Maybe a dumb complaint, but socialist worker articles are too... excited?

[CynicalIdealist]

Something about socialist worker has always annoyed me but I can't tell what it is. Maybe it's the pictures everywhere.

Some of the articles are a stretch too, IMO, like Dave Zirin's column. He wrote some article recently about how NBA basketball players should be considered part of the 99%. lolwat

[IndependentCitizen]

The SWP (UK) online articles annoy me to no end. 2 lined paragraphs with virtually no analysis...

[Q]

Such "good weather" reports are not unique of the American ISO (assuming that's the one you're talking about after a quick Google on "Dave Zirin"), but they're probably one of the best known for it due to their relative wide circulation. The underlying reason is quite deliberate as the idea is to "radicalise the masses" via agitation. So you'll read endless reports about how this school strike was amazing or how that demonstration really enticed the masses to think about left ideas.

It gets boring quite fast.

[jake williams]

Some of the articles are a stretch too, IMO, like Dave Zirin's column. He wrote some article recently about how NBA basketball players should be considered part of the 99%. lolwat
Did you actually read the article?

[Binh]

The paper is loathe to call a spade a spade. It didn't acknowledge defeat in Wisconsin until June when the struggle was wound up in the spring. When the unions went back to the bargaining table and ended the strike at Verizon this year their line was "the struggle continues." Even now they refuse to acknowledge the serious setback at Occupy Wall Street thanks to Bloomberg's successful eviction.

[wunderbar]

Dave Zirin is primarily a columnist for The Nation, and it looks like most if not all of his columns on Socialist Worker are originally from The Nation. This says a lot about Socialist Worker, IMO.

[Binh]

Now the line is "repression can't stop Occupy!" I can't imagine Pravda repeating "repression can't stop the revolution" over and over and over again after the July Days.

[Olentzero]

Dave Zirin is primarily a columnist for The Nation, and it looks like most if not all of his columns on Socialist Worker are originally from The Nation. This says a lot about Socialist Worker, IMO.

I know David Zirin personally, and have since 1994 when he first joined the ISO. Suffice it to say his involvement with the Nation is a result of more than a decade of radical sports writing - starting with a local county newspaper near Washington DC - and book publication (his first book, What's My Name Fool, was put out by Haymarket and, really, was the book that put Haymarket on the map). His online column, Edge of Sports, also predates his writing for the Nation by several years.

But please, don't let actual history and facts get in the way of a good smear opportunity.

Oh, and CynicalIdealist, maybe you could come back when you actually can tell what it is that bugs you about SW's articles? Would make the discussion much more interesting.

[ellipsis]

its not as bad as workers vanguard

" DOWN WITH US IMPERIALISM!
HANDS OFF COUNTRY X!"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Hey, the Socialist Workers has predicted 19 of the last 2 revolutions!

[Tim Cornelis]

I was immediately thinking of the Trotskyist Spartacus League in America. (they seem to have changed their name to International Communist League, recently perhaps?) I read their declaration/constitution a while ago and its rhetoric was politically-chauvinistic (by lack of a better word).

Think of sentences along the lines "Against the Exploitation of the Racist Capitalist State of the USA", etc.

But I skimmed through it again and they seemed to have toned down (only mentioning racism twice).

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't understand how saying that writing for The Nation says a lot about one's political views is a "smear." I further don't see how your friendship with Zinn is at all relevant.

The Socialist Worker in the US, sucks, because it panders to all kinds of liberal prejudices and is pretty dumbed-down. The movement is everything, the results, well, we don't really think we can change things that much. Ever onward and upward! You will have to find meaningful analysis of the class struggle in other places.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The International Spartacist Tendency changed its name to the International Communist League around 1990. The US group is still called the Spartacist League.

[ellipsis]

I was immediately thinking of the Trotskyist Spartacus League in America. (they seem to have changed their name to International Communist League, recently perhaps?) I read their declaration/constitution a while ago and its rhetoric was politically-chauvinistic (by lack of a better word).

Think of sentences along the lines "Against the Exploitation of the Racist Capitalist State of the USA", etc.

But I skimmed through it again and they seemed to have toned down (only mentioning racism twice).

yah their paper is "the worker''s vaguard", i had a subscription before i knew any better.

[Olentzero]

I don't understand how saying that writing for The Nation says a lot about one's political views is a "smear."That isn't what wunderbar is saying, however, which anyone who actually read his post would see immediately. What he's saying about SW, as it is completely ignorant of Zirin's political history and connection to the ISO, is a smear.
I further don't see how your friendship with Zinn is at all relevant.My friendship with him is relevant only because, well, I was there alongside him as he became not only a conscious revolutionary activist but a hell of an author as well.
The Socialist Worker in the US, sucks, because it panders to all kinds of liberal prejudices and is pretty dumbed-down.Howzabout some examples to back this up?

[Binh]

Something about socialist worker has always annoyed me but I can't tell what it is. Maybe it's the pictures everywhere.

Some of the articles are a stretch too, IMO, like Dave Zirin's column. He wrote some article recently about how NBA basketball players should be considered part of the 99%. lolwat

So basketball players making hundreds of thousands a year are part of the 99% but cops making 25 grand a year are not? Now I've heard it all!

[Olentzero]

Would you mind pointing out where Marx wrote that it's how much you make, and not your function in society, that determines whether or not you're a worker?

[Renegade Saint]

I thought it was a given that a party newspaper's primary purpose was agitprop? :confused:
Of course the articles aren't going to just drone on like Ben Stein. If you want longer, more in depth and sober stuff you can read http://isreview.org/

[Olentzero]

That isn't to say that SW doesn't go in-depth.

So, let's throw Lev Bronsteinovich and CynicalIdealist,our latest round of critics, a bone here and use yesterday's article about Iran (http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/09/wests-new-confrontation-iran) as an example. How, in your opinions, does this article pander to liberal prejudices, and how is it dumbed down?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Okay. The article reads like a reasonably informed left/liberal view. There is the subtle suggestion that Obama is doing these things because he is being pressured by the "bad" Republicans. As imperialist commander-in-chief, it is his job. He is no better than the right-wing freakshow that is US politics these days, just different. Also. a Leninist position on Iran is to say "we defend their right to defend themselves up to and including developing nuclear arms." And of course, it doesn't mention that the ISO supported the Iranian "Revolution" that put the fucking Mullahs into power. So the article explains aspects of the situation reasonably well, but fails to fully defend Iran. And implicit in the article is that their are better or worse wings of imperialism. So this one is not particularly dumbed down, I think it does put forth some egregious liberal impulses.

Is this article website only, or will it also be in their paper?

[Hiero]

Would you mind pointing out where Marx wrote that it's how much you make, and not your function in society, that determines whether or not you're a worker?

Marx wrote about expliotation, wages and labour. Basketball players are not exploited in the sense through their labour.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

edit: I thought you were somehow defending NBA basketball players, but you were probably talking about the cops.

[Renegade Saint]

Okay. The article reads like a reasonably informed left/liberal view. There is the subtle suggestion that Obama is doing these things because he is being pressured by the "bad" Republicans. As imperialist commander-in-chief, it is his job. He is no better than the right-wing freakshow that is US politics these days, just different. Also. a Leninist position on Iran is to say "we defend their right to defend themselves up to and including developing nuclear arms." And of course, it doesn't mention that the ISO supported the Iranian "Revolution" that put the fucking Mullahs into power. So the article explains aspects of the situation reasonably well, but fails to fully defend Iran. And implicit in the article is that their are better or worse wings of imperialism. So this one is not particularly dumbed down, I think it does put forth some egregious liberal impulses.

Is this article website only, or will it also be in their paper?
So on one hand you fault the ISO for supporting the Iranian revolution (not sure if it did or not actually) and on the other you fault us for not defending Iran enough? Okay...

Just so we're clear, Iran is also an imperial state, just a far less successful one than the US. Iran is only 51% Persian and a good proportion of those minorities don't really want to be a part of Iran. So I don't see any reason to "fully defend" Iran.

Also, I think supporting the 1979 revolution is a pretty reasonable position. Leftist were very active in the early stages of the revolution (unlike, say, in the Libyan revolution) and they were overthrowing a US backed tyrant. What's not to like? It was only after the Shah left that the radical Islamists seized power.

[Olentzero]

There is the subtle suggestion that Obama is doing these things because he is being pressured by the "bad" Republicans.Where are you getting that from?
As imperialist commander-in-chief, it is his job. He is no better than the right-wing freakshow that is US politics these days, just different.I beg to differ here - he's no different than the right-wing freakshow, because his pandering to the 'moderate' (ha!) Republican right gives the freakshow the opportunity to demand even loonier crap.
Also. a Leninist position on Iran is to say "we defend their right to defend themselves up to and including developing nuclear arms."Regardless of who's actually running Iran? It's not a workers' republic over there, last I checked. Why is it we should support Iran uncritically? Simply because the US is bullying it?
And of course, it doesn't mention that the ISO supported the Iranian "Revolution" that put the fucking Mullahs into power.A gross distortion of our actual position, and frankly has nothing to do with the current subject, which is the quality of articles in SW.
So the article explains aspects of the situation reasonably well, but fails to fully defend Iran.Again, why should we?
And implicit in the article is that their are better or worse wings of imperialism.What, exactly, in the article gives you this impression? We need cites here, not just assertions.


I thought you were somehow defending NBA basketball players, but you were probably talking about the cops.I am defending NBA players. There are a couple things to consider here: While playing basketball is not productive labor, basketball players are in fact incredibly exploited at both the collegiate and professional levels in that they are paid only a fraction (at the professional level, since college athletes don't get paid at all) of the value they generate for the capitalists that own the teams and the stadiums and the concession/souvenir stands, to say nothing of the companies that hire them for advertising purposes.

Cops don't even directly generate value; their salaries come from other sources entirely (namely taxes). The even bigger issue, however, is their role in society - repression in the name of preserving the capitalist system. The flood alone of videos and pictures showing what the cops did to break the back of the Occupy movement clearly show which side they're on, and makes a mockery of the argument that they're more workers than basketball players because they're paid less. (You have to wonder how the salary of a big-city police chief compares with that of an NBA benchwarmer, though.)

Finally, the nature of the role of police is an absolute brake on political consciousness, whereas basketball players enjoy greater freedom in that regard. I had the pleasure of hearing Etan Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etan_Thomas) speak on social justice issues at ISO-sponsored events during his early days in DC and I'd say he's got more working-class consciousness in his little toe than the entire collection of DC police forces have in their donut-laden carcasses. (Yeah, yeah; I read the Wiki article and know he supported Obama. I got issues with that.)

Renegade Saint - order a copy of Revolutionary Rehearsals through your branch lit comrade or directly from Haymarket. It's got a section on the 1979 Iranian revolution that lays out our position quite clearly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Would you mind pointing out where Marx wrote that it's how much you make, and not your function in society, that determines whether or not you're a worker?

The "99%" thing isn't a Marxist categorization, though. It IS based on income, not social function.

[Welshy]

Would you mind pointing out where Marx wrote that it's how much you make, and not your function in society, that determines whether or not you're a worker?

While that is true, one does have to take into account that with the salary that NBA players are paid (the average salary being $5.15 million) these players would be able to purchase means of production and become capitalists. So NBA players are hardly workers in the sense of someone who works at McDonalds or factory that makes cars for one of the Big Three. Also as someone pointed out the whole 1% vs the 99% thing is based on income and because of that NBA players are not in any way shape or form a part of the 99%.

[Renegade Saint]

While that is true, one does have to take into account that with the salary that NBA players are paid (the average salary being $5.15 million) these players would be able to purchase means of production and become capitalists. So NBA players are hardly workers in the sense of someone who works at McDonalds or factory that makes cars for one of the Big Three. Also as someone pointed out the whole 1% vs the 99% thing is based on income and because of that NBA players are not in any way shape or form a part of the 99%.
They can purchase means of production, but can they purchase their means of production (their teams)?

[Olentzero]

While that is true, one does have to take into account that with the salary that NBA players are paid (the average salary being $5.15 million)Is that annual average salary or average total salary over a career? Let's also keep in mind that 'average' doesn't prove a whole lot; if one player makes $10 million and another makes $300,000, the average is still $5.15 million between the two of them. Major differences there.
these players would be able to purchase means of production and become capitalists.Yes, the potential is there, depending on how much they actually earn; but if they don't become capitalists because they don't purchase the means of production, what are they?
So NBA players are hardly workers in the sense of someone who works at McDonalds or factory that makes cars for one of the Big Three.You'll note I did say that playing basketball was not productive labor.
Also as someone pointed out the whole 1% vs the 99% thing is based on income and because of that NBA players are not in any way shape or form a part of the 99%.The 99/1 division is not solely based on income; it is also based on the distribution of wealth and power over society. Basketball players don't have the same control over society as the politicians and the bankers; taken overall in terms of not only income but wealth and power, basketball players (and professional athletes in general) are definitely part of the 99%.

All this is, however, off the main track of the discussion, which is the quality of SW's journalism. Lev Bronsteinovitch is gonna have to do a lot better than vague assertions of the 'subtle' liberal bourgeois politics 'implicit' in SW's articles. Or maybe you all would like to give it a try?

[Welshy]

Is that annual average salary or average total salary over a career? Let's also keep in mind that 'average' doesn't prove a whole lot; if one player makes $10 million and another makes $300,000, the average is still $5.15 million between the two of them. Major differences there.

Yes that is a yearly salary, and I looked it up an the median income is $700,000 a year (which still puts them in the top 1% of earners) and it still allows them to make enough to either start a small business fairly easily or for the top income earners to start up a larger company or buy a large amount of stocks in a company.



Yes, the potential is there, depending on how much they actually earn; but if they don't become capitalists because they don't purchase the means of production, what are they?You'll note I did say that playing basketball was not productive labor. To be honest I don't really know what they are. The issue here if they are indeed then given their income they could easily change classes in a way that most workers can't and that given their high salaries they represent probably the most bought off layer of the working class and probably will never become revolutionary and most likely side with the capitalists in order to maintain their high social status and standard of living.



The 99/1 division is not solely based on income; it is also based on the distribution of wealth and power over society. Basketball players don't have the same control over society as the politicians and the bankers; taken overall in terms of not only income but wealth and power, basketball players (and professional athletes in general) are definitely part of the 99%.
I live near a city (Detroit) that has a mayor who was a former Pistons player and he is a perfect example of what I am talking about higher up on this post. After retiring from basketball (though he played when players made a lot less money) he started his own small business which ended up making quite a bit of money for a small business. So while as professional athletes they may not necessarily have the power that politicians have but they can easily change that with a successful political campaign. I mean just look at Manny Paquiao who started his party in the Philippines and is now a member of their senate. Also Imran Khan is trying the same thing in Pakistan. And in the US besides for David Bing, Jesse Ventura and Bill Bradley are other examples of athletes who became politicians.

I have to ask you this. Do you consider Actors to be a part of the "99%" or working class?




All this is, however, off the main track of the discussion, which is the quality of SW's journalism. Lev Bronsteinovitch is gonna have to do a lot better than vague assertions of the 'subtle' liberal bourgeois politics 'implicit' in SW's articles. Or maybe you all would like to give it a try?

As a former ISO member and someone who is still friends with people from my old branch, I have to admit the amount of defensive that you and the other ISO members here have displayed when people criticize your organization is rather embarrassing. You all are almost as bad as the PSL members here who yammer on and on about how they are the most revolutionary party in the US and the fastest growing blahblahblahblahblah. I'm just happy in the ISO'ers I know IRL aren't like this (though some did act like that when I criticized the leadership when I was a member).

[Olentzero]

OK, first off, median income still doesn't mean they all make that much. Same for average income (which, if I remember my math correctly, can actually be higher than the median). Using an abstract figure that fails to encompass the entire spectrum of athletes' wages is a poor basis for saying they're all rich and bought off. Secondly, for every success story you provide of athletes who went on to post-career fame and fortune, I could give you three stories of athletes who end up dead broke, lives ruined by drugs and alcohol, wasting away in poverty and finally committing suicide because they can't afford the health care they need to relieve the pain of the abuse their bodies and brains endured in their sports careers. Your few shining examples don't mean all athletes end up that way.
As a former ISO member and someone who is still friends with people from my old branch, I have to admit the amount of defensive that you and the other ISO members here have displayed when people criticize your organization is rather embarrassing.Nice attempt at a dodge, but no cigar. You gonna come up with actual evidence that SW promotes liberal bourgeois politics, or are you just gonna sit there and throw more mud?

[Welshy]

OK, first off, median income still doesn't mean they all make that much. Same for average income (which, if I remember my math correctly, can actually be higher than the median). Using an abstract figure that fails to encompass the entire spectrum of athletes' wages is a poor basis for saying they're all rich and bought off.
Alright how about this. The minimum salary for the NBA in 2010-2011 season was $473,604. That still puts them with in the richest section of american society and I still hold by my state that if they are workers then they are the most bought off section of the class.



Secondly, for every success story you provide of athletes who went on to post-career fame and fortune, I could give you three stories of athletes who end up dead broke, lives ruined by drugs and alcohol, wasting away in poverty and finally committing suicide because they can't afford the health care they need to relieve the pain of the abuse their bodies and brains endured in their sports careers. Your few shining examples don't mean all athletes end up that way.

Cool, because there are a lot of athletes who burn out, they are now workers? The same thing happens to artists and musicians but they aren't workers (or at least not workers by merit of being artists or musicians).




Nice attempt at a dodge, but no cigar. You gonna come up with actual evidence that SW promotes liberal bourgeois politics, or are you just gonna sit there and throw more mud? I've never claimed the ISO to be a liberal bourgeois group. I think some of their rhetoric to be excessively populistic (such as the quick embracing of the whole 1% vs 99% thing). I also think they focus way to much on students and that the way they operate is undemocratic and alienating to people who aren't in the ISO but are active in the same campaigns (at least from what I have personally experience in my area). But this is what I was referring to. Criticizing a position the ISO holds and all of sudden everyone who disagrees with you is accusing you of being bourgeois liberals.

Also I'm still waiting for a reply to the PM I sent you.

[Olentzero]

Criticizing a position the ISO holds and all of sudden everyone who disagrees with you is accusing you of being bourgeois liberals.Well, that actually has been brought up in this thread (or more specifically that SW panders to bourgeois liberalism), so it's what we're working with at this point. The argument as to whether professional athletes, artists, actors, and musicians are workers (which I believe you're completely wrong about with an apparently overly narrow definition of what a worker is) is an interesting one but properly belongs in a thread of its own. Here, the original subject is the quality of the journalism in SW and I'd like to see some arguments backed up with examples instead of this 'implicit' and 'subtle' bullshit.

[Vanguard1917]

Is that annual average salary or average total salary over a career? Let's also keep in mind that 'average' doesn't prove a whole lot; if one player makes $10 million and another makes $300,000, the average is still $5.15 million between the two of them. Major differences there.

'Major differences' maybe. But i could still easily retire after five years on a salary of $300,000, and not work till i'm pushing 70 like most workers.

[Hiero]

I am defending NBA players. There are a couple things to consider here: While playing basketball is not productive labor, basketball players are in fact incredibly exploited at both the collegiate and professional levels in that they are paid only a fraction (at the professional level, since college athletes don't get paid at all) of the value they generate for the capitalists that own the teams and the stadiums and the concession/souvenir stands, to say nothing of the companies that hire them for advertising purposes.Marx never thought of expliotation like that. NBA players do not generate value or receive wages in the Marxist sense. Read the article I gave you. In your definition CEO's would be consided exploited because they only received a fraction of what they generate. For instance the CEO of Qantas receives 5 million, out of the millions that are turned in profit. NBA players do no generate value, it is the actual proffessional workers who turn NBA into a commodity that generate value.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I am curious, does the ISO call for the cops to be thrown out of unions?

[Renegade Saint]

I am curious, does the ISO call for the cops to be thrown out of unions?
What? That's a bizarre question. How would one throw cops out of police unions?

[Welshy]

What? That's a bizarre question. How would one throw cops out of police unions?

He's referring to the fact that police unions are a part of large unions, like how the International Union of Police Associations is a part of the AFL-CIO. So basically does the ISO advocate that the IUPA should be booted from the AFL-CIO? Also along this same line do you or ISO (to be honest your answer to the first question will probably answer this) think that unions, revolutionary or not, should allow police to join?

(Lev, please correct me if this is wrong)

[Lucretia]

I am defending NBA players. There are a couple things to consider here: While playing basketball is not productive labor, basketball players are in fact incredibly exploited at both the collegiate and professional levels in that they are paid only a fraction (at the professional level, since college athletes don't get paid at all) of the value they generate for the capitalists that own the teams and the stadiums and the concession/souvenir stands, to say nothing of the companies that hire them for advertising purposes.

I am sorry, but this is just too rich. Professional basketball players in the NBA who, at minimum, clear hundreds of thousands of dollars per year are not "exploited workers." They are the equivalent of independent "artisans," whose craft is their athletic performance, and who if they had to be categorized in strict Marxian terms would best be classified as petty bourgeois who are contracted by owners of teams belonging to the NBA. While they are paid a salary, they make more than enough in at least two or three seasons to retire permanently and become full members of the bourgeoisie. Workers are people who by virtue of not owning the means of production are compelled to sell their labor power to a capitalist (these pro basketball players are in fact paid way more than what is required to reproduce themselves -- hence their almost immediate potential for class mobility). The reason most continue to play is their love for the sport and competition. It's what they've dreamed of doing from a young age, and they know they are the best in the world.

It is also important to remember that, as far as I am aware, no professional sports team, in the US at least, is a publicly traded company. They are privately owned firms that are part of a private association that does not produce goods or in this case services capitalistically (and is therefore not subject to the law of value in any meaningful sense -- the owners do not need to maximize profit and ensure a perpetually increasing rate of profit so as to reinvest in the means of production and stay competitive with the other owners, they need merely to make a profit as petty proprietors themselves). It makes no sense to speak of a non-capitalist business with proletarian workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am sorry, but this is just too rich. Professional basketball players in the NBA who, at minimum, clear hundreds of thousands of dollars per year are not "exploited workers." They are the equivalent of independent "artisans," whose craft is their athletic performance, and who if they had to be categorized in strict Marxian terms would best be classified as petty bourgeois who are contracted by owners of teams belonging to the NBA. While they are paid a salary, they make more than enough in at least two or three seasons to retire permanently and become full members of the bourgeoisie.
I disagree. I think pro-players are probably best described as professionals, but definitely not bourgeois. You may be thinking of a tiny minority of pro-player celebrities who merchandize their name and image and so on, but these guys are still the minority when you look at pro-sports in totality. Most pro-players don't go anywhere, many don't even get to play that much. On top of that is the whole farm system of people who make a tiny wage and never get called up to play on the big team.

The big celebrities who do become bourgeois do so not on the court or field but in advertising company offices, so it's not their job as athletes that allows them to become owners and sellers of their name and image, but their celebrity.

On top of all that, it's only been in the last two decades that pro-sports players even made more than doctors and dentists and shit. Most of the history of sports for players has been - getting physically wreaked, playing for a few years after dedicating your life to the sport, then getting booted and left to deal with a (short) lifetime of chronic injuries and few practical skills. Many try to become trainers or coaches for lesser leagues or go to school and go into physical therapy.

Sports players have unions for a reason and we should support them squeezing as much money as they can from the owners.

Finally, there is a lot of right-wing faux-populist rage in both right-wing and sports media directed at millionaire sports stars "making tickets sales too high so they can go to hip-hop clubs and sit on their asses" while glorifying billionaire owners. This rage often has a racial element because of non-white "uppity" players. It's the same with right-wing rage at Hollywood celebrities and so while these may be professional crafts, not proletarian jobs, most people who attempt these things are working class and most people fail to make meaningful money in their pursuit of these professions and the revolutionary left should reserve it's rage for the Hollywood and sports owners who break unions, take tax-money subsidies, and make millions and millions while destroying the bodies of their players who have to compete (and take risky drugs and training routines) with each-other (not on the court/field but in the workplace) for only a few open slots.


Workers are people who by virtue of not owning the means of production are compelled to sell their labor power to a capitalist (these pro basketball players are in fact paid way more than what is required to reproduce themselves -- hence their almost immediate potential for class mobility). The reason most continue to play is their love for the sport and competition. It's what they've dreamed of doing from a young age, and they know they are the best in the world.Or they have nothing else to do. The fact that US baseball gets a lot of players from the poorest counties in the hemisphere and previously got them from poor urban and rural areas should dispel the "love of the game" and not being compelled to sell their labor idea.


the owners do not need to maximize profit and ensure a perpetually increasing rate of profit so as to reinvest in the means of production and stay competitive with the other owners, they need merely to make a profit as petty proprietors themselves). It makes no sense to speak of a non-capitalist business with proletarian workers.Sports is non-capitalist? Sports franchises are a huge racket and are in competition with other entertainment industries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So basically does the ISO advocate that the IUPA should be booted from the AFL-CIO? Also along this same line do you or ISO (to be honest your answer to the first question will probably answer this) think that unions, revolutionary or not, should allow police to join?


The ISO doesn't support police unions or corrections unions for various reasons including: 1) They are not working class, they bolster the repressive apparatus of the US ruling class 2) even putting that aside they very rarely DON'T cross union lines.

Do we call on union leaders to kick out police unions? Why? What an abstract thing for us to demand. Do you want us to start a campaign around this? The union leadership does all kinds of fucked up things, but I don't see trying to start a movement to get the police out as the most immediate thing to try and organize rank and file militants. Business-unionism, undemocratic practices, police unions, unions crossing the lines of other unions, union support of the Democratic party are all among the problems of unions. I would certainty support a movement of rank and file union members in the AFL-CIO to force their leaders to kick out the cops - particularly if there was a campaign around some concrete example of police supporting the efforts of the bosses which could make it a bigger class fight than just an internal AFL one.

[Lucretia]

I disagree. I think pro-players are probably best described as professionals, but definitely not bourgeois. You may be thinking of a tiny minority of pro-player celebrities who merchandize their name and image and so on, but these guys are still the minority when you look at pro-sports in totality.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. My analysis was of NBA players, not professional athletes in general. I am sure that are many, many professional athletes who make a comfortable living, but are by no means about to jump into the ranks of the super-wealthy. The average annual salary for a player in the NBA is over 5 million dollars (http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/08/19/average-salary/index.html). You play for one year, and you can retire, buy stocks, purchase part of the team, or whatever for the rest of your life if that's what you want to do. Somebody who makes five million dollars a year is not a proletarian, and I would question a person's basic understanding of Marxism if they failed to see something so obvious. At best they occupy a contradictory class location in which they are still subject to the work conditions imposed by the management, where they generate profit for the management, but where they are paid such a large wage (what Marx in a couple of contexts called a "surplus wage" -- a wage that is greater than the value of their labor power in a way that, were it not for the relatively short careers of athletes and their love for the game, would threaten the reproduction of the employer-employee relationship) that it makes no sense to equate them with other works who are literally compelled to sell their labor power and generally do so at cost.


Most pro-players don't go anywhere, many don't even get to play that much. On top of that is the whole farm system of people who make a tiny wage and never get called up to play on the big team.Once again, you're talking about professional athletes in general. I was talking specifically about NBA players.


The big celebrities who do become bourgeois do so not on the court or field but in advertising company offices, so it's not their job as athletes that allows them to become owners and sellers of their name and image, but their celebrity.Nope. Get your facts straight. The average salary for players is over 5 million dollars. This does not include endorsements from major corporations. I'm sure many players get no such endorsements, but that doesn't change a thing about what I said.


On top of all that, it's only been in the last two decades that pro-sports players even made more than doctors and dentists and shit. Most of the history of sports for players has been - getting physically wreaked, playing for a few years after dedicating your life to the sport, then getting booted and left to deal with a (short) lifetime of chronic injuries and few practical skills. Many try to become trainers or coaches for lesser leagues or go to school and go into physical therapy.I appreciate the history lesson, but it doesn't relate to what I said.


Sports players have unions for a reason and we should support them squeezing as much money as they can from the owners.Not all "sports players" are in a union. Not all professional athletes are in a union. Take tennis, for example, where there is no players' union in either the ATP or WTA.


Or they have nothing else to do. The fact that US baseball gets a lot of players from the poorest counties in the hemisphere and previously got them from poor urban and rural areas should dispel the "love of the game" and not being compelled to sell their labor idea.Professional athletics is a great avenue to extreme wealth for people with little opportunity for receiving an education or making the kinds of social connections usually required to make obscene amounts of money. Anyways, I don't think either you or I know why any professional athlete decided to start my playing, though my guess would be that it has something to do with how much they love to play, even if that's not the only reason.


Sports is non-capitalist? Sports franchises are a huge racket and are in competition with other entertainment industries."Sports"? Where did I say anything about "sports" in general? For the fifth time, please learn to read more carefully.

The NBA operates for profit as a business, as do its franches, but their business model is highly abnormal. We're talking about an association that has a virtual monopoly on selling professional basketball entertainment. The rules of capital largely do not apply, and one of those is the drive to reduce labor costs to a minimum in order to compete effectively with others in the same industry. We're really stretching Marx's models of capitalism when we try to apply it wholesale to the expert performances of professional athletes in the NBA. It's like trying to use Das Kapital to explain why the Mona Lisa has the monetary value it does.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As a former ISO member and someone who is still friends with people from my old branch, I have to admit the amount of defensive that you and the other ISO members here have displayed when people criticize your organization is rather embarrassing. You all are almost as bad as the PSL members here who yammer on and on about how they are the most revolutionary party in the US and the fastest growing blahblahblahblahblah. I'm just happy in the ISO'ers I know IRL aren't like this (though some did act like that when I criticized the leadership when I was a member).I hear that to a certain extent and if this were real life I would probably just ignore it. I don't get defensive when people criticize state capitalism or this or that actual disagreement or have a principled argument, but I do get defensive (and feel like I'm taking crazy pills) with some of the insinuations that are repeatedly thrown our way - especially when there are sectarian groups who like to actively sabotage our propaganda efforts and don't criticize us directly but make thin cases on a lot of circumstantial evidence like quotes taken out of context.

Some of these accusations are like being red-baited by liberals in coalitions. Someone says, "you know, these socialists are just using this movement for their own means" or "socialists want to take over this movement" or "socialists are too radical and going to scare people away". It's easy to accuse other activists of these things and it doesn't matter if you can prove it or not, it casts doubts which won't go away and any attempt to correct it sounds defensive.

When it comes down to it, our analysis of Obama and the Democrats is orthodox radical leftist, it's our approach and tone that might be different and people use that to say that we support Obama or all sorts of other things. If people said, "I don't think that this approach is the best way to convince workers with illusions in Obama, I'd do it this way..." then there's nothing to be defensive about. But when people say things that amount to, "Well that article talking about Obama's neoliberal cabinet doesn't talk about Obama's imperialism so you know that's because they tacitly support him" it's not productive and makes me doubt if they are even really interested in the debate rather than just hurting the rep of other groups. Best of all was NHIA's claim that we support Occupy Congress (even though I knew from people on the East Coast the members were furious about it) and then when there was a whole article dissecting it he said, oh well it came out a couple weeks late.