"Money for [Insert Demand Here], Not War"

[Kassad]

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" I don't know how commonly this is used internationally, but anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.

[Sakura]

One could easily criticise the particulars of such chants, but keep in mind that they're not terribly specific in the interest of being succinct.

On a very basic level, ordinary people of developed nations (especially in America, which spends obscene amounts on war) realise that the wealth that could be used for improve their own lives is instead being wasted on imperialist machinations, while they have to deal with high taxes and the burden of advancing neoliberalism.

If this attracts pacifists and reformists, well, finding common ground is a functional way to get people to open up on a personal level to alternative ideas. Many of these people will psychologically reject revolution if the question is posed to them directly, simply due to the fact that society conditions most people to implicitly accept the status quo to some extent, but when it becomes a matter of an issue that's personally important, those barriers are lowered.

[KurtFF8]

I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

In what way?

[Welshy]

I think these chants are a biproduct of the manner in which most groups on the left in US organize to protest war. Instead of organizing resistance among workers in the form of strikes and what not, they choose to go down the path reformist and ineffective protests. So it would only make sense that the chants and demands they raise in the chants are completely reformist and of the type that capitalists could easily meet. And the worst part of it is that when I have confronted people about this issue they justify it by either saying it is a transitional demand!

If the left was serious at all they would be putting more effort into organizing actual working class resistance to the Wars and not organizing some feel good protests. Or even if you don't agree with me about the protests being just feel good activist circle jerk, you have to at least admit that the anti-war movement in the way it has been organizing and acting so far has proven itself to be ineffectual.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think these chants are a biproduct of the manner in which most groups on the left in US organize to protest war. Instead of organizing resistance among workers in the form of strikes and what not, they choose to go down the path reformist and ineffective protests. So it would only make sense that the chants and demands they raise in the chants are completely reformist and of the type that capitalists could easily meet. And the worst part of it is that when I have confronted people about this issue they justify it by either saying it is a transitional demand!

If the left was serious at all they would be putting more effort into organizing actual working class resistance to the Wars and not organizing some feel good protests. Or even if you don't agree with me about the protests being just feel good activist circle jerk, you have to at least admit that the anti-war movement in the way it has been organizing and acting so far has proven itself to be ineffectual.
Yes, all to often those of us marching around in front of some federal building somewhere have asked ourselves "what are we accomplishing with these same old tactics?". Yet the same argument is heard when we do try to organize the working class. Asking or organizing workers to strike for something other than their immediate work related issues only comes off a few, very few times a year. The monthly march or action is almost always populated by the full time activist looking for better ways.Same tactics, same outcome. Same arguments. Nothing new under the sun here.

[Crux]

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" I don't know how commonly this is used internationally, but anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.
I think it might be related to the U.S having an absurdly large defence budget.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That, in turn, is the result of not having a Fully Socialized Defense Industry.


I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" I don't know how commonly this is used internationally, but anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.

The "Money" appeal is OK, but there needs to be less sloganeering.

"Money not for war, but for..." and then list the planks.

I'd list more concise versions of:

1) Direct guarantees of a real livelihood to all workers, including unemployment provisions, voluntary workfare without means testing, and work incapacitation provisions – all based on a participatory-democratic normal workweek, all well beyond bare subsistence minimums, and all before any indirect considerations like public health insurance – and including the universalization of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive and non-celebrity remunerations, pensions, and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living (not notorious government underestimations due to faulty measures like chain weighting, or even underhanded selections of the lower of core inflation and general inflation)

2) The wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free and universal legal services by independent government agencies acting in good faith and subjecting their employees to full-time compensation being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers

3) The genuine end of “free markets” – including in unemployment resulting from workplace closures, mass sackings, and mass layoffs – by first means of non-selective encouragement of, usage of eminent domain for, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing enterprises and enterprise operations as even an alternative to non-insolvency restrictions like legally binding workplace closure vetoes and coupling prohibitions on mass sackings or mass layoffs with socially secure transfers to more sustainable workplaces

4) The structural imposition of real austerity on the wealthiest minority of society by first means of exercising pro-labour eminent domain aimed at growing the public ownership and rental tenure over all environmental commons, recycling or reconfiguring the biggest luxury goods, and especially restructuring related luxury enterprises and industries into ones more susceptible to technological advance and more directly sustaining the workers' consumption bundle

5) The realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services and even to fully socialize the labour market as the sole de jure employer of all workers in society, contracting out all labour services to the private sector on the basis of comprehensive worker protections

[eyeheartlenin]

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" ... anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Kassad is absolutely right; any chant would be better than the totally reformist, constantly used, completely idiotic, "Money for healthcare, not for war," which is really saying, if only capitalism could get other priorities, if only there could be a peaceful imperialism, it's just a misunderstanding, and capitalism can be changed, as long as the Democrats are in power, and other such completely reformist BS. I could never stand that chant, which is a favorite of the pro-Democrat "left."

And jbeard is also correct, in indicating that it is idiotic to march around a locked federal office building, twice a year – but never in an election year – (since the "antiwar" movement understands that its masters in the Democratic Party wouldn't like that, and that's why there was no mass national antiwar demonstration in 2008, and there won't be any this year, either, out of deference to the pro-war Democratic Party), and expect that totally impotent ritual will somehow magically end a war waged by the federal government overseas.

[KurtFF8]

I think these chants are a biproduct of the manner in which most groups on the left in US organize to protest war. Instead of organizing resistance among workers in the form of strikes and what not, they choose to go down the path reformist and ineffective protests. So it would only make sense that the chants and demands they raise in the chants are completely reformist and of the type that capitalists could easily meet. And the worst part of it is that when I have confronted people about this issue they justify it by either saying it is a transitional demand!

If the left was serious at all they would be putting more effort into organizing actual working class resistance to the Wars and not organizing some feel good protests. Or even if you don't agree with me about the protests being just feel good activist circle jerk, you have to at least admit that the anti-war movement in the way it has been organizing and acting so far has proven itself to be ineffectual.

This post is problematic in that it assumes that if organizations spend time organizing protests, that they thus are not also organizing working class resistance to those wars.

The whole "the main problem with the Left is it isn't organizing within the working class!" line that's constantly repeated on this site seems to run counter to my experience with most of the Left (which of course includes groups that I'm not too fond of).

Most Left groups work directly with the working class and are comprised of the working class. They aim to organize within it, so I think there's more to it than "do more working class stuff!" I'm pretty sure the Left gets that part.


Also to the OP: if chants that highlight the social spending going towards war and not ___ or ____ are "inherently reformist," then what chants/placards ought to replace them?

By that logic, calling for anything short of immediate communist revolution is reformist.

[Homo Songun]

blatant reformism

No it is not. Those slogans say nothing about whether such demands are actually achievable under the current conditions.

[Kassad]

No it is not. Those slogans say nothing about whether such demands are actually achievable under the current conditions.

Oh please, spare me. The United States could cut the war budget by 1% and pour that money into educational programs in a heartbeat if the need ever arose to quell uprisings based on it. That's pretty basic economic analysis: the ruling class doesn't want to give working people the 40 hour work week, a minimum wage or any of that shit, but they do because more and more workers would become disenfranchised if they chose not to.

It's a matter of appeasement and frankly, much of the left bases their analysis off of economist platforms. I think slogans such as "people over profit" not only are much more radical, in that they demand that not just economic realignment, but a very broad demand that opens up the view to "hey, isn't that the entire concept of socialism? The notion that humanity comes first and that we have the means to attain equality and capitalism is impeding that?"

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, in Israel there's the all too common chant of "Money for the slums, not the settlements", which is very similar. Personally, I don't think the problem is with the part that says "Money for [something]", but actually with the latter part - it gives the illusion that imperialism can become vegetarian and avoid wars altogether. The problem with the Israeli slogan is similar - Israel could, under very extreme circumstances (some sort of massive defeat for the state), get rid of the settlements in the 1967 territories. But that doesn't solve the problem of all Israeli cities, towns etc. being settlements.

[Homo Songun]

Oh please, spare me. The United States could cut the war budget by 1% and pour that money into educational programs in a heartbeat if the need ever arose to quell uprisings based on it. That's pretty basic economic analysis: the ruling class doesn't want to give working people the 40 hour work week, a minimum wage or any of that shit, but they do because more and more workers would become disenfranchised if they chose not to.

Clearly, here at Revleft we seem to be in agreement about "basic economic analysis" as you put it. The problem is what ordinary people think everywhere else. Kasama folks seem to think it can be bridged by talking about what obscure (wanna-be) philosophers denote as the "idea of communism", whereas other trends take another more ... practical approach. Mao's pear comes to mind.


I think slogans such as "people over profit" not only are much more radicalThe irony is that there are lots of people here who think this slogan is just as bad, if not worse. I'll only note in passing that this is Sam Webb's new name for the CPUSA's mass organizations nowadays (!)

[KurtFF8]

Indeed. "People over Profit" can be interpreted just as much as a reformist slogan to justify reforms as well.

The point is that in the context of sloganeering in mass rallies, anything short of "Communism now!" can be interpreted as "reformist" which is absurd considering that those putting those slogans forward clearly aren't simply pushing for reforms. Calling them out for their "reformism" is just a cheap sectarian jab.

[Kassad]

Indeed. "People over Profit" can be interpreted just as much as a reformist slogan to justify reforms as well.

The point is that in the context of sloganeering in mass rallies, anything short of "Communism now!" can be interpreted as "reformist" which is absurd considering that those putting those slogans forward clearly aren't simply pushing for reforms. Calling them out for their "reformism" is just a cheap sectarian jab.

I don't agree that the slogan "people over profit" can feasibly be enacted under capitalism. The entire foundation of capitalism is, broadly speaking, placing exploitation and profit over the needs of humanity. I don't need to lecture you on that, obviously. However, I do believe that the ruling class could stop spending as much money on war in the interests of appeasement, but capitalism will never place people before profit.

[Homo Songun]

So, what exactly is your problem then? I'm not seeing a lot of daylight between you and the putative 'reformists' at this point.

[Kassad]

So, what exactly is your problem then? I'm not seeing a lot of daylight between you and the putative 'reformists' at this point.

Someone's a bit agitated. It's a discussion on the use of slogans to put forward communist goals and solutions. No one's making you discuss it. :)

[Homo Songun]

No one's making you discuss it. :)
Likewise it seems. ;)

[Ocean Seal]

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.
Its reformist as fuck, I agree, but its a chant that relates to people. Its like protesting for a better workday, or for government inspectors at a factory to make sure that conditions are safe for workers. Those are reformist options, but that gets shit done.

People need to realize that war money could be used on other things. Like homes, education, and jobs. We have to make demands to the bourgeoisie and fight them on the current front. With each successful demand we move into to choke the class enemy. And when they say no we have something to mobilize against. Unless we want to chant revolution, revolution, revolution!! without having anything which relates to the general worker to fight about. Objectives are key in revolution.

[KurtFF8]

I don't agree that the slogan "people over profit" can feasibly be enacted under capitalism. The entire foundation of capitalism is, broadly speaking, placing exploitation and profit over the needs of humanity. I don't need to lecture you on that, obviously. However, I do believe that the ruling class could stop spending as much money on war in the interests of appeasement, but capitalism will never place people before profit.

In the current political framework: funding a massive jobs program at the expense of the military industrial complex is not feasible either. Same goes with Health Care, just look at the debacle that occurred just a few years ago in the United States.

"People over profit" could easily be interpreted as "tax the rich for social programs!" as it's a call for examining priorities.

I just find it funny to call other groups out for "reformist" slogans, and then claim that "people over profit" is some radically anti-capitalist slogan.

[Aurora]

You're right it's not a great slogan, a better one might be 'No war for profit!' as it links together imperialist war with the reason for it: profit, shows you're opposed to both and doesn't step into the pacifist 'No war' either

I don't like the slogan 'People before Profit' either, as Kurt said it's prioritizing while the focus should be on abolishing profit entirely. Also it's much too broad, socialism is a working class movement so no need to bring 'people' into it.

[Homo Songun]

For certain strands of Marxism at any rate, 'People' isn't a classless term. I'm most familiar with Marxist-Leninist sense of the term (although the Deleonites use it in some sense also) where it just means the consituent parts of the United Front against monopoly capital: the workers, peasants, intelligentsia, and so forth. That said, "people before profit" is not as good as "money for x, not for y" IMHO because the former is relative whereas the latter is absolute. I suppose they are both open to "reformist" abuse all the same.

[Martin Blank]

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" I don't know how commonly this is used internationally, but anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.

I'm not going to say anything other than I genuinely appreciate your ability and willingness to think about such methods, whether or not we come to agreement on the assessment.

... but I told you so! :D

[Kassad]

You're right it's not a great slogan, a better one might be 'No war for profit!' as it links together imperialist war with the reason for it: profit, shows you're opposed to both and doesn't step into the pacifist 'No war' either.

But doesn't that open up a window for those claiming to be in support of "humanitarian intervention" in Syria, Darfur and the like? I think the rationalization of war as something in defense of human rights, when all logic and statistics point to the contrary, is quite a phenomenon.

On that note, I might or might not have ended a relationship with a woman I had dated for a while because she thought the United States should send military forces to Sudan. :glare:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Funny, I remember saying this exact thing to you years ago when you were doing volunteer Public Relations work for the PSL. Glad to see you're starting to realize what exactly this sort of thing is.


"Money for jobs and not for war" is an outright reformist slogan. I'm not interested in advising the capitalist state on how to best spend its revenues, and I realize that I can't even if I wanted to. Leftist groups on the other hand promote illusions that such things can happen, that "boots on the ground" will "influence Washington," that the state funnels money into the military instead of into schools because of "bad choices," etc. They suck authentic proletarian militancy and awakening workers into their muck, where it dies.

Imperialist war is a product of capitalism. It comes out of the workings of this system. The only way to bring it to an end is to eliminate its source. That means proletarian revolution.

Members of many classes oppose specific wars for whatever reason. Some bourgeois politicians complained that resources used in the invasion of Iraq could have been "better used" to invade Iran, or for other strategic reasons. Middle class liberals opposed the war in Iraq but praised the "good war" in Afghanistan. Some opposed both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and then turned around to call for "troops in" to Sudan. These are the people you want to link militant workers with (which in reality means bringing them in line under the leadership of these forces).

The international working class is the only real force that can eliminate this sort of bloodshed once and for all. It can do that by pursuing its own interests. By fighting for its life, for its independence, and for its freedom in its day to day conditions, it can actually bring the whole thing tumbling down.

***

Raising slogans like "Money for schools not for war" which build illusions in capitalism as a system which can meet human need if it's just "tweaked." It also builds illusions in the ability of people to "pressure" politicians into carrying out their objectives instead of running things in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Will you extend the critical eye to all the rest now?

[Yehuda Stern]

NHIA: Is there any point to your post?

[Dabrowski]

War is inevitable under capitalism. We can have peace when the workers take the power. Now the working class is generally very interested in the question of wars because among other things it does most of the fighting and the dying, along with the poorer sections of the peasantry in countries where the peasantry exists.

"Money for Jobs Not for War" is a bad slogan, a lying, reformist slogan. It gets belted out all the time because it represents very well the liberal, reformist, patriotic, middle-class, non-Marxist program of the anti-war "movement" and the supposed socialists who live in and for this (barely moving) "movement."

So I think people who are beginning to question the slogans need to realize that the problem goes deeper than the need to pick a better slogan. It's about program: is your goal to organize the working class to take the power, championing the cause of all the oppressed, thereby putting an end to imperialism and war for good? Or is your goal to "stop the war" (or not) by building the biggest alliance of everyone who hates war (pretty much everyone to the left of Hitler), including the workers of course, 'cause god knows we love 'em.

If your program is the former, then a whole series of slogans are appropriate, so long as they serve to educate, agitate and mobilize the workers against the "main enemy," their own capitalist ruling class. And when your own ruling class is an imperialist ruling class that has its boot on the necks of half the world, you want them to be defeated in their wars, no matter who "started" them. You want them to lose because that will make it much easier for the workers everywhere, in the imperialist centers and the colonies and semi-colonies, to take the power. Doesn't mean that you should or need to prettify or apologize for or support the small-time ruling classes in whatever country the imperialist masters are attacking.

So among other things, you would explain that the workers should use their power against the war, by striking and refusing to handle war supplies. You would say that "peace" is an illusion under capitalism -- what we've got is a global class war so we might as well fight back, and win. And of course how to do that necessarily touches on every other aspect of a revoloutionary socialist program opposing capitalism, its parties, all its oppressions, prejudices, apologists, etc. all along the line. So in the end you're gonna have to change or reconsider a whole lot of slogans, not just one "anti-war" slogan.

That, in a nutshell, was the program of Lenin and Trotsky and I think it's a fine program for today. Problem is there's only one, rather small, organization on the planet that takes this program seriously and tries to put it into practice, the League for the Fourth International.

[Dabrowski]

Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students?

What is a "united front"? It's a tactic that was developed, primarily, by the Communist International and later by Trotsky's Fourth International. A tactical maneuver used by the Marxists to win workers away from non-revolutionary organizations by engaging in some common action like, say, a picket, a strike, a protest.

What it definitely isn't (at least Lenin and Trotsky never saw it this way) is a more-or-less permanent organization, agreement on slogans, a mutual amnesty against criticism, or a permanent orientation by the Marxists toward any and every leftist group.

So if you "dump some of [your] politics ... in the interest of a united front" then it's not a united front.

[KurtFF8]

"Money for Jobs Not for War" is a bad slogan, a lying, reformist slogan. It gets belted out all the time because it represents very well the liberal, reformist, patriotic, middle-class, non-Marxist program of the anti-war "movement" and the supposed socialists who live in and for this (barely moving) "movement."

In what way is the slogan "a lie"? I can see how folks would feel that there are different ways to articulate such a sentiment, but it is not inherently reformist. The point of the said slogan is to link multiple struggles, that's pretty much it. The idea that it comes from a "reformist" stance is absurd considering Kassad is likely critiquing a specific revolutionary organization here.

[Kassad]

In what way is the slogan "a lie"? I can see how folks would feel that there are different ways to articulate such a sentiment, but it is not inherently reformist. The point of the said slogan is to link multiple struggles, that's pretty much it. The idea that it comes from a "reformist" stance is absurd considering Kassad is likely critiquing a specific revolutionary organization here.

What's the point of critiquing one organization when it is much of the left that uses the same sloganeering?

[KurtFF8]

Well considering that the OP could easily be describing PSL placards (which is exactly the phrasing the PSL uses) and that you left that party and have becoming increasingly critical of them, it seems that's who you're talking about.

[Dabrowski]

In what way is the slogan "a lie"? I can see how folks would feel that there are different ways to articulate such a sentiment, but it is not inherently reformist. The point of the said slogan is to link multiple struggles, that's pretty much it.

It's a lie because it hinges on, and appeals to, a fundamentally false, non-materialist, non-Marxist view of how capitalist society works, how capitalist wars are made, and why. And it's a lie, as opposed to a misunderstanding, because it's promoted by "socialists" who ought to know better.

Let me tell you a story. Recently in New York City, I was at a hearing of the "Panel for Educational Policy" (basically the city's unelected school board). Now the PEP gets together periodically to rubber-stamp school closings, invasions of public schools by non-union charter schools, and other aspects of the racist capitalist wrecking operation against public education being spearheaded by the union-buster-in-chief, Barack Obama. These meetings are foregone conclusions, but since they are required by law to admit the public and allow public comments, they get really heated, with literally thousands of parents, students, and teachers steaming mad at the billionaire Mayor's "puppet panel" and trying to have their two-minute say at the microphone.

So anyway at this meeting one of the most dramatic and memorable comments came from a neighborhood activist woman who, after struggling against police and private security goons hired by the charter schools who tried to keep her away from the microphone, got her two minutes and called the board to account: "I just came to remind you," she warned them, "that there is a God! And his name isn't [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg!" And that the Mayor and his puppet schools panel would be judged for their evil deeds, etcetera. A-men sister! Wild applause from everyone.

Problem is, of course, there isn't a god, and appealing to a higher power is not going to stop the destruction of public education. Now there's no point condemning this parent for not presenting a properly materialist perspective. But what would you say if the PSL or some other "socialist" party made "anti-war" signs, leaflets, chants, etc. calling on the holy spirit to grant some peace to our poor, war-torn world? That would be promoting illusions, a false, non-materialist view of how the world works. It would be a lie. Well, it's just as mistaken to believe that "money" is going to be reallocated from "war" to various good and wholesome things: that's a pervasive secular illusion in capitalist "democracy."

[KurtFF8]

It's a lie because it hinges on, and appeals to, a fundamentally false, non-materialist, non-Marxist view of how capitalist society works, how capitalist wars are made, and why. And it's a lie, as opposed to a misunderstanding, because it's promoted by "socialists" who ought to know better.

You're not really saying anything here. These two sentences amount to "it's a lie because it's not Marxist and isn't correct!"

There's nothing inherently "un-Marxist" or "non-socailist" calling for money for jobs and not war. Firstly, it doesn't make any assumptions about capitalism (that money could be allocated through a completely different production and distribution process, socialism) and as was pointed out earlier: the goal of those slogans is to link those struggles together.

You have yet to explain how the slogans are "a lie" or "false" or demonstrate a "misunderstanding" of capitalism."


Let me tell you a story. Recently in New York City, I was at a hearing of the "Panel for Educational Policy" (basically the city's unelected school board). Now the PEP gets together periodically to rubber-stamp school closings, invasions of public schools by non-union charter schools, and other aspects of the racist capitalist wrecking operation against public education being spearheaded by the union-buster-in-chief, Barack Obama. These meetings are foregone conclusions, but since they are required by law to admit the public and allow public comments, they get really heated, with literally thousands of parents, students, and teachers steaming mad at the billionaire Mayor's "puppet panel" and trying to have their two-minute say at the microphone.

So anyway at this meeting one of the most dramatic and memorable comments came from a neighborhood activist woman who, after struggling against police and private security goons hired by the charter schools who tried to keep her away from the microphone, got her two minutes and called the board to account: "I just came to remind you," she warned them, "that there is a God! And his name isn't [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg!" And that the Mayor and his puppet schools panel would be judged for their evil deeds, etcetera. A-men sister! Wild applause from everyone.

Problem is, of course, there isn't a god, and appealing to a higher power is not going to stop the destruction of public education. Now there's no point condemning this parent for not presenting a properly materialist perspective. But what would you say if the PSL or some other "socialist" party made "anti-war" signs, leaflets, chants, etc. calling on the holy spirit to grant some peace to our poor, war-torn world? That would be promoting illusions, a false, non-materialist view of how the world works. It would be a lie. Well, it's just as mistaken to believe that "money" is going to be reallocated from "war" to various good and wholesome things: that's a pervasive secular illusion in capitalist "democracy."

No, it's really not. If the PSL were primarily just calling for a reallocation of funds within capitalism and ended it there, I would agree that they would be a reformist organization. Yet in reality, they call for a socialist revolution that would reorganize the ownership and distribution of the means of production.

The slogan "money for jobs not war," is not misleading nor does it demonstrate a "misunderstanding." It highlights the priorities of the capitalist class in this society, and the goal isn't to reorganize their priorities, but to challenge their power structure.

[Kassad]

Well considering that the OP could easily be describing PSL placards (which is exactly the phrasing the PSL uses) and that you left that party and have becoming increasingly critical of them, it seems that's who you're talking about.

It isn't just the PSL. WWP does the same thing. So do many other groups like Socialist Alternative, Socialist Appeal, etc. It's the liberalism of much of the anti-war movement as a whole.

[KurtFF8]

I didn't think you were singling out the PSL (although having been a member at a point, I figured that is what this experience is based on).

And it seems you (and other critics of the slogan) have yet to demonstrate how those slogans are a sign of "liberalism" or "reformism"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

NHIA: Is there any point to your post?

Yes. To reiterate what was already said on this subject in past threads, since this is a topic that has been discussed here for close to a decade.

Now perhaps you can tell us what the point of yours was. I won't hold my breath.

[Yehuda Stern]

The point of mine is that it's pretty disgusting to make a personal attack like this when a person tries to discuss a valid political point. Seems I touch a nerve - you neg-repping me about being a member of a "mini-sectlet" (which has a "new theory" to concoct - a terrible thing to do for a Marxist group, indeed) is classic, considering the fact that no one outside RevLeft has ever heard of your group.

[Martin Blank]

And it seems you (and other critics of the slogan) have yet to demonstrate how those slogans are a sign of "liberalism" or "reformism"

If Kassad doesn't mind, I'll jump in here.

The slogan, "Money for [something else], not for war!", is an appeal to the capitalist government and state to alter their funding practices. You cannot argue that this is a general call to workers or any non-governmental grouping, because the very language and formulation of the slogan -- specifically, the coupling of the chosen "something else" to the funding of war -- is oriented toward those entities that actually bankroll armies and conflicts. Under capitalism, this is only done by states or para-states, not by protest movements and definitely not by an amorphous, disorganized and generally unconscious working class. By definition, this makes it a reform slogan.

Where this slogan moves from a singular appeal for reform to a more comprehensive reformism is in the implications of the slogan. For starters, the slogan implies that those state and governmental entities can be bargained with over the question of waging war. Moreover, the slogan, regardless of what the "something else" is (unless, of course, it's simply another war), breeds illusions in the willingness and ability of the capitalist state to avoid or reject war as a means of securing the ruling classes' aims internationally.

Right about now, you or someone else is thinking, "but the whole point of the slogan is to expose the capitalist state". However, there is one flaw to such a concept that I have learned: In order to make this "exposure" work, you actually have to first build up illusions in the capitalist state. That is, you have to convince people that the capitalist state is willing and able to turn its back on waging wars of conquest and profit before you can then "expose" how everything you were just told is not really true. In this sense, it also can be said that the slogan itself is a strawman; it has to create the illusions it seeks to "expose" and knock down.

It is within these illusions that one finds the "liberalism" aspect. In order to believe that the capitalist state is willing and able to turn its back on waging wars of conquest and profit, one ultimately has to buy into the idea that the government and the state are "class-neutral" -- that the state is not a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes, but rather is an entity that stands aloof of classes and class struggle, and can act in the interests of the working class if it simply chooses to do so. This is a viewpoint that has everything in common with petty-bourgeois democratism, but nothing in common with proletarian communism.

You and others may or may not agree with this assessment, but this is how such slogans promote reformism and liberalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

or how about the wealth of society(money) for society(jobs, education, day care, health care, etc...) and not for capitalism(or profit making) because war, and other things are generally an extension of class society and therefore the slogan is communist as fuck. it could be read a million ways.

[Martin Blank]

or how about the wealth of society(money) for society(jobs, education, day care, health care, etc...) and not for capitalism(or profit making) because war, and other things are generally an extension of class society and therefore the slogan is communist as fuck. it could be read a million ways.

Sure, in theory. And in the world of theoretical physics, they can "read" physical laws in such a way as to "prove" an elephant can dangle off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. But that's not reality, and neither is the mental contortion you suggest.

Please don't play around on a discussion like this. I know it's easy to lose sight of the fact that we're talking about human lives here, and I don't want that to happen here.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The point of mine is that it's pretty disgusting to make a personal attack like this when a person tries to discuss a valid political point. Seems I touch a nerve - you neg-repping me about being a member of a "mini-sectlet" (which has a "new theory" to concoct - a terrible thing to do for a Marxist group, indeed) is classic, considering the fact that no one outside RevLeft has ever heard of your group.

I'm not in a group. But thanks for adding another quality post and showing me how it's done.

[KurtFF8]

If Kassad doesn't mind, I'll jump in here.

The slogan, "Money for [something else], not for war!", is an appeal to the capitalist government and state to alter their funding practices. You cannot argue that this is a general call to workers or any non-governmental grouping, because the very language and formulation of the slogan -- specifically, the coupling of the chosen "something else" to the funding of war -- is oriented toward those entities that actually bankroll armies and conflicts. Under capitalism, this is only done by states or para-states, not by protest movements and definitely not by an amorphous, disorganized and generally unconscious working class. By definition, this makes it a reform slogan.

Where this slogan moves from a singular appeal for reform to a more comprehensive reformism is in the implications of the slogan. For starters, the slogan implies that those state and governmental entities can be bargained with over the question of waging war. Moreover, the slogan, regardless of what the "something else" is (unless, of course, it's simply another war), breeds illusions in the willingness and ability of the capitalist state to avoid or reject war as a means of securing the ruling classes' aims internationally.

Right about now, you or someone else is thinking, "but the whole point of the slogan is to expose the capitalist state". However, there is one flaw to such a concept that I have learned: In order to make this "exposure" work, you actually have to first build up illusions in the capitalist state. That is, you have to convince people that the capitalist state is willing and able to turn its back on waging wars of conquest and profit before you can then "expose" how everything you were just told is not really true. In this sense, it also can be said that the slogan itself is a strawman; it has to create the illusions it seeks to "expose" and knock down.

It is within these illusions that one finds the "liberalism" aspect. In order to believe that the capitalist state is willing and able to turn its back on waging wars of conquest and profit, one ultimately has to buy into the idea that the government and the state are "class-neutral" -- that the state is not a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes, but rather is an entity that stands aloof of classes and class struggle, and can act in the interests of the working class if it simply chooses to do so. This is a viewpoint that has everything in common with petty-bourgeois democratism, but nothing in common with proletarian communism.

You and others may or may not agree with this assessment, but this is how such slogans promote reformism and liberalism.

Right, and look I'm not unfamiliar with how these slogans can be viewed as "reformist."

I will disagree with one little thing though: the orientation of the slogans. They are not demands upon the capitalist government, per sey. Instead they are oriented towards workers: highlighting the lack of jobs and thus linking those two issues, as I said earlier.

I suppose they could instead be something along the lines of "we need jobs, not more war for profit," which would be "less reformist" but it gets to the point where we're engaging in quite a nitpicking of slogans in my opinion. (although I'm sure folks will disagree that this is nitpicking)

(And there's always the question of "the mass line" here which I'm sure could lead to quite a discussion)

[Dabrowski]

I will disagree with one little thing though: the orientation of the slogans. They are not demands upon the capitalist government, per sey. Instead they are oriented towards workers: highlighting the lack of jobs and thus linking those two issues, as I said earlier.

I suppose they could instead be something along the lines of "we need jobs, not more war for profit," which would be "less reformist" but it gets to the point where we're engaging in quite a nitpicking of slogans in my opinion.

The thing is, the workers don't need "socialists" (or "socialists" wearing their peace-coalition hats) to tell them that unemployment and wars are bad things, and that jobs and peace would be better.

You go to Washington, and march around on a Saturday yelling these things and carrying signs that say these things (and maybe some newspapers for the advanced workers with some talk about socialism). Comrade, do we really need to buy a bus ticket to Washington to be told that unemployment and war are bad things that we do not want? No, despite your idiosyncratic private interpretation of these slogans, we go to Washington and yell these slogans to tell the White House and the Congress to give us jobs not war, or tell the Pentagon to stop being so damn warlike. Why do you think the peace marches congregate around these three landmarks? By accident? To better "highlight the lack of jobs" to the workers who already know quite well that unemployment is a problem? To appreciate monumental neoclassical architecture?

No, the real reason for these slogans is that they are acceptable to war-making bourgeois politicians, whom the "socialist"-led "peace" coalitions provide an audience and a platform.

At one of the conferences of the latest peace pop-front (United National Antiwar Coalition) one keynote speaker was a Democratic congressman from New York state who decried the war. Why? It was too expensive and took away funds that could be spent on police departments! Applause from all the "socialists" in attendance! So how about that slogan: Money for cops, not for war!

Socialists, Marxists, have to tell the truth: that war (and unemployment) are created by the capitalist system, that our interest as workers is in the defeat of our "own" ruling capitalist class, and that we need to mobilize the power of the working class, against all the capitalist parties and politicians, to put imperialism out of business permanently through workers revolution.

There are some slogans that succinctly express aspects of this program. Like "Defend Afghanistan, Defeat U.S. Imperialism!" "For Workers Strikes Against the War!" "Break with the Democrats, for a Revolutionary Workers Party!" and others. Look around and you will see one socialist organization in the U.S. that actually uses these slogans.

Can we get thousands of workers, students, etc. to march with us under these slogans? Not yet. We've got a lot of work to do. But try arguing for these slogans in the "movement" and guess who will be the first to oppose them: the "socialists."

[KurtFF8]

There are some slogans that succinctly express aspects of this program. Like "Defend Afghanistan, Defeat U.S. Imperialism!" "For Workers Strikes Against the War!" "Break with the Democrats, for a Revolutionary Workers Party!" and others. Look around and you will see one socialist organization in the U.S. that actually uses these slogans.

Some organizations do use slogans like this. For example the RCP constantly chants/has signs that call for Communist revolution, and the main thing that does is alienate them.

[Dabrowski]

Some organizations do use slogans like this. For example the RCP constantly chants/has signs that call for Communist revolution, and the main thing that does is alienate them.

Well to be fair to Chairman Bob's Party, whaddya expect? You think communism is going to be popular in America right now? Of course revolutionaries are going to be isolated. Especially in the most powerful capitalist country on earth. Did you expect this to be easy? The question is, do you capitulate to the pressure of bourgeois public opinion, or do you stick to your guns?

But the fact is that while Chairman Bob's Party does like to talk about Communism (not a bad thing, in my opinion), they most certainly don't use the slogans I suggested, and they can't and won't, because they don't oppose the Democrats and all capitalist parties (remember their main effort all throughout the Bush years, "Drive Out the Bush Regime"? Which everybody except RCP supporters knew meant "Vote Democrat"?) They didn't defend Afghanistan and Iraq against U.S. imperialism, don't call for the defeat of their "own" capitalist rulers. And they don't look to the independent working class struggle as the force that can defeat the imperialists.

Which is not surprising, since they aren't communists, but liberals. Unpopular, isolated, cultish liberals, but liberals nonetheless.

[KurtFF8]

Yeah but picking on the RCP is easy. And interestingly unites most of the rest of the Left.

[Martin Blank]

Right, and look I'm not unfamiliar with how these slogans can be viewed as "reformist."

Well, you had asked how some of us could consider this slogan to be chock-a-block with "reformism" and "liberalism", so I answered your question. Glad to see I could do so thoroughly enough for you to concede that they can be viewed as "reformist".


I will disagree with one little thing though: the orientation of the slogans. They are not demands upon the capitalist government, per se. Instead they are oriented towards workers: highlighting the lack of jobs and thus linking those two issues, as I said earlier.

I understand where you're coming from (after all, there was I time when I defended that slogan precisely how you are right now), but the problem is one of objective vs. subjective.

Subjectively, you and your comrades in the PSL (and other organizations that use it) genuinely believe this slogan is aimed at mobilizing workers against the government, the state, capitalism, etc. However, from the relatively objective perspective of a worker (objective in the sense that s/he has not encountered or gave much thought to the "Money for..." slogan), the demand may be seen as an appeal to the class to mobilize, but not in a revolutionary way. More often than not, it is seen as a demand that mobilizes workers to pressure the government to change its policies -- to have a "change of heart".

Self-described socialist and communist groups may have the best of intentions with this and other, similar slogans. But they have to consider what someone other than themselves will think about these well-worn demands.


I suppose they could instead be something along the lines of "we need jobs, not more war for profit," which would be "less reformist" but it gets to the point where we're engaging in quite a nitpicking of slogans in my opinion. (although I'm sure folks will disagree that this is nitpicking)

I certainly would. Why? Because we communicate ideas in the form of words, so how those words are arranged, emphasized and interpreted matters. The logic of a slogan is that it is meant to encapsulate a larger principle or strategy in a clear, concise manner. A slogan should not require clarification; it should the clearest expression of your political viewpoint at that moment in the class struggle. There should be no "wiggle room" in terms of what it is supposed to mean or entail.

In my view, "we need jobs, not more war for profit", is actually a worse slogan than "money for jobs, not for war", because it turns an imperative ("Money for jobs!") into a passive ("We need jobs") voice. If the intent of formulating a slogan here is, as you said above, "highlighting the lack of jobs and thus linking those two issues [jobs and war]", I would be inclined to formulate it something like this:


Capitalism Means Unemployment at Home, Wars of Conquest Abroad
For Workers' Actions to Stop the War and
Workers' Power to Rebuild the Economy!


It's not perfect (created on-the-fly and without consultation -- not how I usually formulate a slogan), but it is a damn sight better than the others. And, of course, this leads us to...


(And there's always the question of "the mass line" here which I'm sure could lead to quite a discussion)

As you can see, I'm not a subscriber to the "mass line" concept. Personally, I see it as a form of conscious deception. No one likes to be suckered into something, whether it is a three-card-Monty game in Times Square or a political movement. My experience has taught me that workers prefer if you're up-front about what you fight for, and don't seem to have a "hidden agenda", which is what the "mass line" has always seemed to me to be.

Now, maybe it's just that I've seen it done wrong. But I don't think that's it. Every time I hear the term "mass line", I feel the need to protect my wallet. Maybe that's harsh, in your view. I can accept the argument that I'm not giving it a chance. It just feels like a lie, a bait-and-switch, through and through.

[dodger]

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical application of the common anti-war chant "Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" I don't know how commonly this is used internationally, but anyone in the United States who has been to an anti-war demonstration has probably heard this over and over again.

Personally, after a lot of hard thinking, I think the phrase is on par with chants like "Hey, Obama, yes we can! U.S. out of Afghanistan!"

Regardless, even socialists and communists use these chants, whether it's within anti-war fronts or not. I'm curious to hear what other people think about it. Think that the blatant reformism of the slogan is worth dumping some of our politics, per se, in the interest of a united front with lesser-politically developed workers/students? I think it's worth a decent discussion.

"Money for jobs/housing/healthcare/education, not for war!" Slogan is spot on, clear thinking. We have to fight for these. This puts us toe to toe with capital. Someone more clever than me can work out how many drones it would take to build a school. It would be a chance to make a graphic example of the futility of war. Along with destroyed American lives. Last figures I saw there were 740,000 Iraqi war widows. Where was liberation for them?

[Ostrinski]

Money for revleft, not war

[KurtFF8]

Well, you had asked how some of us could consider this slogan to be chock-a-block with "reformism" and "liberalism", so I answered your question. Glad to see I could do so thoroughly enough for you to concede that they can be viewed as "reformist".

Of course, I completley understand that perspective and don't think it's absurd.


I understand where you're coming from (after all, there was I time when I defended that slogan precisely how you are right now), but the problem is one of objective vs. subjective.

Subjectively, you and your comrades in the PSL (and other organizations that use it) genuinely believe this slogan is aimed at mobilizing workers against the government, the state, capitalism, etc. However, from the relatively objective perspective of a worker (objective in the sense that s/he has not encountered or gave much thought to the "Money for..." slogan), the demand may be seen as an appeal to the class to mobilize, but not in a revolutionary way. More often than not, it is seen as a demand that mobilizes workers to pressure the government to change its policies -- to have a "change of heart".

Self-described socialist and communist groups may have the best of intentions with this and other, similar slogans. But they have to consider what someone other than themselves will think about these well-worn demands.

I see this to an extent, although I'm not sure I would agree that the objective position of the working class seeing such slogans is that of reform. And on top of that, if the slogans lead to engaging with workers themselves, obviously it provides and opportunity to discuss the systematic problems.



I certainly would. Why? Because we communicate ideas in the form of words, so how those words are arranged, emphasized and interpreted matters. The logic of a slogan is that it is meant to encapsulate a larger principle or strategy in a clear, concise manner. A slogan should not require clarification; it should the clearest expression of your political viewpoint at that moment in the class struggle. There should be no "wiggle room" in terms of what it is supposed to mean or entail.

In my view, "we need jobs, not more war for profit", is actually a worse slogan than "money for jobs, not for war", because it turns an imperative ("Money for jobs!") into a passive ("We need jobs") voice. If the intent of formulating a slogan here is, as you said above, "highlighting the lack of jobs and thus linking those two issues [jobs and war]", I would be inclined to formulate it something like this:


Capitalism Means Unemployment at Home, Wars of Conquest Abroad
For Workers' Actions to Stop the War and
Workers' Power to Rebuild the Economy!


It's not perfect (created on-the-fly and without consultation -- not how I usually formulate a slogan), but it is a damn sight better than the others. And, of course, this leads us to...

And some groups use slogans a little more similar to this one you've formulated here on the fly, and perhaps that works for them. Obviously I'm not too hell bent on defend these particular slogans, but I do think that they aren't quite as bad as they're being portrayed.



As you can see, I'm not a subscriber to the "mass line" concept. Personally, I see it as a form of conscious deception. No one likes to be suckered into something, whether it is a three-card-Monty game in Times Square or a political movement. My experience has taught me that workers prefer if you're up-front about what you fight for, and don't seem to have a "hidden agenda", which is what the "mass line" has always seemed to me to be.

Now, maybe it's just that I've seen it done wrong. But I don't think that's it. Every time I hear the term "mass line", I feel the need to protect my wallet. Maybe that's harsh, in your view. I can accept the argument that I'm not giving it a chance. It just feels like a lie, a bait-and-switch, through and through.

True, and I feel that some groups take the mass line as "we'll somehow trick workers into being socialists" which I think doesn't quite work out that well. Groups like the PSL tend to be quite up front about what they are fighting for.