do things need to get worse for there to be a change

[campesino]

What is socialist action? Should we only participate in socialist action?

I challenge that many of the actions of leftist groups are not socialist.

Is it in our best interest to advocate the reforms of liberals, is it in our best interest to keep the system from being to painful and awful on the people?
if the people don't have an incentive to leave the system and feel disillusioned, how will they ever stand against it.

Some of you may believe that regardless of what the socialist do, the system will force people into a corner.
If this is true, why participate in liberal reforms if they are useless in stopping the pain of the people?

It seems that some socialist organization like the PSL are more about making noise, than they are about organizing and building a popular base with the people.
by making noise i mean participating in marches and protest that advocate reforms.

I know it is in bad fashion to criticize and present no alternatives.

so my alternative is to find the poor and the suffering and offer them the power and hope of socialism, run soup kitchens, create vegetable gardens, inform and organize worker's about their rights. How many resources are being spent of campaigns and marches? We need to replace these shitty reformist charities(salvation army, united way, churches, catholic charities) with a socialist organizations.

forget politics, create a community.

as the capitalist state pushes the poor off the edge of economic crises, they will fall into the arms of dedicated socialist.

I'm not very emotionally invested into my hastily thought up alternative, so criticize it harshly, but at least we should stop pretending there is a path to power that is based on marches and demonstrations and being elected.

[Ostrinski]

The answer is no, unless you're some kind of demagogue that aims to exploit the misery and unchanneled rage of the masses of sheeple? Or if you think our task is simply to gain electoral support or some other artificial aim (it's not).

It's political consciousness among the masses of the workers that is the true prerequisite for a wholesome revolutionary movement. For this to happen the class conscious sections of the working class would ideally form some kind of democratically run organization where they can communicate with non class-conscious workers in a very real way, NOT just more politicians parroting the same shit we've heard for the last century.

In fact, I'd say that a crisis situation presents a great danger to the prospect of a hypothetical socialist movement, as it would create those very ripe conditions that the previously mentioned demagogic enterprising elements capitalize on.

[Prometeo liberado]

Are you talking about the organization SA?

It seems that some socialist organization like the PSL are more about making noise, than they are about organizing and building a popular base with the people.
by making noise i mean participating in marches and protest that advocate reforms.


You sure you know what your talking about here? As much as I dislike the PSL you have to hand it to them for the work they did with the ANSWER coalition, by far the largest and, arguably, most effective anti-war coalition since the Vietnam war. We can learn from even the one's we dislike.

[Let's Get Free]

so my alternative is to find the poor and the suffering and offer them the power and hope of socialism, run soup kitchens, create vegetable gardens, inform and organize worker's about their rights. How many resources are being spent of campaigns and marches? We need to replace these shitty reformist charities(salvation army, united way, churches, catholic charities) with a socialist organizations.

forget politics, create a community.

as the capitalist state pushes the poor off the edge of economic crises, they will fall into the arms of dedicated socialist.


I agree with it s a means of creating class solidarity. Only when class solidarity exists can social conflict rise above individual acts of rebellion and lawlessness to the stature of organized resistance.

But I think that if we are to build a revolutionary movement, we need to ask ourselves how we can hurt this capitalist system, as we have in the past. Boycotts, mass demonstrations, rent strikes, picketing, work strikes, sit-ins, and other such protest movements have been used in history(by the labor and black liberation movements of the 60s), along with armed self defense and open rebellion. Put simply, what we need to do is take these tried and true tactics, which have been utilized on a local level, and utilize them on a national level, and combine them with yet untried tactics, for a strategic attack on the capitalist corporations and state apparatuses.

[campesino]

I'm not talking about the organization "socialist action." I never even knew it existed.

How can we call the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition effective, if it did not stop the war?
My questions are, what is the point in participating in useless causes?
Why are we not focusing on ingratiating ourselves into the proletariat and poor?

@Ostrinski, the present left would not be able to stop a demagogic leader from rising. the danger of a fascist leader coming to power is very low. The current left is doing what you criticize, parroting old speeches and participating in bourgeois politics.

Left organizations goal, should be to build a popular base and make workers class conscious, create class struggle.
not go on demonstrations that will not change anything or even if it does change anything; it was not dependent on the left, run candidates for a parliament that they will never be members of.

The only way the working class is going to have party is by being organized and popular, not by seeing a bunch of its parties participating in (nonsocialist) coalitions and causes.

yes war is awful, yes racism is awful, yes homophobia is awful. but these cause are the cause of the bourgeois parties and organizations they will cause the change, not the left.
These things are awful, but does participating in advocating their reforms lead to socialism.

[Hermes]

I'm not talking about the organization "socialist action." I never even knew it existed.

How can we call the A.N.S.W.E.R coalition effective, if it did not stop the war?
My questions are, what is the point in participating in useless causes?
Why are we not focusing on ingratiating ourselves into the proletariat and poor?

@Ostrinski, the present left would not be able to stop a demagogic leader from rising. the danger of a fascist leader coming to power is very low. The current left is doing what you criticize, parroting old speeches and participating in bourgeois politics.

Left organizations goal, should be to build a popular base and make workers class conscious, create class struggle.
not go on demonstrations that will not change anything or even if it does change anything; it was not dependent on the left, run candidates for a parliament that they will never be members of.

The only way the working class is going to have party is by being organized and popular, not by seeing a bunch of its parties participating in (nonsocialist) coalitions and causes.

yes war is awful, yes racism is awful, yes homophobia is awful. but these cause are the cause of the bourgeois parties and organizations they will cause the change, not the left.
These things are awful, but does participating in advocating their reforms lead to socialism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of socialist parties to fight for those reforms in order to realize the ineffectual nature of bourgeois systems and politics, and from doing so, gain class consciousness?

My understanding could be severely mistaken.

[campesino]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of socialist parties to fight for those reforms in order to realize the ineffectual nature of bourgeois systems and politics, and from doing so, gain class consciousness?

My understanding could be severely mistaken.

that might explain the logic of the left participants, but that logic seems shaky. I doubt that is the real reason they participate in reforms. bourgeois rule doesn't need any help discrediting itself.

[The Douche]

Are you talking about the organization SA?


You sure you know what your talking about here? As much as I dislike the PSL you have to hand it to them for the work they did with the ANSWER coalition, by far the largest and, arguably, most effective anti-war coalition since the Vietnam war. We can learn from even the one's we dislike.

Except that the anti-Vietnam war movement did actually contribute somewhat to the end of the war, whereas the anti-Iraq/Afghan war hasn't done anything.

ANSWER couldn't even get people to oppose the war once a democrat led it...

[Manic Impressive]

The answer is no, unless you're some kind of demagogue that aims to exploit the misery and unchanneled rage of the masses of sheeple? Or if you think our task is simply to gain electoral support or some other artificial aim (it's not).

It's political consciousness among the masses of the workers that is the true prerequisite for a wholesome revolutionary movement. For this to happen the class conscious sections of the working class would ideally form some kind of democratically run organization where they can communicate with non class-conscious workers in a very real way, NOT just more politicians parroting the same shit we've heard for the last century.
I mostly agree with this except for the no part. Declining material conditions do create fertile ground for class consciousness to exist. But does not on it's own create class consciousness, in other words class consciousness does not come about spontaneously.

Conversely poor material conditions alone do not automatically create conducive conditions for class consciousness. If you are a worker getting paid a dollar a day your primary concern is survival not risking your life in order to abolish capitalism. If this were the case the whole history of class struggle would be the history of daily revolts as people have always existed in worse conditions than they do now.

The metaphorical fertile ground I mentioned comes from the decline not through poor conditions. Picture something you love, something you feel you could not do without, it might be cigarettes, or the internet, your car perhaps, anything. Now imagine it's taken away from you as a result of capitalism and the ruling class. The act of separation between the worker and what they care for, what they feel they need, is what inspires dissent and opens the door for class consciousness.

So if this is true the higher the material conditions the working class have the harder the decline will be and the harder decline the more receptive to socialism people will be. The higher material conditions obviously come from the area where capitalism is most advanced. In theory this should be the USA but for many reasons it's not the case, the cold war, racism, religion and so on. But if we look internally at the states the greatest area of class struggle would have to be California. The most militant occupy movement, zeitgeist movement, the 60's counter culture, the panthers and the weather underground all California. California if independent would be the 5th largest economy in the world or close enough. It is the most advanced capitalist state in the US and thus generates the most militant class struggle and most revolutionary ideas. Class struggle should obviously not be confused with conscious struggle but does present the opportunity to show that revolution and the abolition of capitalism is the only way to win.


In fact, I'd say that a crisis situation presents a great danger to the prospect of a hypothetical socialist movement, as it would create those very ripe conditions that the previously mentioned demagogic enterprising elements capitalize on.
And this is exactly why an already existing workers movement must be in place not to teach the fight for reforms (like the ISO ;)) but to teach the fight for revolution and the spread of actual class consciousness.

[Manic Impressive]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of socialist parties to fight for those reforms in order to realize the ineffectual nature of bourgeois systems and politics, and from doing so, gain class consciousness?

My understanding could be severely mistaken.
No this was a proven failure in the 19th century. It's what is known as Utopian socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm).

[Prometeo liberado]

Except that the anti-Vietnam war movement did actually contribute somewhat to the end of the war, whereas the anti-Iraq/Afghan war hasn't done anything.

ANSWER couldn't even get people to oppose the war once a democrat led it...

We are arguing two different things here. No one is saying that ANSWER ended the war. What I am saying is that it managed to get many people out in the streets and therefore may have radicalized many who otherwise would have stayed home. Yes they had very many shortcomings. One mostly being that once PSL really went "isolationist" as far as letting non-members have more of a say in ANSWER then the whole thing really canabalized itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is it in our best interest to advocate the reforms of liberals, is it in our best interest to keep the system from being to painful and awful on the people?
if the people don't have an incentive to leave the system and feel disillusioned, how will they ever stand against it.Well to say that any struggle for reform is the same - or a reform of liberals - is an oversimplification of the situation. Take the Egyptian uprising for example, while there are some general popular overlapping of demands (end the regime) and while for a time there can actually be a convergence of that popular sentiment, ultimately the change that workers went on strike for is different than the protesters with a borgoise or petty-bourgoise view who want to modernize Egypt and get rid of the regime and military's heavy involvement in the economy. These forces might want more nationalization or they might want neoliberalism, but their goals are not the same as many of the people who protested in the communities and the workers who participated in the strikes which accompanied the uprising.

That's an extreeme example, but the same dynamic is at work in other things like the prostests in Wisconsin. The rank and file and communitiy solidarity really has a different view than the union heads and the Democratic politicans involved. But the forces that were most organized and confident were these forces and so ultimately when the spontanious movement ebbed, those forces were the most able to mobilize for their tactics: recall.

But this was not inevitable, and if workers had more experience and confidence, if there were rank and file groups or radical groups with some strong connections then a counter-force could argue for a different strategy, one that would help workers organize themselves, rather than be organized into a recall campaign for the Democratic party.

In the SF general strike, this is how things happened: radicals and the CP had been organizing among waterfront workers, created a newspaper for waterfront grievences and had built up trust through being involved and organically connected. So when the workers actually were able to fight for a union, first they had rank and file democratic experiences in fighting to win that union, and radical views on struggle were organically part of that movement - and when the union leadership then tried to undermine the rank and file democracy, the workers actually were able to counter these efforts and they resisted undemocratically imposed contracts that the national union had gone over their heads and negotiated with the bosses.


Some of you may believe that regardless of what the socialist do, the system will force people into a corner.
If this is true, why participate in liberal reforms if they are useless in stopping the pain of the people?
We can not "stop the pain of people" in this system. What we can do, is locate where people are already struggling and try and help workers build up their own organizationa and independant consiousness through these struggles. By not participating in struggles where things can either head in a liberal way or can head in a more class struggle if not outright militant and revolutionary way, then we are ceeding a contested area of struggle to liberals. We won't always be able to defeat liberal influenece in movements - in fact in times of low struggle, it would be the execption to the rule for things to go in a militant rather than liberal way -- but we can begin to build an alternative among rank and file workers and among people struggling in communities against oppression or whatnot.



It seems that some socialist organization like the PSL are more about making noise, than they are about organizing and building a popular base with the people.
by making noise i mean participating in marches and protest that advocate reforms.
I'm not in the PSL because I don't agree with their politics, and because of this I sometimes disagree with strategies which may be informed by those political views. So I don't agree with how they go about everything, but again, they are trying to unite people to struggle outside of the politics of the two bourgoise parties and I think this is why they participate in these things - not because they want to advance liberalsim. Besides official liberalism in the US is pro-war. This is part of the reason why there was little anti-war activism under Obama, because lots of the anti-war movement never broke from liberalism and so they were pulled by groups like MoveOn. Also, anti-war protests had been in the decline for a long time before Obama took office due to confusion over the "surge" and changes in the nature of the conflict itself. So to the PSL's credit, their ANSWER group was probably one of the few (not explicitly revolutionary) anti-war formations that were still doing anti-war stuff under Obama. They just can't will anti-war sentiment or an understanding of US imperialism into existance.



so my alternative is to find the poor and the suffering and offer them the power and hope of socialism, run soup kitchens, create vegetable gardens, inform and organize worker's about their rights. How many resources are being spent of campaigns and marches? We need to replace these shitty reformist charities(salvation army, united way, churches, catholic charities) with a socialist organizations.

forget politics, create a community.

Well I don't have anything against this in general and I think this was one of the things that Occupy did to a certain extent - at least in Oakland a lot of the energy of the encampment community itself was just providing services to folks, services that have been cut from city budgets steadily since the 1970s.

And I think that these sorts of things will begin to happen organically as a larger working-class movement emerges. But these tactics have no inherent benifit any more than holding a picket sign. It's context and what the short and long-term goals of the activity are that matter.

For one thing, churches do these sorts of services now - it's charity. A charity approach really would do nothing but be PR for radicals and create some level of familiarity and trust among radicals and poor people in a community. This is fine and good, it wouldn't automatically create an independant and class-consious force. It might be a foot in the door of a community, but we don't want people to like radical ideas because some radicals were nice or gave someone some help with food or whatnot. I think we want to build up the ability of people to fight for themselves and I want them to see the value in our ideas on that basis - in that these ideas will help people fight for themselves and win.

The Black Panthers did a lot of programs like this and it gained them a lot of respect. But these programs are only really valuable within the context of a larger movement and sense of what the purpose of these programs are. The BPP lunch program became adopted by some cities but without the movement, they just became ways for coke to market to children and whatnot. Without the political movement, these kinds of activities are just NGO-work and can be just as reformist as anything else.


as the capitalist state pushes the poor off the edge of economic crises, they will fall into the arms of dedicated socialist.Yes, again. I don't want passive people "falling" into "our arms" I want people standing up and supporting us only as far as our strategies and politics make sense as a way forward in both the short-term and long-term.

But struggle is a pre-requisite for people questioning how things work as they do and who should run society; it is a pre-requisite for people learning skills about how to fight and win. Class struggle is a pre-requisite for the working class discovering its common interests and common enemy; of becomeing a "class for itself".

[campesino]

By not participating in struggles where things can either head in a liberal way or can head in a more class struggle if not outright militant and revolutionary way, then we are ceeding a contested area of struggle to liberals. We won't always be able to defeat liberal influenece in movements - in fact in times of low struggle, it would be the execption to the rule for things to go in a militant rather than liberal way -- but we can begin to build an alternative among rank and file workers and among people struggling in communities against oppression or whatnot.


Can all struggles be pushed into the class struggle route? I think that some struggles, like the homosexual rights struggle, are incapable of having can have a class struggle characteristic.

what i said about building a socialist charity alliance, isn't about PR, but about building an active socialist organization that people are a part of. Like you said, less about PR and more about having a presence in the community.


I'm not in the PSL because I don't agree with their politics, and because of this I sometimes disagree with strategies which may be informed by those political views. So I don't agree with how they go about everything, but again, they are trying to unite people to struggle outside of the politics of the two bourgoise parties and I think this is why they participate in these things - not because they want to advance liberalsim.

What is the point of organizing non-class-struggle causes outside of the system?

I understand that if there is a protest against the keystone xl pipeline (i oppose it), that it would be ideal to have some socialist attending and speaking there trying to make it a class struggle issue. but this is impossible, many of the protesters are not the poor or the working class or those susceptible embracing Marxism, they are not there to hear solutions to the problems of the proletariat.. The same goes for many other causes, the socialist individual should not oppose them, and if they support them, they should attend rallies, but these causes are not worthy of a socialist organizations attention, because they have no class struggle characteristic

simply said you cannot morph some causes into class struggle,
you don't make a speech about the bourgeoisie at a pro-choice rally, without alienating the crowd and being ignored.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can all struggles be pushed into the class struggle route? I think that some struggles, like the homosexual rights struggle, are incapable of having can have a class struggle characteristic.:huh: Well first of all I think that struggles against oppression are of importance to working class struggle if only in that oppression against groups in society is one of the ways that the ruling class is able to hold hegemony.

Second, because opression impacts people of various classes, but the impact on the oppressed varies on people of different classes, there is generally a class approach to fighting this oppression. For example, for bourgoise feminists, sucess is more female politicians and CEOs - even if it means these female CEOs are in charge of a system where women are getting paid less then men etc. For the black middle class maybe sucess is having black mayors and now a President even if this has been accomplished on top of the ruin of the black working class as has happened generally since the end of the movements of the 1960s and 70s and even more sharply during this recession. But for working women, and working black folks, the battle against oppression is a class issue and can only ultimately be solved by getting rid of a system that needs to police and imprison people and devalue female labor and all that's involved in that.

For this specific example, many of the struggles against homosexual oppression have been directly working class in nature and implications: the right not to be fired for being gay, for example!


what i said about building a socialist charity alliance, isn't about PR, but about building an active socialist organization that people are a part of. Like you said, less about PR and more about having a presence in the community.Sure, ok. Well an organic connection to workplaces and neighborhoods is a start but then what? Why will people be interested and actually relate to the radicals on a political level rather than just on a social/community level? If they are interested because of charity work, then why not join a church group that basically does the same thing but with different rehtoric? I think people would only be interested ultimately and want to become an active part if that formation is actually able to begin to make some gains - even if modest intitially. Of course, what kind of gain, liberal NGOs make "gains". This is why we have to have both short-term strategies and a long-view - both of which are united IMO.

I'm not saying that what you are proposing is wrong - not at all, like I said it was something that earned the BPP and Occupy lots of credibility. But IMO, this is a starting point, more real links between radicals and a larger section of workers who are either radicalizing or at least sympathetic or open to our politics.


What is the point of organizing non-class-struggle causes outside of the system?I'm not sure what you mean here. The PSL and ANSWER? I don't see how war and imperialism are outside the system or not connected to class struggle.


I understand that if there is a protest against the keystone xl pipeline (i oppose it), that it would be ideal to have some socialist attending and speaking there trying to make it a class struggle issue. but this is impossible, many of the protesters are not the poor or the working class or those susceptible embracing Marxism, they are not there to hear solutions to the problems of the proletariat.. The same goes for many other causes, the socialist individual should not oppose them, and if they support them, they should attend rallies, but these causes are not worthy of a socialist organizations attention, because they have no class struggle characteristicI agree with what you describe, but not the conclusion or generalization you are drawing here. I think the environmental movement as it is right now is definately not very class oriented in either political views or composition (... as far as actual organizers and organizations - though many many workers are pro-environment and passivly support environmental causes and issues).

So to take a step back from this specific environmentalist struggle, I think an environmental movement is possible that is really connected organically to class poltics. First, issues of conditions in the workplace and the impact of chemicals and pollutants on workers can become a focus. Such a movement would obviously involve workers organizing and struggling against their bosses, but it would also refocus the whole idea of pollution from consumers to business and a system that cares more for profits than poisoning even the people who directly help them make those profits, not to mention the rest of us. Also by implication, this would poltically raise the question of who controls the things the impact all people in the region, society, planet. Second, a class-based environmentalism could take on enivronmental racism and how the working poor always suffer the first and worse effects of capitalism's destruction of the environment.


simply said you cannot morph some causes into class struggle,
you don't make a speech about the bourgeoisie at a pro-choice rally, without alienating the crowd and being ignored.No, you try and organize a class-based appreach to abortion rights... sometimes that means going to general pro-choice rallies and trying to find the people who are more radical or class consious in order to try and begin to form the links of a potential alternative to the liberal leadership of the pro-choice movement.

[campesino]

@Jimmie Higgins

It seems we both are very entrenched in our beliefs.

I think a class based approach to liberal politics is hard to create(how do you make abortion a class issue, without performing mental gymnastics, creating very weak/stretched links between the two), and I do not support it, but if other socialist organizations and its membership seek to attempt it, I guess they should.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know how you can't see that things like abortion are class issues, tied to class rule, and impacting the working class lives in very tangable ways. Rich women, afterall, have never had difficulty finding ways to abort unwanted pregnecies; while for working class women it's a fight to get any kind of pregnancy care and unlike rich women pregancies impact their position in the workforce and ability to work.

It is not a "liberal issue" it is a class issue, however in our society, the middle class liberals are often in a much better position initially to shape the course of and direction of opposition. They have the money and time and create the organizations most workers don't have right now (which is part of the reason I think radicals should try and organize in movements). But workers are still going to be drawn to these struggles because gay workers, women, immigrants etc are impacted by these problems in real ways. To not attempt to organize an independant option, one based in a working class view of the issues and possible solutions is to ceede an area of political struggle to the liberals, to help convince workers that liberalism or the Democrats or lobbying is the only way to deal with things.

And often by engaging in these struggles, workers who may have "common sense" or liberal ideas, will have those assumptions challenged: what is the nature of the police, why is equal-rights so resisted, why is the US constantly messing with other countries. Many people can potentially radicalize from these experiences, but at some point to really provide a counter to the answers to these questions offered by people with liberal views, the radicalized part of the movement needs to organize the create a sort of counter-weight away from those ideas and towards a more radical view.