Political identity crisis

[citizen of industry]

My apparently odd blend of politics seems to put me at odds with everyone. I think a party is necessary, and that general strikes are essentially a defensive action. For revolution, a party is needed. I see the limitations to unions. However, I don't think a party can gain mass support without a militant labor movement. In terms of practice, this line of thinking has me working in unions, supporting independent unions, the idea of revolutionary unions, splits if necessary, etc. Unlike DeLeonists, I don't think a militant labour movement will birth a revolutionary party, but that militant union workers will join a party in existence with a correct program. This puts me at odds with Leninists, who support unity of the unions and working inside reactionary unions, and are not so labor-centric. I'm like a cross-bred syndicalist/leninist where practice resembles syndicalism and theory is closer to leninism. This gets me into arguments with both. Hmm...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Theory is for nerds. Become a make-total-destroy anarcho-hedonist instead.

[citizen of industry]

Theory is for nerds. Become a make-total-destroy anarcho-hedonist instead.

I'm a nerd though. If I become a make-total -destroy anarcho-hedonist I'll end up wandering around peeing on stuff and kicking over mailboxes all by my lonesome.

[Magón]

Just call yourself a Communist, and forget about the process. It's stupid when people think that their "political identity", or lack there of, can be called a "crisis". Just chill, your politics shouldn't encompass who you are in describing yourself, more than anything else.

[citizen of industry]

Just call yourself a Communist, and forget about the process. It's stupid when people think that their "political identity", or lack there of, can be called a "crisis". Just chill, your politics shouldn't encompass who you are in describing yourself, more than anything else.

But I like doing party work and union work. So it creates difficulty joining a party. "Crisis" isn't the correct word I guess. I do think of myself as a communist, or marxist. The problem isn't internal, it's in relations with others. Like being pulled in two directions when I feel like pulling both together. So I can see the point where I'll have to give in to one or the other.

[citizen of industry]

For example, on the trade union question. Say there is a large union with reactionary leadership that wants to make a deal with the bosses and sell out the membership. The union represents the privileged workers in the workplace and ignores the temp workers there. Union executive posts are a stepping stone to management positions. A minority section of workers wants to split and set up or join another union that will fight for better working conditions.

The Leninist position would be that splitting the union would be a mistake. Unions have economic limitations - they fight for higher wages during boom cycles and fight to keep their members from getting dismissed and having their wages cut in bust cycles. Only through the party can wage slavery be abolished. So a unified union is a better ground for party agitation and has more potential social power and they would if they split.

My position would be that the minority union would be better, because it would be doing what a union should - fighting for better working conditions. And through this fighting, class-consciousness, militancy, basically creating the material that a vanguard party would consist of.

Would I sacrifice the temp workers in the short term for a better ground for party growth? Maybe, if I thought the party could deliver in the short term and the left wasnt in such a sad state that my hypothetical minority union would be several times larger than the party.

But since it isnt, I would go with the minority union. And my hypothetical Leninist might say, good luck fighting the bosses with a small minority. And I might say, just as much as with a reactionary, bureaucratic union of millions that cant mobilize a demo or stage a single strike and would rather make concessions to the bosses.

[ckaihatsu]

For example, on the trade union question. Say there is a large union with reactionary leadership that wants to make a deal with the bosses and sell out the membership. The union represents the privileged workers in the workplace and ignores the temp workers there. Union executive posts are a stepping stone to management positions. A minority section of workers wants to split and set up or join another union that will fight for better working conditions.

The Leninist position would be that splitting the union would be a mistake. Unions have economic limitations - they fight for higher wages during boom cycles and fight to keep their members from getting dismissed and having their wages cut in bust cycles. Only through the party can wage slavery be abolished. So a unified union is a better ground for party agitation and has more potential social power and they would if they split.

My position would be that the minority union would be better, because it would be doing what a union should - fighting for better working conditions. And through this fighting, class-consciousness, militancy, basically creating the material that a vanguard party would consist of.

Would I sacrifice the temp workers in the short term for a better ground for party growth? Maybe, if I thought the party could deliver in the short term and the left wasnt in such a sad state that my hypothetical minority union would be several times larger than the party.

But since it isnt, I would go with the minority union. And my hypothetical Leninist might say, good luck fighting the bosses with a small minority. And I might say, just as much as with a reactionary, bureaucratic union of millions that cant mobilize a demo or stage a single strike and would rather make concessions to the bosses.


I don't know why you're posing this as an either-or dichotomy -- almost everything we deal with in social life is on a past-to-future continuum anyway, so the way to reconcile this situation is to see it in terms of weaker-to-stronger.

While the trade union *does* have to present a single point of interfacing in negotiations with the bosses the general politics *around* that discrete point can be more complex, as they are anyway. Anyone in a position of power would just play one side off the other -- why not use the pool of temp workers as an always-present political threat to the privileges of the labor aristocracy and constantly urge the generalization of compensation from the bosses, on an internal basis, if need be -- ?

[citizen of industry]

I don't know why you're posing this as an either-or dichotomy -- almost everything we deal with in social life is on a past-to-future continuum anyway, so the way to reconcile this situation is to see it in terms of weaker-to-stronger.

While the trade union *does* have to present a single point of interfacing in negotiations with the bosses the general politics *around* that discrete point can be more complex, as they are anyway. Anyone in a position of power would just play one side off the other -- why not use the pool of temp workers as an always-present political threat to the privileges of the labor aristocracy and constantly urge the generalization of compensation from the bosses, on an internal basis, if need be -- ?

If you use leverage against the labor aristocracy, you get expelled. Forcing you to create the second union anyway.

[ckaihatsu]

If you use leverage against the labor aristocracy, you get expelled. Forcing you to create the second union anyway.


I suppose. That would be a bid to replace the conventional union representation.

[Welshy]

You might want to check out the stuff written by the KAPD (before they became council communists) and the Manifesto of the Workers Group of the Russian Communist Party.

If you want stuff that is more specific (my last suggestion was pretty specific) I can give you links.

EDIT: I should specify why I said the KAPD. They were, before they became council communists, pro-bolshevik and they had a syndicalist wing which was formed from a split away from the reactionary unions that worked with the SPD to fight the german revolution. So they seem pretty inline with what you are talking about.

[The Idler]

Have you looked at autonomism or so-called "impossiblism"?

[citizen of industry]

You might want to check out the stuff written by the KAPD (before they became council communists) and the Manifesto of the Workers Group of the Russian Communist Party.

If you want stuff that is more specific (my last suggestion was pretty specific) I can give you links.

EDIT: I should specify why I said the KAPD. They were, before they became council communists, pro-bolshevik and they had a syndicalist wing which was formed from a split away from the reactionary unions that worked with the SPD to fight the german revolution. So they seem pretty inline with what you are talking about.

That is interesting, however no such party exists in my area today. And the last thing we need is more parties, IMO. I'm sure not going to start one.


The Idler Have you looked at autonomism or so-called "impossiblism"?

I'm an organization man. Parties and unions all the way. Autonomism and impossiblism don't strike me as something I'd be interested in.

[Welshy]

That is interesting, however no such party exists in my area today. And the last thing we need is more parties, IMO. I'm sure not going to start one.


Well the issue I think is that for most of left that wants to be in an organization the only real options that are available are marxist leninist, trotskyist or anarchist. I still suggest you check out the positions of the german/dutch communist left (before they became council communists) and if you like it you can find a group that is more agreeable with those positions and allow for minority opinions to try to become the majority and just argue for those positions in that organization.

[The Idler]

I'm an organization man. Parties and unions all the way. Autonomism and impossiblism don't strike me as something I'd be interested in.
Check out WSPUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wspus). It seems to resemble the positions you put forward in your OP.

[Welshy]

Check out WSPUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wspus). It seems to resemble the positions you put forward in your OP.

OP is in Japan.

[The Idler]

[email protected]