Does party leadership live off party funds?

[Blanquist]

I mean guys like Alan Woods, do the member dues and donation go right into his pocket?

Another example is the SEP in the US, they run the WSWS site, a bio on some of their main writers says they work full time as writers for the WSWS, so were does the money come from?

All these sites have "please donate" "we need your help/support" signs.

Do some or a lot of these donation go toward living expenses for party members?

[workersadvocate]

I mean guys like Alan Woods, do the member dues and donation go right into his pocket?

Another example is the SEP in the US, they run the WSWS site, a bio on some of their main writers says they work full time as writers for the WSWS, so were does the money come from?

All these sites have "please donate" "we need your help/support" signs.

Do some or a lot of these donation go toward living expenses for party members?

BINGO...it's a business scheme. And just for the groups you mentioned, but damn near all political groups with any fulltime staff. If any claim otherwise, demand proof by "open books". Just like other businesses, they will not reveal their "business secrets".

Follow the money trail to how left sect leaders really support themselves. Those who aren't fully subsidized by sect dues and donations and sales of merchandise...what sort of sources of income do they have? Few make their living the way most wage workers do.

[The Douche]

All organizations with paid staff, pay them through party funds, obviously. That's not to say the people are sitting pretty, though. I know somebody who was a paid cadre from the British SWP, he made less than minimum wage.

[Q]

Yeah, to claim that fulltimers live luxurious lives is rather a gross overstatement. Most live on breadline wages or, if still possible, receive state aid and work for the organisation for nothing. As such, there is nothing wrong per se with "revolutionary sacrifice".

There is however a problem implied with that. Most fulltimers hold on to their position for years. This has several consequences. For one, they are not building up any retirement fund, thus "locking them" in the organisations' structure basically until the day they die. Ted Grant was one (of many) example of this.

Another is that fulltimers get an unreasonable big impact in the organisation as individuals, as over time you build up your own network, start to exert your own ideas at the cost of others to express and develop their own, etc. This is a factor undermining democracy and building bureaucratism and sectism.

I do not mind having fulltimers, but they should be elected and regularly replaced if possible. As Lenin put it: "If anyone can be a bureaucrat, then no one is".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those who aren't fully subsidized by sect dues and donations and sales of merchandise...what sort of sources of income do they have? Few make their living the way most wage workers do.


I know somebody who was a paid cadre from the British SWP, he made less than minimum wage.


Yeah, to claim that fulltimers live luxurious lives is rather a gross overstatement. Most live on breadline wages or, if still possible, receive state aid and work for the organisation for nothing. As such, there is nothing wrong per se with "revolutionary sacrifice".

There is however a problem implied with that. Most fulltimers hold on to their position for years. This has several consequences. For one, they are not building up any retirement fund, thus "locking them" in the organisations' structure basically until the day they die. Ted Grant was one (of many) example of this.

Another is that fulltimers get an unreasonable big impact in the organisation as individuals, as over time you build up your own network, start to exert your own ideas at the cost of others to express and develop their own, etc. This is a factor undermining democracy and building bureaucratism and sectism.

I do not mind having fulltimers, but they should be elected and regularly replaced if possible. As Lenin put it: "If anyone can be a bureaucrat, then no one is".

Comrades and folks, revolutionary careerism should be pursued. Why this sensational paradox?

The main demand related to this is the one tying occupants’ standards of living being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers. There simply cannot be a worker-class movement where the grunts are paid poverty salaries (or at least not paid living-wage salaries) while the charismatic figures and the mainly academic gurus enjoy the same privileges as the middle and perhaps even higher-level tred-iunionisty – well beyond per diems, gas allowances and certain other kinds of trip expense allowances. One aspect of revolutionary careerism that is less related to employee compensation is the problem of scheduling. The work cultures of student politicians and tenured professors, limited to weekdays, are incompatible with working-class interaction, and there is a dire need to hold both political and cultural meetings with workers on both weekends and holidays. To offset any perceived overtime in weekend and holiday meetings, the normal workweek for all the revolutionary careerists could be reduced without loss of pay or benefits.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps the "grunts" ought to unionize and struggle against the party leadership for better pay and working conditions?

[Die Neue Zeit]

My suggestion is better. That more or less equalizes pay and working conditions, or at least minimizes any gaps.

The bottom line is that worker-class movements require full-timers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with your suggestion, Die Neue Zeit, but posted my suggestion about unionization because I have serious doubts that various party Bonzen will accede to your suggestion unless compelled.

[Prometeo liberado]

I get awfully scared when the hard push comes for membership "pledges" once a month and then the big hit once a year. Especially when those in leadership are always on fact finding missions abroad. Even at the local level the office parties are just a waste of money. For the most part I don't see it as a scam but horrible waste gone unchecked. You have to pay full time staff and some travel but the books have to be open.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree with your suggestion, Die Neue Zeit, but posted my suggestion about unionization because I have serious doubts that various party Bonzen will accede to your suggestion unless compelled.

Ah, as an additional measure? That's good, too, but then there's the risk of developing an in-house "union bureaucracy" that acts similarly to collaborative tred-iunionisty these days.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It's good to be an independent Marxian with respect to party dues and pledges. I live fairly close to the poverty level and can't imagine sending off a portion of my income so that some "leader" can be a globetrotter. The USA is plagued with a couple dozen sects that really don't accomplish any more than we do here on RevLeft. Frankly, our sectarian squabbling here on RevLeft doesn't really cost anything but our time. Real World sectarian squabbling seems to involve an infrastructure that the rank-and-file is expected to finance.

[Drosophila]

The head of the CPUSA said he makes $26,000 a year or something like that, which probably includes Social Security.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Given the state of the CPUSA that low salary is probably indicative of the fact that Party secretary is merely a part-time job these days.

[Rooster]

The original definition of labour aristocracy meant that the people at the head of labour organisations made a living from it and thus did not want a revolution because it jeopardised their positions. I don't really think that this is the case with most parties these days considering how small they are. This is what revisionism used to mean, more or less, and it's how Trotsky viewed the Stalinist bureaucracy; a throwing away of revolution in favour of keeping their own posts.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Don't you think that careerism give them a vested interest in maintaining sectarianism? Some of these micro-groups make a major effort to become involved in the working class movement, but others (RCPUSA) seem to exist primarily to glorify their Glorious Leader, Suffice to say that the top leadership of the various sects might have to go find a job if their rank-and-file ever decided to stop supporting their "party".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Don't you think that careerism give them a vested interest in maintaining sectarianism?

I think this is true. Some larger organizations do actually engage in activities of some sort, so I can see the logic in paying dues, but it seems like each faction tends to only have manpower enough for one or two groups of that size. This means that the dozens of other organizations exist to do nothing other than engage in sectarianism. Its hard to believe that people keeping funding them.

[workersadvocate]

Don't you think that careerism give them a vested interest in maintaining sectarianism? Some of these micro-groups make a major effort to become involved in the working class movement, but others (RCPUSA) seem to exist primarily to glorify their Glorious Leader, Suffice to say that the top leadership of the various sects might have to go find a job if their rank-and-file ever decided to stop supporting their "party".

Exactly, Bob Avakian is probably not busting his butt in some French vinyard. More likely he is sipping chai in a Parisian cafe, donning that same skullcap he wears in the RCP pictures from the 80s, entertaining and flirting with naive noob with a Mao or New Left has been fetish, all on the members' dime.

[Prometeo liberado]

Not to be an advocate for any group, but as I have worked with the PSL and seen how their events are organized one can clearly see where much of the membership dues are spent. For example the "what is socialism" conferences come with a packet of literature and lunch is provided also a table of free books and what not. Of course this is a recruiting tool, but shows some willingness to spend a little to make a six hour event more tolerable.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The proliferation of these little "parties" is frustrating when one considers not just the cross-currents of sectarianism but even the duplication of effort required to keep each of these twenty or thirty little "parties" functioning administratively. Just to use the PSL as an example, it seems that here in Baltimore the WWP is more visible, so WWP sponsors a "What is Socialism" conference. Even though the PSL split from the WWP, both seem to adhere basically to a similar ideology originated by the late Sam Marcy; a strange variant of Trotskyism that supports Stalinist regimes. Two little "parties" that spout an obscure ideology than has about zero prospects for appealing to the working class of the USA epitomizes the advanced state of sectarianism in the American Left. The situation is even worse than it was when I was young back in the 70s. As a result, many of us who are interested in socialism refuse to become involved with any of these groups because they are so small as to be ineffectual.

[Prometeo liberado]

Thought this thread was about....whatever. Anyway without the funds to keep full time people on, lawyers for when members do get arrested, manufacture signs and what not the message may not get out as effectively. Arguing whether this or that party is secretly trot or not is what keeps many from wanting to hear any message.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Admittedly this is off the thread's subject, but the sheer numbers of little "parties" and the obscure nature of their differences with each other seems to be a serious problem in the American Left.

[workersadvocate]

Admittedly this is off the thread's subject, but the sheer numbers of little "parties" and the obscure nature of their differences with each other seems to be a serious problem in the American Left.

Like being in a town with more buildings than people!

[Prometeo liberado]

Admittedly this is off the thread's subject, but the sheer numbers of little "parties" and the obscure nature of their differences with each other seems to be a serious problem in the American Left.

I could't agree more. But I don't see throwing gas on the fire helping either.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am totally at a loss as to what can be done about sectarianism.

[daft punk]

I mean guys like Alan Woods, do the member dues and donation go right into his pocket?

Another example is the SEP in the US, they run the WSWS site, a bio on some of their main writers says they work full time as writers for the WSWS, so were does the money come from?

All these sites have "please donate" "we need your help/support" signs.

Do some or a lot of these donation go toward living expenses for party members?

Alan Woods is IMT, ie ex-CWI, so I assume he still lives on the average workers wage or less if he is paid by the party. Some have jobs, some are full timers. The full timers dont get paid much.

[Grenzer]

Admittedly this is off the thread's subject, but the sheer numbers of little "parties" and the obscure nature of their differences with each other seems to be a serious problem in the American Left.

But sectarianism is part of the time honored American revolutionary experience!

This seems like a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Is the American leftist movement weak because organizations and/or parties are split; or are there a shit ton of tiny, insignificant parties because the American leftist movement is weak? I would say it's the latter; but this does not excuse of from not taking the problem of sectarianism seriously. In some cases, there are good reasons for parties to exist; but not to this extent. I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point, we're still a long way from revolution. As things pick up pace, we'll probably start to get our shit together.

[dodger]

Yeah, to claim that fulltimers live luxurious lives is rather a gross overstatement. Most live on breadline wages or, if still possible, receive state aid and work for the organisation for nothing. As such, there is nothing wrong per se with "revolutionary sacrifice".

There is however a problem implied with that. Most fulltimers hold on to their position for years. This has several consequences. For one, they are not building up any retirement fund, thus "locking them" in the organisations' structure basically until the day they die. Ted Grant was one (of many) example of this.

Another is that fulltimers get an unreasonable big impact in the organisation as individuals, as over time you build up your own network, start to exert your own ideas at the cost of others to express and develop their own, etc. This is a factor undermining democracy and building bureaucratism and sectism.

I do not mind having fulltimers, but they should be elected and regularly replaced if possible. As Lenin put it: "If anyone can be a bureaucrat, then no one is".

You nailed it, though just my view, there should be no full timers, not ever. Thanks Q as ever the usual suspects, I could mention them, but wont. Completely divorced from the lives of us mere mortals. Dammed fine post!!

[Blanquist]

You nailed it, though just my view, there should be no full timers, not ever. Thanks Q as ever the usual suspects, I could mention them, but wont. Completely divorced from the lives of us mere mortals. Dammed fine post!!

I don't trust a leadership that has jobs on the side.

[dodger]

I don't trust a leadership that has jobs on the side.

Care to elaborate, Blanquist? For my part if we are going to climb the mountain, together, I want to be 'roped' to the top guy. That means a fellow worker and trade unionist. Naturally that is in addition to a partner who must stay at home for reasons of parenting. Some because of age or infirmity or in fact unemployed are not who I would expect to 'fall in'. Be interested in your views.....

[Q]

You nailed it, though just my view, there should be no full timers, not ever. Thanks Q as ever the usual suspects, I could mention them, but wont. Completely divorced from the lives of us mere mortals. Dammed fine post!!

But I do think that fulltimers are a necessity. Under capitalism one ether has a choice between being relatively well off (by having a job), but having no time to organise or by having plenty of time yet no money to live from...

This is why the early workers movement organised around intellectuals and aristocrats as they had the luxury of having time to spend while being relatively well off.

The fulltimer concept came around the 1890's, perhaps earlier, when party funds were being used to elevate workers into organising positions in sevice of the party. The trade union movement had a parallel development.

The effect of this, that is, the least way of resistance of organisational development, is one of control: The vested fulltimers, by virtue of their time and resources at their disposal, have an interest in keeping their jobs, thus to exert control over the rank and file in a bureaucratic manner. The leftwing sect is a miniature reflection of this process.

But this is not an inevitable line of development and this is where I believe politics come in, a culture of anti-hierarchy (opposing all kinds of favoritism, etc) and organisational matters such as rotation in fulltimer positions, which implies organisational education among the membership. The political aspect is dual in character as it both emphasizes democracy and, as a result, fights against the capitalist way of doing politics (bureaucratism, etc). This implies political education among the membership.

In short, while fulltimers cannot be avoided in any serious workers movement, the movement does not have to organise along capitalist lines as "companies" that are competing for "market share". Any communist party has to organise along communist principles itself. Any bureaucracies are a sign of an unhealthy situation and should be fought against.

[dodger]

Yes you set out the history for us, can't argue with that. My gripe still is political 1st , I see not only the abuse of bureaucracy for the reasons you stated. The division of an organization into 'thinkers' and 'doers', that is what troubles me. True some union rule books are better than others. A communist party needs thinker/doer type people in its ranks at every level. That to my mind leads us to a better place already. A decent culture. Not for everybody it is true. Maybe a party is better off without certain people, or perhaps they would find themselves a role better suited to themselves. If we have bureaucratic methods in some parties, maybe it is because certain people just 'invite' instruction!! I am against that, need training for cadre and bureaucracy cut to a minimum. There is no doubt there is a lot of fine tuning that needs to be done, above all a decent culture has to be built. At least a clear and transparent understanding of democratic centralism....but I digress.At the end of the day it is a collectie endeavour and requires the brains and sinews of all, to get the Juggernaut rolling.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But I do think that fulltimers are a necessity. Under capitalism one ether has a choice between being relatively well off (by having a job), but having no time to organise or by having plenty of time yet no money to live from...

And this is what the spontaneists don't get: those who are overworked don't have time to self-develop politically.


The effect of this, that is, the least way of resistance of organisational development, is one of control: The vested fulltimers, by virtue of their time and resources at their disposal, have an interest in keeping their jobs, thus to exert control over the rank and file in a bureaucratic manner.

By itself, I don't see a problem with this, comrade. Workers must collectively master bureaucracy-as-process.


But this is not an evitable line of development and this is where I believe politicy come in, a culture of anti-hierarchy (opposing all kinds of favoritism, etc) and organisational matters such as rotation in fulltimer positions

I agree, but I think the most realistic tendency here - past, present, or future - would be a rotation in positions among a growing number of full-timers. Hence, revolutionary careerism.

[However, if the more tenured of the full-timers manage to find some better-paying outside job that forces them to go part-time politically, this turnover should be encouraged.]


Any bureaucracies are a sign of an unhealthy situation and should be fought against.

What alternative word can be used instead of that swear-word? ;)

[The Douche]

But I do think that fulltimers are a necessity. Under capitalism one ether has a choice between being relatively well off (by having a job), but having no time to organise or by having plenty of time yet no money to live from...

This is why the early workers movement organised around intellectuals and aristocrats as they had the luxury of having time to spend while being relatively well off.

The fulltimer concept came around the 1890's, perhaps earlier, when party funds were being used to elevate workers into organising positions in sevice of the party. The trade union movement had a parallel development.

The effect of this, that is, the least way of resistance of organisational development, is one of control: The vested fulltimers, by virtue of their time and resources at their disposal, have an interest in keeping their jobs, thus to exert control over the rank and file in a bureaucratic manner. The leftwing sect is a miniature reflection of this process.

But this is not an evitable line of development and this is where I believe politicy come in, a culture of anti-hierarchy (opposing all kinds of favoritism, etc) and organisational matters such as rotation in fulltimer positions, which implies organisational education among the membership. The political aspect is dual in character as it both emphasizes democracy and, as a result, fights against the capitalist way of doing politics (bureaucratism, etc). This implies political education among the membership.

In short, while fulltimers cannot be avoided in any serious workers movement, the movement does not have to organise along capitalist lines as "companies" that are competing for "market share". Any communist party has to organise along communist principles itself. Any bureaucracies are a sign of an unhealthy situation and should be fought against.

I dunno man, when I first got active, I had a part-time job, and I was going all over for meetings and actions and stuff. I spent pretty much all my money to fund trips to DC, Baltimore, and Philadelphia in order to meet with various organizations, attend planning meetings, participate in protests and shit like that.

I was on the steering committee for a party tendency. I never got a dime of help from anybody, but I sure did burn myself out, and eventually the full timers in the party kicked me out.

[bricolage]

All organizations with paid staff, pay them through party funds, obviously. That's not to say the people are sitting pretty, though. I know somebody who was a paid cadre from the British SWP, he made less than minimum wage.
a lot of british left groups used to get full time staff to claim dole and then they'd give them a bit more on top. with welfare changes of the last how ever many years though i'm not sure how widespread this still is.

[A Marxist Historian]

You nailed it, though just my view, there should be no full timers, not ever. Thanks Q as ever the usual suspects, I could mention them, but wont. Completely divorced from the lives of us mere mortals. Dammed fine post!!

No full timers? That's silly and really rather anti-Marxist. The division of labor can be abolished in socialist societies, trying to do so under capitalism is utopian.

Granted that a small group probably can't afford a full timer, but all socialist organizations being small is a bad thing not a good thing.

A party full timer ought, ideally, get a wage and other forms of compensation equivalent to that of an average worker in the country he or she is living in.

More than that, you get a privileged bureaucrat. Less than that, it would tend to erode their functioning and usefulness over time.

In practice, it would usually be less than that, which is life in the big city. Better than the other alternative in any case, if for no other reason than that the membership dues would be too high.

-M.H.-

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's a thought: why not provide the material necessities of life, and nothing more, to a corps of members who devote their lives to the party?

I imagine this will take the form of a small apartment or cabin, hooked up to water, electricity, internet and sanitation with the understanding that the site will serve as a home office for the party. Here a dedicated corp of the party will live, work, and pretty much that's it. The party will dole out the cost of a 2000 calorie a day diet for these people, and will provide a tiny stipend (say, 35 USD) a week for miscellaneous spending for their entertainment and cleaning supplies/hygiene products. The expectation will be that they will take public transportation to where they need to go (for which they will be reimbursed), but a party owned vespa to minimize fuel usage will be available for emergencies. Maybe a cell phone plan will be included.

For those with families, slightly larger accomodations will be sought where possible - where not, they must choose between family and cause. Funds for visiting distant relatives and the sort on a yearly basis may also be considered. In countries with fee-for-service medical care, they will also be provided with medical insurance. If feasible, some expenditures will be made to pay for night classes to improve their skills in certain areas relevant to their work like foreign languages, accounting, digital media, etc... For things like geology or poetry classes they will have to pay out of their weekly stipend.

These individuals will not be considered paid employees of the party; merely functionaries in the truest sense of the term. I imagine oversight over the condition of these folks will be by a rotating committee of party members.

This scheme has several concrete attractions. First, labor is a huge expense especially in developed countries, so this will virtually minimize that cost while providing the rough equivalent of a dedicated full time staffer.

Second, it has the potential to maximize the number of such dedicated individuals that could be of service to the party.

Third, it will create conditions hostile to living a bourgeois life and the formation of something like a labor aristocracy that has a vested material interest in the end to capitalism. If anything, it will entice these people not to get complacent, but to facilitate the transition to socialism so they could finally live like fellow workers.

Fourth, this will allow the party to reap the benefit of specialization and division of labor and developing contacts with allies, perhaps even more so by systematically preventing the full timers from developing a life outside the party.

Finally, I think this will ensure that by and large only the most dedicated, serious comrades commit themselves to serving the party "full time". In fact, if anything, I suspect it will strengthen parties. Moreover, it will keep the control over the party squarely in the hands of the membership by keeping a tight leash on the functionaries.

This isn't some crackpot idea - basically Karl Marx lived precisely such a life in London and Christian missionaries spread their poison far and wide using this route.


And this is what the spontaneists don't get: those who are overworked don't have time to self-develop politically.

I agree, but I think the most realistic tendency here - past, present, or future - would be a rotation in positions among a growing number of full-timers. Hence, revolutionary careerism.




But this is not an inevitable line of development and this is where I believe politics come in, a culture of anti-hierarchy (opposing all kinds of favoritism, etc) and organisational matters such as rotation in fulltimer positions, which implies organisational education among the membership. The political aspect is dual in character as it both emphasizes democracy and, as a result, fights against the capitalist way of doing politics (bureaucratism, etc). This implies political education among the membership.

In short, while fulltimers cannot be avoided in any serious workers movement, the movement does not have to organise along capitalist lines as "companies" that are competing for "market share". Any communist party has to organise along communist principles itself. Any bureaucracies are a sign of an unhealthy situation and should be fought against.

Although I see where both of these points are coming from, they put too much faith in the motivations of both the rank and file and the "full timers" rather than establishing systematic restraints on the ability of those involved to derail the barnacle-ization of he paid constituents of the party. I suggest that something like my scheme, where those with "careers" in the party pay a hefty price in terms of opportunity cost for the privilege, will help ensure that vested material interests do not form and moreover burn out those without drive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's a thought: why not provide the material necessities of life, and nothing more, to a corps of members who devote their lives to the party?

Comrade, that's certainly far more aggressive than what I've proposed re. median skilled worker standard of living.


I imagine this will take the form of a small apartment or cabin, hooked up to water, electricity, internet and sanitation with the understanding that the site will serve as a home office for the party. Here a dedicated corp of the party will live, work, and pretty much that's it. The party will dole out the cost of a 2000 calorie a day diet for these people

Any scientific articles to back up that 2,000 daily calorie intake as sufficient?

Besides that, so what you're suggesting is a party tax in kind instead of a party tax "in cash" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/swedish-left-party-t166809/index.html)?


These individuals will not be considered paid employees of the party; merely functionaries in the truest sense of the term. I imagine oversight over the condition of these folks will be by a rotating committee of party members.

This scheme has several concrete attractions. First, labor is a huge expense especially in developed countries, so this will virtually minimize that cost while providing the rough equivalent of a dedicated full time staffer.

Second, it has the potential to maximize the number of such dedicated individuals that could be of service to the party.

Third, it will create conditions hostile to living a bourgeois life and the formation of something like a labor aristocracy that has a vested material interest in the end to capitalism. If anything, it will entice these people not to get complacent, but to facilitate the transition to socialism so they could finally live like fellow workers.

Would it, re. your second and third points?

My interpretation of "full time" is serving "full time" only for a time and then being rotated out. Under your scheme, those rotated out won't have a party-organized job program to help them transition to regular life.


Fourth, this will allow the party to reap the benefit of specialization and division of labor and developing contacts with allies, perhaps even more so by preventing the full timers from developing a life outside the party.

Finally, I think this will ensure that by and large only the most dedicated, serious comrades commit themselves to serving the party "full time". In fact, if anything, I suspect it will strengthen parties. Moreover, it will keep the control over the party squarely in the hands of the membership by keeping a tight leash on the functionaries.

That may be true, but this could also encourage under-the-table corruption. Think of most Soviet-era functionaries, who weren't paid much but had lots of "access" privileges.


Although I see where both of these points are coming from, they put too much faith in the motivations of both the rank and file and the "full timers" rather than establishing systematic restraints on the ability of those involved to derail the barnacle-ization of he paid constituents of the party. I suggest that something like my scheme, where those with "careers" in the party pay a hefty price for the privilege, will help ensure that vested material interests do not form and moreover burn out those without drive.

I think you should distinguish between some sort of lifetime service and "full time" in the sense of being rotated out at some point. I see merits in having a lifetime service scheme according to your proposal, but running in parallel to a "full time" scheme based on the median skilled worker standard of living.

Anyway, if you re-read my PCSSR stuff on Practical Issues and Revisiting the Party Question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150581/index.html), you'll note that I have "systematic restraints," too.

[MarxSchmarx]

comrade DNZ, I'll try be as specific as possible in my response but should preface this by saying I don't think the idea of basically leftwing monks has a snow-ball's chance in hell of being realized anytime soon by any IRL organization. Perhaps some people like infoshop managers tho likely already do something like this.


Comrade, that's certainly far more aggressive than what I've proposed re. median skilled worker standard of living.

Any scientific articles to back up that 2,000 daily calorie intake as sufficient?


I don't know if anybody's actually gone out and confirmed it, but the idea is that if you consume at least as much as you expend in energy you won't starve. For most people, if they're just lying in bed, they'll somewhat less than 2000 calories: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate. It stands to reason that, assuming this person isn't like a body builder or ballet dancer, and most of their day/life is spent at a desk or being basically sedentary, I think it's fair to say 2000 calories should stave off starvation.

Anyways the figure apparently comes from a US Agricultural Department
guideline that's discussed in ok detail here:
http://www.lisajohnsonfitness.com/who-benefits-more-from-the-usrdas-2000-calories-per-day-you-or-big-agra/
It seems like the details are burried in this "USDA executive summary" thing.



Besides that, so what you're suggesting is a party tax in kind instead of a party tax "in cash" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/swedish-left-party-t166809/index.htm)?



Sorry I got a 404 on your link right now... Will try again later


Would it, re. your second and third points?



In re the second point, I guess I'm assuming a given expenditure on personnell that gets divided by more people, but yes, you are correct, the party may choose (quite reasonably, IMO) to spend the savings elsewhere. I guess all I have to say to that is that most parties are understaffed and if they do have staff, people are severely overworked. But there's clearly a diminishing return for each additional person included in this scheme.

And yes, complacency can happen, probably under any scheme that doesn't actively immiserate people - and even then ...

But as you note:



My interpretation of "full time" is serving "full time" only for a time and then being rotated out. Under your scheme, those rotated out won't have a party-organized job program to help them transition to regular life.


Don't you think that even if the party had such a job program, saying you spent the last 5 years organizing to build the Grand Communist Union (or whatever the party is called) would put a black mark on any attempt to transition to another position in the private or even state sector? Moreover, consider the fact that most positions are filled through networks and contacts. I think the party can informally provide considerable strength by introducing the full timer to their boss, for instance.

and can't such programs be outsourced? for example, the party could have a small "reintegration" budget to pay for things like vocational coursework as well towards the end.

In any event, I am guessing there are a lot of useful skills one acquires serving the party - in fact, the party should encourage people with those skills to grow them, so I'd include these under ongoing training. If they aspire to do something completely different than party service, like, say, becoming a veterenarian, well, maybe they will better serve the party working as a vet and organizing the workplace instead of being a "full timer".





Fourth, this will allow the party to reap the benefit of specialization and division of labor and developing contacts with allies, perhaps even more so by preventing the full timers from developing a life outside the party.

Finally, I think this will ensure that by and large only the most dedicated, serious comrades commit themselves to serving the party "full time". In fact, if anything, I suspect it will strengthen parties. Moreover, it will keep the control over the party squarely in the hands of the membership by keeping a tight leash on the functionaries. That may be true, but this could also encourage under-the-table corruption. Think of most Soviet-era functionaries, who weren't paid much but had lots of "access" privileges.


Yes, just to be clear, I don't think this model will work at all if this hypothetical party ever takes and wields political power. The approach I propose is a way of surviving the political wilderness and emerging to be somewhat powerful. Then a new approach will be needed.




I think you should distinguish between some sort of lifetime service and "full time" in the sense of being rotated out at some point. I see merits in having a lifetime service scheme according to your proposal, but running in parallel to a "full time" scheme based on the median skilled worker standard of living.


I think some kind of hybrid like that might be a way to graduate the party into a mass-based majority entity, yeah.




Anyway, if you re-read my PCSSR stuff on Practical Issues and Revisiting the Party Question (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150581/index.html), you'll note that I have "systematic restraints," too.

Yes , good point.

[dodger]

In 1936, Cliff did a year of paid work, after which he never did another day's paid work in his life. He was never a member of a trade union, but this did not stop him spending the rest of his life telling trade union members what to do, like a monk telling us how to conduct our family lives.

DOES THAT SET OFF ANY ALARM BELLS? Do you need someone like that?

[Prometeo liberado]

Monks dont lead they contemplate. And who is this Cliff?

[dodger]

Cliff ...SWP jbeard...just picked his name out of an old hat of 'professional revolutionaries, to make my point. We don't want you we don't need you and goodbyeee.


This review is from: Trotskyism After Trotsky: The Origins of the International Socialists.:by Tony Cliff

"Trotsky had predicted that after the war the Soviet Union would be wracked by political instability, that the West would be plunged into severe economic crisis and that national liberation in the Third World would only be brought to victory by the working class."
So Trotsky was wrong about socialism, wrong about capitalism, and wrong about colonialism.
Then along came Cliff, to save the day - by being wrong, in a different way, about capitalism, socialism and colonialism.
So Cliff (or rather, Mike Kidron) put forward the notion that a permanent arms economy would - presumably permanently - save capitalism. Very rrrrrrevolutionary.
Then Cliff put forward the dogma that Russia was state capitalist, a theory first proposed by the renegade from socialism Karl Kautsky, and always opposed by - Trotsky! Capitalist classes use the state to grow the economy, but when a working class used its state power to grow a socialist economy, Cliff denounced it as capitalist.
And finally Cliff called national liberation movements examples of `Deflected Permanent Revolution' - so, not examples of Trotsky's permanent revolution notion - very helpful.
So after events had completely demolished Trotsky's notions, Cliff `reinterpreted reality' by falsifying it, in order to claim some tenuous link with the discredited Trotsky.
The blurb says, `socialists who looked to the ideas of Trotsky were forced either to abandon socialism or to reinterpret the reality they faced'. But Cliff did both.

[Martin Blank]

Our Party has one full-timer, and he is not paid by the Party. He gets paid by the U.S. government, in the form of a Social Security (Disability) check, and volunteers his time to the Party. He is not financially obligated to the Party, which is a plus, but he has the means to devote between 30 and 40 hours a week to Party administration and activity, which is also a plus.

Given a choice between a single full-timer paid by the Party, and a collegium of three part-timers doing the same tasks and also working regular jobs, I personally prefer the collegium, if only because it keeps that crew rooted in the working class. I understand the advantage of having someone who devotes all their time to Party activity, but that is a double-edged sword, as others have pointed out. No Party member, whether the Party Chairperson or the newest probie, should be put in a position where they are not able to speak freely on political questions because of fear of losing their means of survival.

The Greek tragedy that was the final years of Jim Cannon's life should serve as a warning to us all.

----------


Admittedly this is off the thread's subject, but the sheer numbers of little "parties" and the obscure nature of their differences with each other seems to be a serious problem in the American Left.

Given where we are, I don't see it as much of a concern, to be honest. Actually, at this moment in the class struggle, there is a value to the diversity of opinion and difference of principle that exists. IMO, open debate within the working class over political questions right now is exactly what we need. I am firmly of the opinion that the more we have open debate -- with co-workers, with neighbors, with people in the #Occupy movement, etc. -- over the major political issues we face, the more that a real proletarian communist party (in Marx and Engels' sense of the term) based around a proletarian communist program can come into being.

The window is still open. We should be the ones throwing back the curtains, letting the light and fresh air in. The last thing we need right now is some lumbering institution that gags the thoughts and voices of its members, subordinating them to some "line" that was only agreed upon by a handful of (mostly non-working-class) leftists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

comrade DNZ, I'll try be as specific as possible in my response but should preface this by saying I don't think the idea of basically leftwing monks has a snow-ball's chance in hell of being realized anytime soon by any IRL organization. Perhaps some people like infoshop managers tho likely already do something like this.

Left-wing monks? Sorry, comrade, but I was thinking of Shaolin monks and not Catholic hermits because they're historically cooler. :D

In any event, that word didn't crop up in my head until you mentioned it explicitly.


I don't know if anybody's actually gone out and confirmed it, but the idea is that if you consume at least as much as you expend in energy you won't starve. For most people, if they're just lying in bed, they'll somewhat less than 2000 calories: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate. It stands to reason that, assuming this person isn't like a body builder or ballet dancer, and most of their day/life is spent at a desk or being basically sedentary, I think it's fair to say 2000 calories should stave off starvation.

Anyways the figure apparently comes from a US Agricultural Department
guideline that's discussed in ok detail here:
http://www.lisajohnsonfitness.com/who-benefits-more-from-the-usrdas-2000-calories-per-day-you-or-big-agra/
It seems like the details are buried in this "USDA executive summary" thing.

That you mentioned a US government department brought to my mind today's card-based food "stamps" and also corporate purchasing/procurement cards ("p-cards"). Having something similar could be a good control measure for the "monks" keeping to the calorie limit.


Sorry I got a 404 on your link right now... Will try again later

I forgot to add the "l" at the end. My bad (edited just now). :(

Anyways, if you don't have time to check out the news article, it's about the Swedish Left Party imposing a "party tax" on its parliamentarians.


Don't you think that even if the party had such a job program, saying you spent the last 5 years organizing to build the Grand Communist Union (or whatever the party is called) would put a black mark on any attempt to transition to another position in the private or even state sector?

It depends on where in the private sector. They can transition to being many jobs still, outside academia, such as labour paralegals (or actual lawyers).


Moreover, consider the fact that most positions are filled through networks and contacts. I think the party can informally provide considerable strength by introducing the full timer to their boss, for instance.

I was referring to a stronger employment transition "program" than that (but one that would indeed include that). The "program" would polish the skills of those about to transition out, depending on the outside jobs available. But, yes, networking is important.


And can't such programs be outsourced? For example, the party could have a small "reintegration" budget to pay for things like vocational coursework as well towards the end.

Crap, other than the outsourcing part, I just repeated what you said. :lol:


In any event, I am guessing there are a lot of useful skills one acquires serving the party - in fact, the party should encourage people with those skills to grow them, so I'd include these under ongoing training. If they aspire to do something completely different than party service, like, say, becoming a veterenarian, well, maybe they will better serve the party working as a vet and organizing the workplace instead of being a "full timer".

At least someone here agrees with me re. ongoing functional and multi-functional development and ongoing professional development.


Yes, just to be clear, I don't think this model will work at all if this hypothetical party ever takes and wields political power. The approach I propose is a way of surviving the political wilderness and emerging to be somewhat powerful. Then a new approach will be needed.

Thanks for clarifying.


I think some kind of hybrid like that might be a way to graduate the party into a mass-based majority entity, yeah.

Indeed. :thumbup1:

[A Marxist Historian]

In 1936, Cliff did a year of paid work, after which he never did another day's paid work in his life. He was never a member of a trade union, but this did not stop him spending the rest of his life telling trade union members what to do, like a monk telling us how to conduct our family lives.

DOES THAT SET OFF ANY ALARM BELLS? Do you need someone like that?

I'm not a Cliff fan, but if he did a year of paid work, that makes him more proletarian than Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, or just about any other major revolutionary leader I can think of.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Cliff ...SWP jbeard...just picked his name out of an old hat of 'professional revolutionaries, to make my point. We don't want you we don't need you and goodbyeee.


This review is from: Trotskyism After Trotsky: The Origins of the International Socialists.:by Tony Cliff

"Trotsky had predicted that after the war the Soviet Union would be wracked by political instability, that the West would be plunged into severe economic crisis and that national liberation in the Third World would only be brought to victory by the working class."

So in other words he was absolutely right, although the time line turned out to be longer than expected. Due IMHO to something else he hadn't expected, namely the Soviet Union militarily defeating the Nazis and tossing Hitler fascism onto the dustbin of history.

Marxists are analysts, not prophets.

Right now, in case you hadn't noticed, the USSR is toast, the West is plunged into severe economic crisis, and the Third World is thoroughly under the thumb of European and American and Japanese capitalists, except for China and maybe Cuba.

-M.H.-




So Trotsky was wrong about socialism, wrong about capitalism, and wrong about colonialism.
Then along came Cliff, to save the day - by being wrong, in a different way, about capitalism, socialism and colonialism.
So Cliff (or rather, Mike Kidron) put forward the notion that a permanent arms economy would - presumably permanently - save capitalism. Very rrrrrrevolutionary.
Then Cliff put forward the dogma that Russia was state capitalist, a theory first proposed by the renegade from socialism Karl Kautsky, and always opposed by - Trotsky! Capitalist classes use the state to grow the economy, but when a working class used its state power to grow a socialist economy, Cliff denounced it as capitalist.
And finally Cliff called national liberation movements examples of `Deflected Permanent Revolution' - so, not examples of Trotsky's permanent revolution notion - very helpful.
So after events had completely demolished Trotsky's notions, Cliff `reinterpreted reality' by falsifying it, in order to claim some tenuous link with the discredited Trotsky.
The blurb says, `socialists who looked to the ideas of Trotsky were forced either to abandon socialism or to reinterpret the reality they faced'. But Cliff did both.

[dodger]

I'm not a Cliff fan, but if he did a year of paid work, that makes him more proletarian than Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, or just about any other major revolutionary leader I can think of.

-M.H.-

Fan or no fan(I was not) the fact remains that nobody listened or did what they were told except those that got burnt out or hung on in there. In short he was ignored or people did their best to distance themselves. Since the 20's those who have sought to engage were ignored too, Cliff's name I said was picked out of a hat. Some with impeccable prol credentials.(the worst)They all failed. They are not one of us, they are not for us, we are not for revolution. Until the subject of thinkers and doers is properly aired then that situation will perpetuate. Scribble, scribble, scribble. At the end of the day it is a collective decision. Lenin said vote Labour, was that until doomsday? Some even said join. A General Strike anybody? Bugger up the Olympics, says who? Advance.....retreat now who will tell me when to do that? Replace union bureaucrats, with what, whom? Leaders just have to know when to shut their gobs/retire/stop scribbling/relax/listen. That's just for starters.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Most organizations have a very limited amount of paid-staff. A lot of work is voluntary. I only have experience with the IWW, so I'll go off that:

There's only one person on payroll in the IWW, and that's the General Secretary-Treasurer. That person lives off a very humble ~$25,000. That person could make a lot more, but the IWW dedicates virtually all it's funds towards various things (organizing campaigns, propaganda and education, traveling expenses, solidarity funds, etc.)
A lot of the work done at the GHQ (general head-quarters) is voluntary, and all work done in GMB's (branches) is voluntary. I know a lot of people who work 8 hour days, come home exhausted, and go do endless hours of union work. It's revolutionary sacrifice. You're doing it for the cause.

Everyone should move the help along.

[Prometeo liberado]

I always wondered how Brian Becker,PSL, makes his money?

[dodger]

HG Wells (don't ask for cit) said we will all be taking our holidays on the moon. When you get a prophecy wrong, badly wrong, with normal people, after the initial shock, it is often the subject of mild amusement. Ones 'friends' can be reduced to hysterics. "Well I got that one wrong!" Surveying the wreckage of ones life or tearing up a betting slip. Marxists are not prophets, agreed, then expect some mild tittering if they act like they are. Await a chorus of justification from those who worship that prophet.

I only met one prophet or is that prophetess, in a bookshop in Tufnell park. What capital advice she gave me, 1974. Told her I was bored and changing jobs, irascible, she was sweetness and light giving of her advice. Get a job with a uniform. Train or bus or ambulance driver,postman,"times will get hard, and harder still!" "You will always have a job, the 20/30's, they stayed employed. The old girl wrapped up my armful of cheap books and I went out. Harmless I thought, then I noticed the banner above................."R EVOLUTION IS THE MAIN TREND IN THE WORD TODAY!!" NEXT TO A WORN OLD CARD THAT SAID "ARMS FOR SPAIN". Next day I went to London Transport..they took me on. I survived 3 recessions. Now that was a good prophecy, timely too, thank you Dorothy.( job not about revolution), clearly it was Mao who foresaw the main trend......

I strongly agree with you, M.H., Nazi defeat, indeed the whole war changed everything. Churchill's dire prophecy, that European war would mean the loss of THE COLONIES. He had fought hard against war in Europe. The colonies did break free. The Soviets did triumph and the prophecy was a shambles. Britain set on a course of unparalleled social advance and prosperity.

So the timeline? Best left to others to decide how pertinent that might be. We can see both H.G. and Trotsky had the powers of JOB,....eventually, one sooner than the other.