By the logic you have against other periods of radicalization, then that would seem to follow.

None of what you're saying is untrue, but it's not as simple and obvious as you're making it out to be. Struggle is important, but the struggles have to reflect revolutionary goals, otherwise all you are winning are concessions; concessions that the state is offering you and in turn reinforcing the legitimacy of liberal politics and the facade of democracy - That you can apply pressure on the state and it will concede, since that's what it's already doing. You cannot build revolutionary struggles out of reformist victories.In general, yes. But the question is how do we get there? Few people on this website are claiming that the occupations represent the revolution or a kernal of the revolution or real duel power or anything like that (basically only some groups of autonomists and more often lifestylists argue this in the US). I think it represents people breaking away from "establishment" bourgeois politics for and getting much support from the population in general - this is a beginning of people taking matters into their own hands rather than waiting for saviors or officials to fix things. People are in motion independent of the sanctioned NGO and Democratic party channels and that is fantastic because people are learning how to work together and how to fight for their interests themselves. It's not a class movement right now, it's populist, but I hope for and work for trying to build the class fight-back out of the general struggle.

First of all you attacked me because you say that capitalism is in crisis, ergo struggle has been created and is possible. Secondly, you attack me for identifying the need for critical productive collapse as a prelude to revolutionary struggle and say that workers can be radicalised in ruling class victory. You seem to have thought of every way for me to be wrong...As I understood your argument you were saying that this is not a crisis because capitalism is not about to collapse and the ruling class is still making profits and pushing their agenda. Second, that in order for people to make movements that are really radical, capitalism would have to be in a severe crisis and on the verge of collapse.

My argument is that capitalism is in a long-term crisis much like the first and second great depressions and they don't have answers to the fundamental problems. They can make us suffer and try and push costs onto workers and lower our wages to try and re-coup profitability - but even this is no solution to the problems in the long term even if there is no fight back. I think the crisis will mean that some people will have to fight back, but that is not automatic and certainty doesn't mean we will win. More decisisve for MASS radicalization though is confidence, independence, and workers taking action in their interests. I think history shows that mass radicalization has come out of people struggling, not people just suffering.

How do you think it happens?

Struggle for material dominance is the prerequisite for the dominance of ideas ("life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life"). If material production continues to provide then there is no need to struggle for material dominance and therefore no ability for there to be a dominance of ideas.So you are saying capitalism satisfies people's needs? That people in this society don't suffer from oppression? Again, I don't see how this is anything but a mechanistic view that we have to wait for suffering to get bad enough and then "poof" there will be radicalization. People suffer already, but lack confidence and self-organization to make any changes. Here in the US, attitudes are dominated by pessimism and cynicism because people don't believe that you can do anything - this makes people more willing to make concessions, to make deals with power, or to compete with their other workers over crumbs.

Movements where people begin to take things into their own hands, begin to learn to work together, begin to find out how class matters and who their allies and enemies really are have historically cut against that pessimism and cynacism and dog-eat-dog competition of capitalist society.

So people have to struggle for there to even be the possibility for self-emancipation - these struggles are where people learn how and why revolution is necessary, why class matters etc.

How do you think mass numbers of people start taking revolutionary action and holding revolutionary ideas?

So basically just continue doing what you've always been doing.No every struggle and situation is different and I have not always been able to relate and be active in an open-ended popular protest against inequality. In fact, my whole argument is that this is a different time because I think we may be entering a time of mass-radicalization where revolutionary ideas are not such an isolated minority. But in general terms of trying to help organize our-side to fight the ruling class and expropriate the expropriators, then yes, that is still the struggle that faces us.

I don't have one. But I certainly no it's not what you're suggesting.Then what's the point? Why not just be a worker and read comic books or play video games - if there's no point to strategy or organizing, I certainly would want to use my time doing fun things and minimizing stress until the revolution happened.

Philosophers discuss the world, the point is to change it.

Jimmie Higgins

12th November 2011, 23:24

I am not denying that workers should be united, nor am I dismissing their exploitation, but the reality is that building a movement of, for example, shop assistants and call centre staff is not a particularly useful strategy in challenging capitalism.While it's true that some particular workers have more power at the point of production in hitting capitalism where it hurts, in order to have a revolution that does more than just paralyze capitalism momentarily, workers do have to be united and learning to work together, defending each-other, and creating networks for supply's and resources etc.

Not to mention that class solidarity and times of higher class consciousness and organization could mean a stike in one place leads to a larger revolt. The 1946 Oakland general strike was started by a picket of female department store clerks and then spread to mass transit workers, longshoremen and truckers.

So, historically, building a movement of shop assistants can lead to wider class struggle.

LuÃs Henrique

13th November 2011, 01:53

Not all at once...

But yeah, that's a great achievement, and I don't aim to diminish or dismiss it.

Well, that seems to be what you are doing.

Ten thousand people on the streets, the harbour was shut, police cracked down on the demonstrators, the mayor is demoralised, etc. All this within the Occupy Oakland. Which shows that the movement has potential to get stronger and more radical.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The August riots in London showed quite clearly this isn't the case.Well, maybe. Saying that it is completely impossible was hyperbolic. But typically social unrest starts with students demonstrating. No, they are not "the spark that sets fire to the prairie", nor they are the consequent vanguard of the working class. They are just easily moibilised, subject to much less repression, have more time in their hands, etc. And so they are more like the tip of an iceberg; if they are demonstrating, dissent is growing strong among workers and/or the petty bourgeoisie.

And of course, this is valid for the last postwar on, whence education was massified, encompassing most of the working class at some level. Evidently, in the 19th century the students movement was completely different, even tended to be more reactionary than progressist.

Again, I reject that. It's not only a prescriptive attitude to take, it's empirically not the case. It's true that students can be a motivating factor or a confidence boost to other sections of the working class, but to claim that students have to exist in struggle before anyone else just doesn't make any sense. There have been various moments of unrest that have not been preceded by student protest.It's not that students "have" to be in struggle before anyone else. It is that they usually - almost always - are.

The point I'm making anyway, is that without a clear acceptance of the impotency of the occupy movements etc and a strategy that focuses on building struggle amongst the essential working class, there can be no acceleration of resistance.What is "acceptance of the impotency of the occupy movements"? Those things are learned in practice; if the workers realise that the Occupies are impotent, they will either find other modes of struggle, or fall back into apathy. But no mass movement will "accept the impotency" of anything before experimenting with it.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. My point, in simple terms is that the occupy movements are not the arena for struggle that can build a legitimate anti-capitalist movement.Well, at the moment there is no other arena. And evidently, there is no reason that it couldn't be the first step in the building an anti-capitalist movement.

The purpose of this thread was to debate. Thus far people have seemed to take it personally that I am criticising. Clearly people feel very attached to what is happening and clearly they don't like it being called names, but then how do we expect a proper debate and a development of ideas if none of you can discuss the possibility that you are wrong?Well, I am certainly not taking this personally; I am not even involved in the movement, which has no similar in Brazil. And so it is very unlikely that I am emotionally attached to it. Now evidently this movement can, and probably will, fail. But this happens, it is part of the struggle. However, you have been saying that the movement will necessarily fail, which is very different, and saying that a different strategy is necessary (one that, apparently, involves simply dismissing the Occupies as futile, and refusing to take part on it). But you have given us no hint into this different strategy, which seems to be in fact inexistent.

And I don't come here prophetically. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I don't have any answers, I'm sorry. That's partly why I started this discussion. I want to find answers.Well, sorry, but you did come across as everything you deny in the above quote: as someone who knows everything (including the necessary failure of this movement - a prophecy in my dictionary), and systematically dismissing the "discussion" once anyone disagrees with you.

But I think there requires a serious debate amongst the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement about 'what the hell are we doing?' and serious engagement with the themes I've tried to convey. In my view, based on my experience of being involved in these movements for a considerable amount of time, we are making the same mistakes we have always made.And what would those mistakes be?

Then it seems completely counter-intuitive to be part of it...Just saying "this is what we've got" doesn't cut it with me and I don't understand why it would for anyone else.That's what we've got. We can either struggle to transform this into something more radical, or we can be "revolutionary" by making make-believe revolutions in our ivory towers.

So is voting.And yes, I vote in every election.

*********************

Every leftist organisation needs some amount of presence within the working class, including your "essential proletariat". That's what we do, I suppose. At least it is what my own organisation does. We are workers, we are in the workplaces, and we strive to give consequence and radicality to the spontaneous struggle of our class. This always involves discussing the idea that our struggle is doomed to defeat if it doesn't bond with the struggle of other workers, in other branches and other places. If we are factory workers, we do it in the factories where we work. If we are shop assistants, we do it in the shops where we are employed. If we are students, we do it in school or college. What we don't do is to fabricate a "strategy" for the "essential proletariat" and then try and indoctrinate "essential proletarians" with it.

Now maybe the left in the US is in so bad a state that it doesn't have activists inside the factories, shops, and schools; or maybe it is your own organisation that has such problem; or perhaps you aren't organised. But this would be a different discussion, and no amount of "strategy" can solve this.

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

13th November 2011, 02:14

Not all at once...

I'm not sure I agree with that. The August riots in London showed quite clearly this isn't the case.

If we allow for school students and further education students then there was a high proportion of student participation in the August riots. But, anyway, the characteristics Luis identified with students are also characteristics shared by unemployed youth.

Vanguard1917

13th November 2011, 02:52

Quite certainly. This is how things begin; strategies and tactics, demands and aims are going to be built through struggle, they are not going to be delivered by anyone outside the movement.

Yes, but most past radical movements had at least had some idea of what they stood for, and they sought to build on that through discussion, meetings, etc. What does the 'occupy movement' stand for? When people ask me if i support 'the occupiers' outside St Paul's, i say, 'I don't know. What is it they want?' That basic question is not answered, and, furthermore, there seems to be an almost active refusal to answer it - to set down specific goals, to define where they stand, to focus collective energies in one particular direction. In fact, when compared to the radical movements of the past, the 'occupy movement' does not look like a political phenomenon at all. Camping indefinitely in a public space, with no demands or goals, refusing to form a concrete political stance, sitting around a vegan kitchen like you have all the time in the world, and earnestly claiming you represent 99 per cent of humanity - that is not a serious political movement.

As to whether capitalism is in crisis - yes, of course it is. But it is very well placed to recover - because of the absence of a significant working-class movement, the subjective challenge necessary to bring it down. More so than in previous periods of crisis, the working class today is almost nonexistent as a serious political force of opposition to capitalism. Many thousands are losing their jobs, facing pay freezes, losing their homes, but workers' fightback is notable for how limited it has been. But the agency of the working class is the key factor in determining whether capitalism can survive crisis. Like Lukacs said, even if economic developments shake the very social foundations of the capitalist state, 'whether the crisis is fatal or surmountable for the bourgeoisie depends entirely on the class consciousness of the proletariat.'

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 10:59

Well, maybe. Saying that it is completely impossible was hyperbolic. But typically social unrest starts with students demonstrating. No, they are not "the spark that sets fire to the prairie", nor they are the consequent vanguard of the working class. They are just easily moibilised, subject to much less repression, have more time in their hands, etc. And so they are more like the tip of an iceberg; if they are demonstrating, dissent is growing strong among workers and/or the petty bourgeoisie.

In my experience students are certainly not subject to "less repression".

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's necessarily correct.

What is "acceptance of the impotency of the occupy movements"?

Accepting it will, like you have done. And working to establish a more coherent strategy.

Those things are learned in practice; if the workers realise that the Occupies are impotent, they will either find other modes of struggle, or fall back into apathy.

Which worker will realise this?

But no mass movement will "accept the impotency" of anything before experimenting with it.

Perhaps you're right, but then the radical elements of the movement need to re-focus their efforts. If this occupy tactic is so popular, why not re-direct it towards the railway networks; shipping networks; power infrastructure?

Well, at the moment there is no other arena. And evidently, there is no reason that it couldn't be the first step in the building an anti-capitalist movement.

There are many reasons why it can not be the first step. Firstly, because they're largely pro-capitalist. In the occupations I'm familiar with leading thoughts are reformist and there's not even a space to discuss that kind of politics, let alone actually change peoples mind. Radical politics is rejected from the start. Secondly, the occupy movements have no demands or political objectives beyond remaining where they are (sanctioned by the local authorities). If political demands were going to be made, they would have been made by now, but because of the nature of these gatherings, no decision can be made, since they are unaccountable politically and too diverse in any case to formally create a coherent political stance.

Now evidently this movement can, and probably will, fail.

So, let's move on and discuss what won't fail.

But this happens, it is part of the struggle.

Whose struggle? It's not part of the daily struggle of working class people who live in the council estates and in the ghettos, or work long, hard hours making the means for capitalisms survival function. It is not part of any struggle that is relevant to the vast majority of the working class.

However, you have been saying that the movement will necessarily fail, which is very different, and saying that a different strategy is necessary (one that, apparently, involves simply dismissing the Occupies as futile, and refusing to take part on it)

Of course, I don't know for a fact that the occupy movement will fail, but it's already failing on many levels, so I think my premonition is justified. And one you seemingly agree with.

But you have given us no hint into this different strategy, which seems to be in fact inexistent.

I have given a "hint" of one, actually, but you're right it is pretty much non-existent. I don't understand why you think it's possible or desirable for me to just have a strategy as an individual.

I mean, do you think the fact I don't have a "plan" discredits my argument? If so, why?

Well, sorry, but you did come across as everything you deny in the above quote: as someone who knows everything (including the necessary failure of this movement - a prophecy in my dictionary)

:blink:

Huh? I am all kinds of confused. So you seem to criticise me for not having a strategy and then criticise me for thinking I know everything? Hmmm...That doesn't seem fair to me.

On the issue of the occupy movements failing, you agree that they probably will (probably meaning in all likeliness), so I don't really understand what your criticism is, since you pretty much agree with me?

and systematically dismissing the "discussion" once anyone disagrees with you.

This is just pure fantasy. What on Earth are you talking about? I'm engaging with this discussion...I have been for the last seven pages...That's the opposite of being dismissive...:confused:

That's what we've got. We can either struggle to transform this into something more radical, or we can be "revolutionary" by making make-believe revolutions in our ivory towers.

So a far as you're concerned, the only two options are: continue to operate with little success within a movement that will probably fail anyway, or live in a fantasy world? Hmmm.

This is what the left has been reduced to: Embracing mediocrity and celebrating futility...

And yes, I vote in every election.

...A case in point.

LuÃs Henrique

13th November 2011, 12:15

So, let's move on and discuss what won't fail.

Failures are a necessary part of the struggle.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 13:02

Failures are a necessary part of the struggle.

Luís Henrique

Maybe that's true. Even if it is, I don't think this is something you should embrace at the expense of trying to find strategies that aren't 'probably' going to fail.

LuÃs Henrique

13th November 2011, 15:56

Maybe that's true. Even if it is, I don't think this is something you should embrace at the expense of trying to find strategies that aren't 'probably' going to fail.

All strategies are probably going to fail.

Moreso when they are "found" elsewhere than the struggle itself.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 16:01

All strategies are probably going to fail.

Defeatist! :)

Moreso when they are "found" elsewhere than the struggle itself.

Says the guy who votes. But yeah, I absolutely agree. I've never expressed an opinion to the contrary.

Zav

13th November 2011, 16:07

Capitalism is certainly in crisis. It is called a global recession. Capitalism breaths profit, and that organism can't live very well for very long. It has a very negative genetic mutation that will cause its species to die out when it gets too big.

EDIT: As for the Occupy Movement, if it does lean liberally and make some small reforms, it will be more than most of us have accomplished. Reformism can't fix all our problems, but opposing all reform movements is dogmatic and moronic.

Psy

13th November 2011, 16:54

EDIT: As for the Occupy Movement, if it does lean liberally and make some small reforms, it will be more than most of us have accomplished. Reformism can't fix all our problems, but opposing all reform movements is dogmatic and moronic.
That and the militancy of workers have to start somewhere, you can't expect workers to go directly from being docile to seizing means of production and storming the centers of state power.

Zav

13th November 2011, 17:06

That and the militancy of workers have to start somewhere, you can't expect workers to go directly from being docile to seizing means of production and storming the centers of state power.
Exactly. We need to rebuilt confidence and backbone in the working class.
*Insert angry Wobbly mumblings about the slaughter of the Labor Movement.*

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 18:03

Exactly. We need to rebuilt confidence and backbone in the working class.

I thought that was the job of the working class?

LuÃs Henrique

13th November 2011, 18:32

I thought that was the job of the working class?

We are working class, man.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

13th November 2011, 18:37

So long as that's what he meant, that's all fine.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

13th November 2011, 20:36

I think that people you are referring to (and yes, I feel being called upon) do not argue that capialism doesn't undermine itself - when the very condition of capital is its greatest obstacle - but rather that the antagonisms inherent to capital, and the resultant social crisis, will not in itself and of itself lead to socialism as if by some kind of an automatic clockwork mechanism, implying that socialism is inevitable, while it is clear that it is not.

you'd have to be a real dullard to think that because marx talks about the functioning of capitalism giving rise to its end, that means nobody has to do anything ever?

Its always seeemed to me that the whole "we have to make revolution ourselves" line is used to hide the abandonment of a marxist analysis in favour of encouraging people to join x party and really think its going to make a big difference? THIS is why our party has to act now, etc etc.

LuÃs Henrique

13th November 2011, 21:44

In my experience students are certainly not subject to "less repression".

I have been a student, and have been a worker. If I made half the bullshit I made as a student while being a worker, I would certainly have been fired - or worse. And that considering that I was a student under a dictatorship, and a worker, for the most part, in a democracy. And that, being a civil servant, I belong to a category of workers who certainly don't face the most repression among the working class.

Accepting it will, like you have done. And working to establish a more coherent strategy.And how are we going to establish a more coherent strategy, pray tell?

Perhaps you're right, but then the radical elements of the movement need to re-focus their efforts. If this occupy tactic is so popular, why not re-direct it towards the railway networks; shipping networks; power infrastructure?Good idea. I don't see how to do that without going to the Occupies and proposing it.

There are many reasons why it can not be the first step. Firstly, because they're largely pro-capitalist.Considering the fierce anti-communism of the American culture, I would be surprised if it was otherwise. But pay attention: anti-capitalist feelings can certainly be dressed in pro-capitalist rethorics. An example is the "libertarian" movement, which is anti-capitalist (from the right, not from the left) but imagines itself as pro-capitalist, having decided that "capitalism" refers to their sinister u(dys)topia, while inventing different names to real world capitalism (or, even, just plain calling it "socialism"). Whatever, the Occupies are a direct consequence of the capitalist crisis, and they are not going away until either that crisis is resolved, or they morph into something else, quite certainly more radical. (But this, probably, is also the reason you deny that capitalism is in crisis.)

In the occupations I'm familiar with leading thoughts are reformist and there's not even a space to discuss that kind of politics, let alone actually change peoples mind. Radical politics is rejected from the start.And how are we going to have a revolution and change the world if we cannot even force the discussion of revolutionary politics within an open movement?

The task of the left is not to whine about being not allowed to discuss its politics, but to discuss it, even when and where not allowed.

You can see that Occupy Oakland not only discussed the possibility of (what they called) a general strike, but even adopted the idea, and put it into practice. So your statements about what the Occupies can and cannot do seems to have been belied by they doing what you deny they could possibly do.

Secondly, the occupy movements have no demands or political objectives beyond remaining where they are (sanctioned by the local authorities). If political demands were going to be made, they would have been made by now, but because of the nature of these gatherings, no decision can be made, since they are unaccountable politically and too diverse in any case to formally create a coherent political stance.Well, maybe. It is high time that the movement demands the ousting of Oakland's mayor. Why hasn't it (if it actually hasn't, which I don't know), and why isn't the left bringing this discussion up within the movement?

Whose struggle? It's not part of the daily struggle of working class people who live in the council estates and in the ghettos, or work long, hard hours making the means for capitalisms survival function. It is not part of any struggle that is relevant to the vast majority of the working class.
Of course it is part of that struggle, why not?

Of course, I don't know for a fact that the occupy movement will fail, but it's already failing on many levels, so I think my premonition is justified. And one you seemingly agree with.I said it will probably fail, and yes, this is a distinct probability. I do not agree that is doomed to failure, and, more importantly, I do not agree that because something seems extremly unlikely, we should dismiss it as useless.

I have given a "hint" of one, actually, but you're right it is pretty much non-existent. I don't understand why you think it's possible or desirable for me to just have a strategy as an individual.

I mean, do you think the fact I don't have a "plan" discredits my argument? If so, why?Because you cannot even listen to those who argue against your idea, but then when called on what we should do, you have nothing to offer?

Huh? I am all kinds of confused. So you seem to criticise me for not having a strategy and then criticise me for thinking I know everything? Hmmm...That doesn't seem fair to me.Because your "knowlegde" seems to sum up to knowing that something won't work (and having no actual arguments on why it won't work, or resorting to demonstrably false arguments, que no es lo mismo pero es igual), but doesn't extend to knowing what to do.

On the issue of the occupy movements failing, you agree that they probably will (probably meaning in all likeliness), so I don't really understand what your criticism is, since you pretty much agree with me?"Probably" doesn't mean "in all likeliness"; it means exactly "probably", ie, it has a definite and considerable chance.

This is just pure fantasy. What on Earth are you talking about? I'm engaging with this discussion...I have been for the last seven pages...That's the opposite of being dismissive...:confused:You "engage" in it by repeating, again an again, that you don't accept other people's arguments, which makes discussing with you very similar to discussing with a wall.

So a far as you're concerned, the only two options are: continue to operate with little success within a movement that will probably fail anyway, or live in a fantasy world? Hmmm.Welcome to the real world, where most things fail.

This is what the left has been reduced to: Embracing mediocrity and celebrating futility...More likely, as always, striving to turn things into different things.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

14th November 2011, 12:46

And how are we going to establish a more coherent strategy, pray tell?

I have no idea. Accepting the futility of the occupy movement and talking would be a good start.

Good idea. I don't see how to do that without going to the Occupies and proposing it.I don't think that the occupy movements are the best place to propose that kind of activity. Mostly because it will be rejected out of hand.

Considering the fierce anti-communism of the American culture, I would be surprised if it was otherwise.I don't think this has anything to do with anti-communist culture. The analysis of why radical tactics etc are being rejected shouldn't be coming from the basis of culture or ideas, we should be understanding this based on economics; on material reality.

Whatever, the Occupies are a direct consequence of the capitalist crisis, and they are not going away until either that crisis is resolved, or they morph into something else, quite certainly more radical. (But this, probably, is also the reason you deny that capitalism is in crisis.)It's not wise to extrapolate, especially since you've failed to understand my original point.

And how are we going to have a revolution and change the world if we cannot even force the discussion of revolutionary politics within an open movement?The immediate interests of those involved in these struggles do not account for the need for radical tactics. The leading forces of these movements do not have similar interests to those who rioted in August or those who work in essential jobs. Their material conditions are such that they don't require a removal of capitalism, they simply require it to be made better.

The occupy movements therefore are not relevant to those in the August riots or those essential workers and that's why they haven't participated within them, ergo you cannot effectively radicalise the working class to a point where there can be a legitimate challenge within the occupy movements.

The task of the left is not to whine about being not allowed to discuss its politics, but to discuss it, even when and where not allowed.That all sounds very noble and indeed I'm sure people will continue to drudge along doing that, as they always have, but lets imagine for a moment that this will not work. Then what?

You can see that Occupy Oakland not only discussed the possibility of (what they called) a general strike, but even adopted the idea, and put it into practice. So your statements about what the Occupies can and cannot do seems to have been belied by they doing what you deny they could possibly do.That is one example. It doesn't prove a rule.

Of course it is part of that struggle, why not?How does the occupy movements in any way relate to these sections of the working class?

I said it will probably fail, and yes, this is a distinct probability. I do not agree that is doomed to failure, and, more importantly, I do not agree that because something seems extremly unlikely, we should dismiss it as useless.I don't think we should dismiss it. Continue to engage. Continue to be part of it if that's what you want. The point is that if we think its likely to fail then we need to accept that and to start discussing other strategies. I don't understand what is controversial about that?

Because you cannot even listen to those who argue against your idea, but then when called on what we should do, you have nothing to offer?I have listened, I just don't agree. No one has managed to convince me that I'm wrong. I don't think you have not listened to me because you don't agree with me...

And I also don't understand this idea that I have to offer something in order to criticise. This idea that my views are not legitimate unless I can solve the problem is a bourgeois way of thinking and does nothing but stifle discussion.

I am entitled to criticise and disagree without having a solution, there are no rules.

Because your "knowlegde" seems to sum up to knowing that something won't work (and having no actual arguments on why it won't work, or resorting to demonstrably false arguments, que no es lo mismo pero es igual), but doesn't extend to knowing what to do.This is absurd. I have consistently articulated why it won't work and presented positions which you have agreed with. The fact that I don't buy into this bourgeois way of operating doesn't mean that my ideas are illegitimate.

Just imagine for a moment that it is possible for someone to realise the futility in something while simultaneously not knowing how to resolve it. Clearly it's mind boggling to you, but at least try.

"Probably" doesn't mean "in all likeliness"; it means exactly "probably", ie, it has a definite and considerable chance.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probably

You "engage" in it by repeating, again an again, that you don't accept other people's arguments, which makes discussing with you very similar to discussing with a wall.

So your definition of progress in this discussion is if I "accept other people's arguments"?

Jimmie Higgins

14th November 2011, 13:04

FYI, there is an anti-Mayor Quan recall existing from the right-wing who feel that she has lost "law and order" and calls from the left for her removal have been met with a great deal of support from the Occupy movement here since the police attacks.

She is one of the most liberal mayors in the US and her actions have upset liberals and exposed which side she really is on to large sections of the Oakland occupy movement.

Two resolutions last week for non-violence were resoundingly defeated and mocked. "Gandhi was a misogynist bastard!" was one popular heckle when someone began speaking about non-violence and following Gandhi's methods.

In struggle people learn these lessons about liberals and the role of police quick.

If anyone is awake right now (5am pacific time) there's a second raid going on right now. Click below for live coverage:

http://www.ustream.tv/occupyoakland

LuÃs Henrique

14th November 2011, 14:59

I have no idea. Accepting the futility of the occupy movement and talking would be a good start.

I don't think it is a good start.

I don't think that the occupy movements are the best place to propose that kind of activity. Mostly because it will be rejected out of hand.
Again, the task of the left is not to complain, but to act. You obviously don't know whether the GAs will or will not reject those proposals - and you can't know that, until you go there and propose them. And then you would be able to break with the movement, starting a new line of action, if you deemed it tactically interesting.

And of course, the occupy movements are the best place to propose that kind of activity, because they are the only place, at this moment, where such activities can actually be proposed.

I don't think this has anything to do with anti-communist culture. The analysis of why radical tactics etc are being rejected shouldn't be coming from the basis of culture or ideas, we should be understanding this based on economics; on material reality.As if culture wasn't based on economics, and weren't part of material reality.

It's not wise to extrapolate, especially since you've failed to understand my original point.Oh yes, it is very wise to extrapolate.

We are seeing a worldwide awakening of public participation in politics, from Greece to Libya to Yemen to the United States. This is not a coincidence! It stems from "material reality", a material reality in which the capitalist system is in deep crisis, the bourgeoisie doesn't know what to do, and the ruled classes are starting to give their opinions about everything.

So, again: the Occupies are a direct consequence of the capitalist crisis, and they are not going away until either that crisis is resolved, or they morph into something else.

The immediate interests of those involved in these struggles do not account for the need for radical tactics.The immediate interests of the working class do not account for the need of radical tactics. That's the reason we have something called "reformism".

The leading forces of these movements do not have similar interests to those who rioted in August or those who work in essential jobs.You don't know what the interests of your fetishified "essential workers" are, and you don't know what the interests of the August rioters are.

Their material conditions are such that they don't require a removal of capitalism, they simply require it to be made better.This is true of the whole working class, including - and perhaps especially - of "essential workers". Only the actual experience of "improving capitalism" and then realising that it doesn't solve their problems can make people realise that the system has to be removed as a whole.

The occupy movements therefore are not relevant to those in the August riots or those essential workers and that's why they haven't participated within them, ergo you cannot effectively radicalise the working class to a point where there can be a legitimate challenge within the occupy movements.Yes, you keep saying and repeating that, but you haven't up to now brought any evidence for it.

That all sounds very noble and indeed I'm sure people will continue to drudge along doing that, as they always have, but lets imagine for a moment that this will not work. Then what?Then we will see the movement make its mistakes, and people involved in it realise that our ideas were perhaps better than what was actually done?

That is one example. It doesn't prove a rule.Of course not. It clearly disproves your rule though.

How does the occupy movements in any way relate to these sections of the working class?Let's see, because they expose the repressive role of the police? Because they articulate the idea that capitalism doesn't work? Because they break with the idea that American workers are just small entrepreneurs in the budding (Joe the Plumber ideology) and assert that the interests of the 99% are different, and opposed, to the interests of the 1%?

I don't think we should dismiss it. Continue to engage. Continue to be part of it if that's what you want. The point is that if we think its likely to fail then we need to accept that and to start discussing other strategies. I don't understand what is controversial about that?Oh thank you so very much for your imprimatur.

You started this thread with the openly controversial statement that capitalism is not in crisis. Don't you understand what is controversial about that?

I have listened, I just don't agree. No one has managed to convince me that I'm wrong. I don't think you have not listened to me because you don't agree with me...But I read your arguments, and try to answer each of them with some detail. You do things like,

I reject the idea that there is any confusion.
Trotskyism isn't the solution.
I'm instantly suspicious of anything written by a Trotskyist though.
I just did deny it.
Yeah, it could collapse, but it won't.
And capitalism will recover. There's no indication to the contrary.
So what?
They'll recover and the ruling class will become stronger.
The Eurozone and the IMF will find a solution.
I don't really accept that.
But anyway Higgins, let's be honest here, you're in the ISO
Everyone has just lost their minds and with it a grip on reality.
Not I'm not.
That's fantasy.

And I also don't understand this idea that I have to offer something in order to criticise. This idea that my views are not legitimate unless I can solve the problem is a bourgeois way of thinking and does nothing but stifle discussion.No, you actually don't have to offer something better in order to criticise. The problem is that your critique is extremely vague, and rests, for the most part, on the idea that there is "something better" that could be done. Then naturally we ask, "what is that something that is better?", and you don't know.

This is absurd. I have consistently articulated why it won't work and presented positions which you have agreed with.Not so. You have made confuse and misleading allegations about "essential workers", which boil down to the idea that "essential workers" aren't participating in the Occupy movement because, while they are firmly against capitalism, they don't trust the left, or the liberal leadership of the movement, or even, they realise that the Occupy movement is futile. This is false. The main reason they don't participate in the movement is that they can't, without jeopardising their jobs.

And you are being dishonest in insisting that I agree with you. No, we don't agree. You think capitalism is not in crisis, I know it is. You believe in a mythical "essential proletariat", to me that's just a fetish to avoid practical action. You think we can offer an alternative to the Occupy movement without engaging in it and exhausting its possibilities, I don't think so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probablyMkay, if so, then I don't think the movement will probably fail. I think it has a high probability of faliing, I don't think that it will fail in all likelyhood. Happy now?

So your definition of progress in this discussion is if I "accept other people's arguments"?No. My definition of progress in discussion is that each side acknowledges the other side's arguments, perfecting their own in the process, explaining away what they see as wrong in the opposing argument, clarifying points, etc.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

14th November 2011, 20:56

I don't think it is a good start.

OK.

Yes, I agree. The question is how.

[quote]You obviously don't know whether the GAs will or will not reject those proposals - and you can't know that, until you go there and propose them.

Similar things have been suggested at at least four occupations I know of and have not only been rejected, but pacifism re-affirmed formally.

And then you would be able to break with the movement, starting a new line of action, if you deemed it tactically interesting.Right.

And of course, the occupy movements are the best place to propose that kind of activity, because they are the only place, at this moment, where such activities can actually be proposed.Community and workplace struggles continue outside of the occupy movement and in actual fact have a more direct access to wider sections of the working class and where liberalism and pacifism do not have an ideological hold.

As if culture wasn't based on economics, and weren't part of material reality.Do you think that culture determines class struggle tactics?

Oh yes, it is very wise to extrapolate.OK then.

We are seeing a worldwide awakening of public participation in politicsNo we're not.

from Greece to Libya to Yemen to the United States.I think it's foolish to try and compare Greece, Libya and Yemen with what is happening in the US (or the UK). They are fundamentally not the same.

This is not a coincidence! It stems from "material reality", a material reality in which the capitalist system is in deep crisis, the bourgeoisie doesn't know what to do, and the ruled classes are starting to give their opinions about everything.The uprising in Libya and Yemen were/are not anti-capitalist. They were political revolutions, not economic ones. That is probably the only similarity they have with what is happening in the US and UK.

So, again: the Occupies are a direct consequence of the capitalist crisisI haven't denied that the occupations aren't a direct consequence of capitalisms problems.

and they are not going away until either that crisis is resolved, or they morph into something else.Or they're repressed.

You don't know what the interests of your fetishified "essential workers" are, and you don't know what the interests of the August rioters are.That view is based on participation in the occupy movement. I'm not speaking as someone outside of this movement.

This is true of the whole working class, including - and perhaps especially - of "essential workers".But the immediate interests of the working class are economic, not political.

You don't know what the interests of your fetishified "essential workers" are, and you don't know what the interests of the August rioters are.How do you know that?

Only the actual experience of "improving capitalism" and then realising that it doesn't solve their problems can make people realise that the system has to be removed as a whole.Why is that true? I don't accept that trying to improve capitalism will make people realise that the system has to be removed? Why would that happen? If improving capitalism works, why would people then make the leap that it should be removed? It's this kind of old, backward thinking that forms part of the problems

Radicalisation comes through participating in radical struggle. People who work in communities to transform them beyond capitalism is what makes people realise that it has to be removed and more importantly can be.

The question is working out how to do that.

Yes, you keep saying and repeating that, but you haven't up to now brought any evidence for it.I've seen these occupations. I know first hand who is involved in them. My evidence is that it's actually the fact. Come to the UK and see for yourself.

Then we will see the movement make its mistakes, and people involved in it realise that our ideas were perhaps better than what was actually done?When has that ever happened?

Of course not. It clearly disproves your rule though.From what I can see the nature of Occupy Oakland was pretty radical to begin with, so it's not that it overcame liberal and pacifist ideology to become radicalised, it simply was radical to begin with.

Let's see, because they expose the repressive role of the police?You think that people need to watch the police beat up some hippies to know what the role of the police is?

Because they articulate the idea that capitalism doesn't work? Because they break with the idea that American workers are just small entrepreneurs in the budding (Joe the Plumber ideology)I'm not American, I'm British. But you're wrong anyway. Most of the occupy groups don't believe that capitalism doesn't work (double negative!). They believe it's been managed incorrectly. The propaganda coming out of some of the occupy groups is decidedly anti anti-capitalist.

Oh thank you so very much for your imprimatur.You're welcome.

You started this thread with the openly controversial statement that capitalism is not in crisis. Don't you understand what is controversial about that?Yes, but that doesn't mean people need to be so hostile. The reactions in this thread could easily be characterised as narrow-minded.

No, you actually don't have to offer something better in order to criticise. The problem is that your critique is extremely vague, and rests, for the most part, on the idea that there is "something better" that could be done.What is it specifically that I've been vague about. I'll be happy to re-address them.

Then naturally we ask, "what is that something that is better?", and you don't know.Sorry.

Not so. You have made confuse and misleading allegations about "essential workers", which boil down to the idea that "essential workers" aren't participating in the Occupy movement because, while they are firmly against capitalism, they don't trust the left, or the liberal leadership of the movement, or even, they realise that the Occupy movement is futile. This is false.That isn't really my view.

I don't think I have been misleading about what essential workers are or what their role is. If you think I have please identify how.

It is true that the essential workers are not participating in the occupy movement (in the UK at least, but from what I know and have read it seems that it's in other places), I have seen this to be the case.

I have not said that the essential workers are firmly against capitalism. I have argued that they are the main and essential force within the working class that can bring down capitalism and thus it is with them that the radical activity should be directed.

Further, since the occupy movement is liberal in nature and since the occupy movement has antipathy towards radical ideas, it makes no strategic sense to spend time and energy trying to radicalise it.

I don't know what your experience with the British working class is, but I have a fair amount of experience, both by growing up in a working class community, living in one and working around other workers, that people think the occupy movement futile. I was at the occupation in the city I live in last Friday and overheard people talking about how "it won't work". This is the common reception of "the public".

The main reason they don't participate in the movement is that they can't, without jeopardising their jobs.The idea that the working class will all suddenly come and join the occupation if they didn't have jobs is just fantasy.

And you are being dishonest in insisting that I agree with you. No, we don't agree. You think capitalism is not in crisis, I know it is.I get that.

You believe in a mythical "essential proletariat" to me that's just a fetish to avoid practical action.Please stop making assumptions on my character or on my political activity based on some opinions I have offered. It's ridiculous.

But there is nothing mythical about the essential working class. It is a reality - based on the nature of how the means of production are organised.

You think we can offer an alternative to the Occupy movement without engaging in it and exhausting its possibilities, I don't think so.The occupy movement is largely irrelevant. I don't need to offer an alternative to it, we simply require a strategy that isn't it.

Mkay, if so, then I don't think the movement will probably fail. I think it has a high probability of faliing, I don't think that it will fail in all likelyhood. Happy now?Am I happy that you understand what you're saying? Sure...

No. My definition of progress in discussion is that each side acknowledges the other side's arguments, perfecting their own in the process, explaining away what they see as wrong in the opposing argument, clarifying points, etc.OK.

LuÃs Henrique

15th November 2011, 00:53

Similar things have been suggested at at least four occupations I know of and have not only been rejected, but pacifism re-affirmed formally.

Obviously there are occuaptions and occupations, then. But the fact remains, similar things can be, and are being, proposed within the movement.

Community and workplace struggles continue outside of the occupy movement and in actual fact have a more direct access to wider sections of the working class and where liberalism and pacifism do not have an ideological hold.Pacifism and "liberalism" (which certainly isn't liberalism at all) have strong ideological holds everywhere - including "community" and workplace struggles. They are important elements of the dominant ideology.

Do you think that culture determines class struggle tactics?Of course not. Where did I say anything remotely similar?

I think it's foolish to try and compare Greece, Libya and Yemen with what is happening in the US (or the UK). They are fundamentally not the same.They have differences due to each country's history and actual situation; it would be extraordinary if the people in the US were calling for the toppling of the dictatorship, or if the people in Libya were having dellusions about mending the situation by voting. But what moves people to the streets, and to confront the forces of order, is the same in the US or in Libya: it is the fact that capitalism is messing with their lives in an increasing (and increasingly unbearable) way. It is the mortgages, it is the housing crisis, it is the soaring unemployment, etc. And, besides, it is the fact that it is increasingly obvious that the authorities - Gaddafy, Obama, Mayor Quan, Papandreou, you name them - don't have a clue on what to do, except calling for austerity, when "austerity" is evidently part of the problem, and does nothing to address the problem - the contraction of aggregate demand.

The uprising in Libya and Yemen were/are not anti-capitalist. They were political revolutions, not economic ones. That is probably the only similarity they have with what is happening in the US and UK.They were political revolutions against pro-capital governments. And while people don't understand it yet, it was the fact that those governments were servile to capital that made them unsustainable.

Or they're repressed.Well, yes, this is a distinct possibility. But as the bourgeoisie has no long term project to deal with the crisis, the movement will erupt again, perhaps in other forms, but with the same basic characteristic. In such conditions, outright and sweeping repression is a dangerous move; it could make things go truly out of control.

But the immediate interests of the working class are economic, not political.They are political too: an interest in universal suffrage, an interest in political liberty, an interest in labour legislation, etc. There is no such sharp divide between economic and political.

Why is that true? I don't accept that trying to improve capitalism will make people realise that the system has to be removed? Why would that happen? If improving capitalism works, why would people then make the leap that it should be removed?Because, of course, capitalism cannot be improved beyond very strict limits, conditioned by political and economic situation, and, even when and where it can be improved, such improvement is always temporary.

Radicalisation comes through participating in radical struggle. People who work in communities to transform them beyond capitalism is what makes people realise that it has to be removed and more importantly can be.This obviously begs the question. If radicalisation comes through participating in radical struggle, where does the push to initiate radical struggle come from?

"People who work in communities to transform them beyond capitalism" is reformist nonsence, sorry. "Communities" cannot be transformed beyond capitalism, which is a global system that needs being defeated globally.

I've seen these occupations. I know first hand who is involved in them. My evidence is that it's actually the fact. Come to the UK and see for yourself.Well, the English/"British" working class has experienced much more radical class struggle and class organisation than the American working class, so perhaps in the UK a movement like the Occupies seems futile. But there were no August riots in the US, so conditions are, in this respect, different in each country.

When has that ever happened?The February revolution in Russia started with peasants demanding that the good daddy the Czar supported them against the evil landlords.

From what I can see the nature of Occupy Oakland was pretty radical to begin with, so it's not that it overcame liberal and pacifist ideology to become radicalised, it simply was radical to begin with.I am pretty sure that those proposals were voted in the GA, opposed by some, and won in the discussion and consequent vote.

But pray tell, what is that makes the Occupy Oakland so different from the other Occupies?

You think that people need to watch the police beat up some hippies to know what the role of the police is?Of course. If the police does not exert political repression, how people are going to realise that it is an instrument for political repression?

I'm not American, I'm British. But you're wrong anyway. Most of the occupy groups don't believe that capitalism doesn't work (double negative!).Well, they are wrong, and their attempts to improve it will show that they are wrong.

They believe it's been managed incorrectly.And of course, it would have always been possible to manage it better - at least in hindsight. But the realisation that it is being mismanaged is already a step towards the realisation that it is actually unmanageable.

The propaganda coming out of some of the occupy groups is decidedly anti anti-capitalist.Certainly. Not all people are able to realise, at this moment, that capitalism is the problem. However, it is also true that the propaganda coming out of some other occupy groups is decidedly anti-capitalist, even if it is naïve.

Yes, but that doesn't mean people need to be so hostile. The reactions in this thread could easily be characterised as narrow-minded.Your OP is a denial of reality, and many of your posts here show what seems a strong faith in the capabilities of capitalism to survive any problems and any opposition. So yes, they are going to elicit hostile reactions - and your cheap sectarian jabs don't help at all, to be frank.

What is it specifically that I've been vague about. I'll be happy to re-address them.Up to now, your diagnosis of the "futility" of the Occupy movement seems to be rooted in the idea that the "essential proletariat" has nothing to do with it, and that the interests of "essential workers" are at odds with the interests of the movement. But it has been shown to you that the "essential proletariat" is a chimera, a fantasy, since the rule among workers is to rotate between jobs, and consequently the long term interests of "essential workers" are the same as the long term interests of the unemployed, the retired, etc. (And that is part of you not actuall engaging in discussion: you arrogantly stated that "the unemployed have no relation to the means of production", and topped that with the absurd idea that this nonsence was "basic Marxian theory"; when I called you on it, showing what exactly is the actual "basic Marxian theory" on the relation between the unemployed and the means of production, you simply ignored it, neither defending your point nor acknowledging you were wrong.) So what exactly remains of your idea that the "essential proletariat" is an autonomous force, separate from the working class as a class?

That isn't really my view.Well, let's see:

I don't know what your experience with the British working class is, but I have a fair amount of experience, both by growing up in a working class community, living in one and working around other workers, that people think the occupy movement futile. I was at the occupation in the city I live in last Friday and overheard people talking about how "it won't work". This is the common reception of "the public".Cynicism is quite common within the working class. Demonstrations don't work, voting doesn't work, strikes don't work, unions are good for nothing, etc., etc., etc. You are confusing this apathy and cynicism with a developed counsciousness, an actually critical view of those tactics and strategies. It is nothing like this; it is an opinion of people who have yet to engage in something as "radical" as what they are decrying, not an opinion of people who have already experimented them and gone beyond.

So yes, I believe that you mistify workers, ascribing them a level of consciousness that they don't actually have, which is what I mean when I say that you believe that "while they are firmly against capitalism, they don't trust the left, or the liberal leadership of the movement, or even, they realise that the Occupy movement is futile".

I have not said that the essential workers are firmly against capitalism. I have argued that they are the main and essential force within the working class that can bring down capitalism and thus it is with them that the radical activity should be directed.And it was already pointed to you that they are not a force in and of themselves, that they only remain "essential workers" as long as their employers don't decide to fire them, that their "relation to the means of production" is the same as that of other workers, etc.

Further, since the occupy movement is liberal in nature and since the occupy movement has antipathy towards radical ideas, it makes no strategic sense to spend time and energy trying to radicalise it.Again, you keep saying this, but there is no evidence of that.

The idea that the working class will all suddenly come and join the occupation if they didn't have jobs is just fantasy.Quite probably, but the core fact is that they have jobs, and are quite effectively caged for the whole day within those jobs ("essential workers" more than others), isn't it? And so it can only make sence that public demonstrations at work hours, outside workplaces, will be attended by other people, who don't have this kind of limitation. Now, I don't know what kind of strategy you suggest, because you evade the question, but it is unlikely, whether the left tries it or not, that struggles inside workplaces will ignite as radical challenges to capitalism - they are rather, usually, about wages, abusive bosses, working conditions, etc., neither of which actually brings capitalism into question any more than the Occupies. It is only when those struggles go politic that things start to change - and at this moment they quite certainly spill beyond the workplace into the streets. But this requires a situation where people are no longer afraid of loosing jobs, or don't care anymore anyway. Which is still in the future at this moment.

Please stop making assumptions on my character or on my political activity based on some opinions I have offered. It's ridiculous.You don't seem to abide by such advice when addressing the Trotskyist members of this board, though.

But there is nothing mythical about the essential working class. It is a reality - based on the nature of how the means of production are organised.Of course it is mythical. The means of production are organised so that one class - the bourgeoisie - owns them all, except labour power; and the other class - the proletariat - owns none of them, again except labour power. That some members of the proletariat sell their labour power and others can't find buyers, or that some members of the proletariat sell their labour power to steelmills or shipyards, and others to flower shops and cosmetic retail means nothing from the social point of view. Yes, a strike in a shipyard causes more losses for capital, a strike of public transportation causes more disruption on "normal life" than a strike of shop assistants or students. On the other hand, students strikes are much easier and less costly to strikers than strikes in core industries, and students, the unemployed, and retired people, have more free time and are more likely to participate in street demonstrations than "essential workers". In the end, all those are merely sectors of the same class, the working class, and largely interchangeable sectors to be precise.

The occupy movement is largely irrelevant. I don't need to offer an alternative to it, we simply require a strategy that isn't it.Which doesn't exist, and you can't bring into existence by repeating that.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 01:05

LuÃs Henrique

15th November 2011, 13:34

I am happy to respond to this, but do you think there is any point? We are clearly not going to agree with each other. I don't see what the purpose of continuing this discussion is. That's not a cop out, I'm just interested to know what your opinion is on that. Like I said, I am happy to trudge on.

Do you still maintain that the unemployed have "no relation" to the means of production, or that they have a fundamentally different relation to them when compared to employed workers? Do you still believe that the "essential proletariat" are a social layer apart from the rest of the working class?

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:45

Do you still maintain that the unemployed have "no relation" to the means of production, or that they have a fundamentally different relation to them when compared to employed workers?

They have a different relationship to employed workers. I wouldn't say it was fundamentally different. In terms of their power relationship to the means of production, it's negligible, since they don't work within it. They exist outside of the means of production and therefore have no power to affect it.

Do you still believe that the "essential proletariat" are a social layer apart from the rest of the working class?I've never claimed they are a social layer "apart" from the rest of the working class. I have stated that their potential economic power over capitalism is greater than other sections of the working class.

Psy

16th November 2011, 01:07

They have a different relationship to employed workers. I wouldn't say it was fundamentally different. In terms of their power relationship to the means of production, it's negligible, since they don't work within it. They exist outside of the means of production and therefore have no power to affect it.

Yet it is not that simple, idle workers are required for capitalism to work, the idle worker is used as a deterrent against employed workers in labor negotiations. Also you rarely find unemployed that are always unemployed what happens is they bounce in and out of employment.

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 10:45

Yet it is not that simple, idle workers are required for capitalism to work, the idle worker is used as a deterrent against employed workers in labor negotiations. Also you rarely find unemployed that are always unemployed what happens is they bounce in and out of employment.

That's aside from my point.

LuÃs Henrique

16th November 2011, 11:00

That's aside from my point.

No, it is not. It goes directly against your point, and, in my opinion, destroys it.

Our task is to build up the class and its unity, not to invent foolish divisions that can only help our enemies.

Luís Henrique

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 11:23

No, it is not. It goes directly against your point, and, in my opinion, destroys it.

The means of production are the material processes of human existence. They are the basis in which society functions and the basis from which societal power is structured. In order to control society, one must control the means of production.

Ergo, In order to control society the workers must control the means of production. In order to control the means of production the workers must seize it from those who presently control it (i.e. the ruling class). In order to seize the means of production form the ruling class, the workers must have power to affect its function. Someone who is unemployed has no power to affect the function of the means of production, and therefore has no power relationship to it.

That's not to say that the unemployed are irrelevant or have no potential ability to affect it (that's a totally different argument). What Psy is saying is not untrue, it's just not related to my point.

Our task is to build up the class and its unity, not to invent foolish divisions that can only help our enemies.I'm not in anyway suggesting that we shouldn't build unity. Calm down. Please pay more attention to what I'm saying. I'm not inventing anything either, I'm identifying the material realities that exist within the working class.

Psy

16th November 2011, 22:49

The means of production are the material processes of human existence. They are the basis in which society functions and the basis from which societal power is structured. In order to control society, one must control the means of production.

Ergo, In order to control society the workers must control the means of production. In order to control the means of production the workers must seize it from those who presently control it (i.e. the ruling class). In order to seize the means of production form the ruling class, the workers must have power to affect its function. Someone who is unemployed has no power to affect the function of the means of production, and therefore has no power relationship to it.

It is not that simple, take the unemployed moved of the Great Depression where just the unemployed had the opportunity to seize the state of Canada and USA as the bourgeoisie was caught off guard and the unemployed were growing more and more militant where local police were getting totally overrun by unemployed uprisings.

Take the Ottawa Trek, where out of 300 of the radical unemployed group their demonstration pulled in 1,500-2000 workers in Regina as the proletariat started to gravitated around the revolutionary movement of the unemployed with the unemployed becoming a vanguard as the workers wanted revolution and the unemployed were the only ones challenging capitalism. Farmers also fed all these militants as they too become drawn in by the revolutionary movement created by the unemployed.

What difference does it make if the unemployed are the vanguard of a revolution or the proletariat that are currently employed? All that matter is the vanguard snuffs out the bourgeoisie state and both are fully capable of doing that. Once the bourgeoisie state is snuffed out there is nothing protecting the bourgeoisie from the proletariat seizing the means of production.

LuÃs Henrique

16th November 2011, 23:04

The means of production are the material processes of human existence.

Not so; they are the material objects used in producion.

They are the basis in which society functions and the basis from which societal power is structured.

Again, this is wrong. It is property of means of production that structures society, not the means of production in themselves.

In order to control society, one must control the means of production.

Ergo, In order to control society the workers must control the means of production. In order to control the means of production the workers must seize it from those who presently control it (i.e. the ruling class). In order to seize the means of production form the ruling class, the workers must have power to affect its function. Someone who is unemployed has no power to affect the function of the means of production, and therefore has no power relationship to it.

No workers have a "power relationship" to the means of production. The "essential proletariat" do not own the means of production, they just use them, under the command of the capitalists, in production. Indeed, from the point of view of the capitalis, they are just a mean of production more. I don't see why being inside the factory gives "essential workers" any different relation to the means of production; they are still non-owners. If they attempt to seize the means of production, outside a revolutionary situation - in which the class as a whole seizes political power, ousting the bourgeois political personell and dismantling the State - the means of production will be forcibly returned to their legal owners. So, again, we are back to the actual point: social power does not reside inside the factories, or workplaces in general, but in the State.

I'm not in anyway suggesting that we shouldn't build unity. Calm down. Please pay more attention to what I'm saying. I'm not inventing anything either, I'm identifying the material realities that exist within the working class.

The material realities that exist within the working class sum up in its unity, being similarly exploited by the bourgeoisie. Even the divide between the employed and the unemployed makes part of one single system of exploitation, as Psy has pointed out. What you seem to be trying to say is that workers employed in "essential" branches of production are instrumentally more important, because they would be able to shut key pieces of the capitalist machinism. This however is completely different from they being in a "power relationship" to the means of production: a strike that stops a factory is one thing, the actual seizing of the same factory by its workers is another, of a completely different nature. The former can exist without breaking the system down - and so can be done by the employees of the factory alone; the latter is the revolutionary breaking of the system; it requires the destruction of the bourgeois State, and so cannot be done by any particular fraction of the working class, and cannot be effected in the workplaces; it requires streetfight and the assertion of the working class power not only over the workplaces and the means of production therein, but over the whole social fabric, over the public space at large.

*********************

At this moment, it seems that the bourgeois American State has resorted to coordinated violence against the Occupies. The bourgeoisie knows very well what threatens it, and acts accordingly.

Luís Henrique

Jose Gracchus

17th November 2011, 04:56

Only a clown who has literally no historical knowledge of the working class's struggles would suggest that the reserve army of the unemployed has no, or some minor or subsidiary role in working-class formation as a class-for-itself, and in that class's making of revolution.

The unemployed is the device by which capitalists resort to scabs to break strikes, to stir up demagoguery against those with "cushy jobs", ad nauseum. The unemployed must combine with employed workers to interrupt these mechanisms by which capital continuously atomizes, digests, and separates the class. Therefore, not only is the unification of the unemployed with the currently employed a logical prerequisite of the class-for-itself, but a historical and essential prerequisite. It is hard to see how we would ever get to soviets and revolution while the unemployed remain at arm's length from the rest of the class. Especially since history tells us that it doesn't work like that.

Naturally any real class will develop its organization, participation, political consciousness highly unevenly, perhaps on regional, national, sectoral, gender, and other lines. But the actual probability of success will hinge on the extent to which the class-for-itself transcends those .

The Insurrection

17th November 2011, 12:12

The Insurrection

17th November 2011, 12:18

No workers have a "power relationship" to the means of production. The "essential proletariat" do not own the means of production, they just use them, under the command of the capitalists, in production. Indeed, from the point of view of the capitalis, they are just a mean of production more. I don't see why being inside the factory gives "essential workers" any different relation to the means of production; they are still non-owners. If they attempt to seize the means of production, outside a revolutionary situation - in which the class as a whole seizes political power, ousting the bourgeois political personell and dismantling the State - the means of production will be forcibly returned to their legal owners. So, again, we are back to the actual point: social power does not reside inside the factories, or workplaces in general, but in the State.

[...]

The material realities that exist within the working class sum up in its unity, being similarly exploited by the bourgeoisie. Even the divide between the employed and the unemployed makes part of one single system of exploitation, as Psy has pointed out. What you seem to be trying to say is that workers employed in "essential" branches of production are instrumentally more important, because they would be able to shut key pieces of the capitalist machinism. This however is completely different from they being in a "power relationship" to the means of production: a strike that stops a factory is one thing, the actual seizing of the same factory by its workers is another, of a completely different nature. The former can exist without breaking the system down - and so can be done by the employees of the factory alone; the latter is the revolutionary breaking of the system; it requires the destruction of the bourgeois State, and so cannot be done by any particular fraction of the working class, and cannot be effected in the workplaces; it requires streetfight and the assertion of the working class power not only over the workplaces and the means of production therein, but over the whole social fabric, over the public space at large.

Yes, I see your points. Firstly, that the means of production are material objects used in production, rather than the relationship to production, which is what I actually meant. Secondly, that the 'essential workers' do not have the ability to act independently of the entire working class in order to achieve success. Thirdly, the difference between immediate gains and long term revolutionary gains makes the differentiation between essential and non-essential workers irrelevant or in the long term, redundant. Is that right?