Why should communists engage in economic struggles?

[Anti-Traditional]

Why should communists engage in economic struggles such as strikes etc which centre around definite demands such as wages and working conditions?

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

To improve both the class-consciousness and the living standards of the working class.

I know one liners aren't welcome in the learning forum, but I just thought the answer was concise.

[Anti-Traditional]

To improve both the class-consciousness and the living standards of the working class.

As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

But isn't the role of the communist the revolution? As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.

In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution. Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?

Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?

[MarxArchist]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas through a TV or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital. What I'm against is centralized "leadership" when it comes to guiding workers to see the entire system. I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do. I also have a problem, as I said, with Lenin's conception of a vanguard. Occypy Wall St was a good example of what I'm talking about. People saw that there was a conflict between labor and capital but what were the "natural" solutions they came up with? Without Marxists (not intellectuals or College professors or centralized leadership) out in the crowd explaining certain basics reformism, as was so popular at Occupy Wall St, will be the conclusion they come up with. Struggle as a means to fix this or that problem within capitalism not to end capitalism itself.

[Anti-Traditional]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital.

Most workers are already aware of the conflict. They see it every day and yet they are not communists. To support their struggles not with your motive being solely improving their conditions, but to change their ''consciousness'', is this not somewhat manipulative?

And yes everyone, I have been reading the nihilist communist text.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

And I most certainly agree with them on that matter.


But isn't the role of the communist the revolution?
Not merely the revolution, human emancipation. Revolution is just a mean to an end.


As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.
I'm not following you here. Aren't communists individuals too?


In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution.
Agree.


Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?
Yes and no. If the proletariat and its vanguard (the communists, roughly speaking, don't kill me people) focus only on the economic struggle, they just might become reformists. A good quote:



N.B. as to political movement: The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for the working class, and for this it is naturally necessary that a previous organization of the working class, itself arising from their economic struggles, should have been developed up to a certain point.
On the other hand, however, every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt in a particular factory or even a particular industry to force a shorter working day out of the capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force an eight-hour day, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. If these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of the development of this organisation.
Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands, as the September revolution in France showed, and as is also proved up to a certain point by the game Messrs. Gladstone & Co. are bringing off in England even up to the present time.



Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?
The level consciousness of the proletariat itself about its position in the mode of production. Let me try to be more clear. A 'class in itself' (economic-corporate level), eg the proletariat, will fight only for economic and immediate improvement; a 'class for itself', the proletariat again, will fight not only for their corporate interests, it transcends this barrier; it is a qualitative change. The communist ideas become material force.

[MarxArchist]

Most workers are already aware of the conflict. They see it every day and yet they are not communists. To support their struggles not with your motive being solely improving their conditions, but to change their ''consciousness'', is this not somewhat manipulative?

And yes everyone, I have been reading the nihilist communist text.

Well, some would argue the role of the vanguard is to guide the struggle from potential revolt into revolution. To show that simply fighting for reforms will get nowhere in the end and to use historical materialism as a guide to illuminate the need for a totally new system. I don't think this should be done in a preachy, centralized or authoritarian fashion. Those who are conscious of the need to end capitalism need to be amongst workers during struggle. Sure many people understand the boss has separate interests but in thoroughly exposing the conflict between labor and capital eyes will be open to the necessary path to replacing the system witch is attacking the economic base not chopping away at this or that side effect of the system.

Do you think workers would come to that conclusion on their own? Will workers, on their own, come to see that their interests are as one and the system can only be ended with total unity?



More 'sophisticated' socialist views of class-consciousness often refer to a process of more or less spontaneous political maturing through a series of economic struggles which take on greater and greater magnitude, finally posing demands which the system cannot meet. Here again the same basic error, from the Marxist standpoint, is made. In all such approaches, the class and its consciousness are seen in terms of a pre-Marxist theory of knowledge and of history. Those who put forward these ideas are unable to escape from a conception in which the separate individuals in the class move from their own working and other everyday experience to a higher level of consciousness, in this case political consciousness.
In point of fast an individual worker does not arrive through his own experience at a scientific consciousness of the actual relationships at work, let alone the political relationships. It u only when a worker comes into contact with the products, in political programme and action, of Marxist theory in politics - i.e., with the outcome of theoretical works produced in the first place by non-proletarian - that he can conceive of even his own working experience in terms which go beyond those of the prevailing bourgeois ideology. These works take the essence of the experience of the proletariat as well as all developments in economy, politics, science, the arts, etc.
Only a historical view of the working class and of the theory of Marxism, in their mutual interrelations, can produce a theory of class consciousness. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels, working on various fields of learning, as well as analysing the experience of the struggle of the working class to that date, elaborated their theory of socialism. The theory is henceforth the essential component of the process by which the working class becomes a class 'for itself'. As a theory, it had first to penetrate beneath the day-to-day phenomenal form of capitalist society to the social relations of production. It demonstrated that production under capitalism continues, and society develops, not through any conscious plan, but through the drive to produce surplus value, consequent upon the reduction of labour-power to a commodity, to units of 'abstract labour'. This is the essence of the worker's exploitation, rather than the fact, say, that he does not own the cars he produces. What he produces is essentially surplus value, the augmentation of that same capital which oppresses him.
From these basic relationships, Marx demonstrated the reality of the history of capitalism, the way in which private ownership came to a revolutionary clash with the further development of the forces of production. For a political or socialist consciousness of the struggle against the capitalist class, there is necessary the understanding of this historical tendency of the capitalist system. This means not just an abstract knowledge of the theory of historical materialism, but the concrete analysis of, and active engagement in, the development of the class struggle in all its forms and at all levels, in the period of capitalism's historical decline.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Let's look at this in practical terms - at your workplace, on what basis are you likely to successfully organize to a) create spaces in which theory can be tested against practice, b) create a material basis for workers' power, c) establish genuine relationships in struggle as a communist worker with other workers?

While I'd love to go to work and say to everyone, "Tomorrow, we takeover!" odds are that nobody would take me seriously - and why would they? What have I done to demonstrate meaningful political leadership? What has happened to make fighting spirit, tactical know-how, and strategic vision realities at [place I work]?

The reality is, in order to accomplish any of the aforementioned we need to participate in immediate economic struggles. We need to do so critically - highlighting their limits, honestly expressing our reservations, and thereby ultimately demonstrating our political maturity (or learning we're mistaken, as the case may be!), but we need to be there!

So, theory-shmeory Marx-shmarx - if we want to theorize the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, we need to be in the thick of the real movement that creates the present state of things (ie the activity of the workers that materially reproduces capitalism), and constantly evaluating and challenging it with regards to the goal of communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why should communists engage in economic struggles such as strikes etc which centre around definite demands such as wages and working conditions?

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?


As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

But isn't the role of the communist the revolution? As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.

In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution. Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?

Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?

You might wish to read the works of Ferdinand Lassalle on this subject. Ignore his mistake on the Iron Law of Wages, but understand that his anti-unionism had the purpose of telling workers that only political organization counts, even in the immediate horizon.

The role of the communist worker isn't "the revolution," but class-based public policymaking struggle. Cactus quoted Marx's distinction here. Take, for example, a very recent comparison: mere labour disputes in minimum-wage workplaces in San Jose vs. successful activism to increase the minimum wage there (http://www.revleft.com/vb/low-wage-workers-t179311/index.html).

An example of "voluntarist" left activism doing perhaps the right thing would be to show up at these mere labour disputes, but specifically to promote related referendum initiatives and other forms of grassroots public pressure.

[dēmistĕfī]

The focus isn't so much on the ends in themselves. Rather, the focus is on — despite my personal distaste for the phrase — building the Party (i.e. strengthening and developing — through solidarity — the organic community of proletarians, which is immanent to communism: "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things").

[Rurkel]

A potential negative side of social-democratic reforms are paternalistic attitudes. Many social-democrats try to present themselves as "fathers of the working class" or some blah-blah-blah like that, trying to limit independent working class organization. I guess communist militants should always point out that reforms are won by workers' militancy, that without our pressure on the system, even "genuine" social-democrats would be able to do nothing.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Not having to worry about day to day concerns like rent means being able to read the news and getting oneself politically informed and all that shit. It's pretty simple: working less means doing more.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Citizenism!

No!

[Geiseric]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas through a TV or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital. What I'm against is centralized "leadership" when it comes to guiding workers to see the entire system. I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do. I also have a problem, as I said, with Lenin's conception of a vanguard. Occypy Wall St was a good example of what I'm talking about. People saw that there was a conflict between labor and capital but what were the "natural" solutions they came up with? Without Marxists (not intellectuals or College professors or centralized leadership) out in the crowd explaining certain basics reformism, as was so popular at Occupy Wall St, will be the conclusion they come up with. Struggle as a means to fix this or that problem within capitalism not to end capitalism itself.

Well the sole solution to capitalism is socialism. Revolution is a process that takes decades. The vanguard a la lenin as he put it is exactly what you're looking for, revolutionary working class people leading by example, being the most dedicated to struggle. You have to understand though that politics and economic based organizing are more or less indistinguisable. People will struggle for revolutionary things (I.e. public ownership of production) as soon as they see that they are capible of winning minimum things such as immigration reform or free healthcare. The only way they can "win" these demands is by mass mobilization as well, which is where communists are necessary to glue the distanced activist nucleii togather, whom NEED TO ABANDON SECTARIANISM. NOW. Left communists need to get a reality check in other words, their substitutionism has been a failure fo years.

Want a great example of classic ultraleftism? Look at The spartacist league. They basically go to events which they wont have any part in organizing, try to sell newspapers, and proclaim themselves as the revolutionary vanguard! That's left communism. Newspapers and denouncing who they think are "reformist."

[subcp]

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?

If you accept decadence theory, capital is unable to provide durable reforms and ameliorate living conditions for the working-class any longer. That means that every industrial action has the same base potential to turn into a wider and larger generalization of struggle. This has become especially acute since the 1970's and even more so since 2007/2008.

That said, examples like the Honda strikes, the bossnappings in France, the factory riots and mass demonstrations in Bangladesh, the Hyundai strikes in South Korea, etc. show 'regular labor disputes' turn into something more. Sometimes that 'something more' is contingent on the influence of leftist parties and trade unions who do all they can to isolate workers and mediate. This was seen during the Lockheed strike not too long ago; or the Hostess workers (who didn't even link up with their fellow BCTGM union members locked out at American Crystal Sugar).

So communists can engage or intervene in strikes and other industrial actions to try and agitate against trade union manipulation, and propose direct action aimed at unifying and generalizing the struggle. This also can result in the more militant and class conscious minority of workers seeking communist positions rather than being swallowed up in leftist groups (many were present during the Walmart Black Friday events) or trade unions/union projects (minority unions like OURWalmart).

[Anti-Traditional]

I'm not following you here. Aren't communists individuals too?



What I mean is, does participation in these struggles inherently serve the communist cause?

I'm unconvinced by the formula: We go from struggle to struggle- Workers realise economic struggles are pointless- become socialists- revolution.

When I say is participation in economic struggles an individual act, what I mean is, are their motivations purely good will to the workers or the feeling that they need to do something or even just to recruit more members to their group.

Regarding your definition of class consciousness, wouldn't ''socialist consciousness'' be a more realistic term? Given your definition would it not be more accurate to identify 'class in itself' with 'class consciousness' and 'class for itself' with socialist consciousness?

[Comrade #138672]

What I mean is, does participation in these struggles inherently serve the communist cause?

I'm unconvinced by the formula: We go from struggle to struggle- Workers realise economic struggles are pointless- become socialists- revolution.

When I say is participation in economic struggles an individual act, what I mean is, are their motivations purely good will to the workers or the feeling that they need to do something or even just to recruit more members to their group.

Regarding your definition of class consciousness, wouldn't ''socialist consciousness'' be a more realistic term? Given your definition would it not be more accurate to identify 'class in itself' with 'class consciousness' and 'class for itself' with socialist consciousness?Well, when workers are struggling for immediate gains, they will become more aware of their power to change things. This can lead to a more intensified struggle, when properly guided - not dictated - by Communists.

A class in itself is not class conscious.

[The Idler]

Not to propose economic struggle
Not to steer economic struggle
Not to guide economic struggle
Not to argue for immediate gains unrelated to socialism
Not to call for unity with ever more groups uninterested in socialism
But to propose political struggle for socialism

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Not to propose economic struggle
Not to steer economic struggle
Not to guide economic struggle
Not to argue for immediate gains unrelated to socialism
Not to call for unity with ever more groups uninterested in socialism
But to propose political struggle for socialism

Yeah, and if you've demonstrated your leadership among your fellow workers by not doing, I'm pretty sure there'll be nothing doing when you propose political struggle for socialism. Win a battle that puts groceries in the fridge, place that battle in context of the class war, and the odds of having an audience for your political proposals is significantly higher.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you accept decadence theory, capital is unable to provide durable reforms and ameliorate living conditions for the working-class any longer.

I certainly don't accept its rather apolitical conclusions.


That said, examples like the Honda strikes, the bossnappings in France, the factory riots and mass demonstrations in Bangladesh, the Hyundai strikes in South Korea, etc. show 'regular labor disputes' turn into something more.

Please kindly elaborate on how they turned into something more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Regarding your definition of class consciousness, wouldn't ''socialist consciousness'' be a more realistic term? Given your definition would it not be more accurate to identify 'class in itself' with 'class consciousness' and 'class for itself' with socialist consciousness?

It isn't as simple as you make it sound. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/crises-various-types-t139891/index.html)

A class in itself may have little if any socioeconomic awareness, but it may also have "socialist consciousness" on the basis of moral appeals or Utopianism. In either case, there is no actual class consciousness. A class in itself may also have basic political consciousness, but not specialized in the form of class-based political consciousness.

A class for itself has class-based political consciousness, but may or may not have the desired "socialist consciousness."

[Geiseric]

Also there isn't such thing as an "economic struggle." It's central to marxism that economics and politics are indistinguishable.

[Fionnagáin]

I agree. I think the traditional distinction between "economic struggle" and "political struggle" represents the division of labour between trade union bureaucrats and politicians within the social democratic and Stalinist parties, rather than an authentic Marxist analysis.

[subcp]

But there is a clear distinction between the economy and politics; it is a division of capitalism and capitalist society. That we communists desire to abolish this division and unify all social activity as human activity isn't the same as recognizing that, under capitalism, there are separate spheres of social life.

The programme and theory on tactics from the Communist Party of Italy are clear on this point as it relates to the intervention of communists (I'd say the same principle is still relevant today and in the next International):


The indispensable organ of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is the class party. The Communist Party, which contains the most advanced and resolute part of the proletariat, unifies the efforts of the labouring masses and transforms their struggles for particular group interests and immediate gains into the general struggle for the revolutionary emancipation of the proletariat. The party is responsible for propagating the revolutionary theory amongst the masses, for organising the material means of action, and for leading the working class through the course of its struggles by ensuring the historical continuity and the international unity of the movement.
I certainly don't accept its rather apolitical conclusions.Apolitical? It's a cornerstone of understanding the course of capitalist development, and applied to historical materialism, the means to understand the mechanism for the revolutionary change of social relations and modes of production based on the class struggle in each epoch.


Please kindly elaborate on how they turned into something more.In a nutshell, instead of staying on the recidivist terrain of wage demands (regardless of how militant), they ended up questioning both political structures and the proletarian condition itself. In the case of the wave of bossnappings in France, threats to dump sulphuric acid into the local rivers or burn or blow up factories under occupation, were not over keeping their jobs (occupations and bossnappings happening after the workforce was made redundant and the factories were to close down), they were aimed at achieving the largest possible severance agreement so that the factory workers would not have to work, could exist for as long as possible, outside of the proletarian condition. Bossnappings in the 1960's (especially 1968) often were over working-conditions and higher wages, but in 2008-today, they've been about getting as much money as possible in severance; no demands to keep the factories open or save their jobs. In one factory workers got the equivalent of 10 years worth of wages in exchange to end the occupation and not blow up or burn down their factory.

There's an excellent article about this here:

http://riff-raff.se/texts/en/sic1-how-one-can-still-put-forward-demands-when-no-demands-can-be-satisfied?s[]=struggles&s[]=france



These bossnappings rarely last for more than one night. However, they always lead to a return to negotiations, whatever the final result might be. In general, at the end of the negotiations, the jobs that have been threatened are not saved, but the compensations offered a lot higher than that prescribed by law. The employees at Continental, who, apart from taking their boss hostage also looted the town hall, gained 50,000 euros after their struggle, something which convinced others to make use of their methods. The announcement that this sum was being paid was followed by new bossnappings. The media plays an important role in these conflicts. Often it is the workers who contact them as soon as they have taken a boss hostage, and they express their grievances to them, while management remains silent on the subject. The support of public opinion then forces the state to intervene publicly, and it is often this which forces the representatives of the foreign groups to sit down at the bargaining table.



The cases in which there have been threats to blow up factories have also proved themselves effective, after the example of New Fabris in 2009. On 12 July 2009, the employees at this company, which is specialised in the melting of aluminium for the auto industry and a subcontractor for Renault and PSA, installed gas cylinders at the site and made their intentions very clear: ‘We will blow up everything if we are not granted a plan of compensation of 30,000 euros above the legal minimum.’ Compared to the workers at Rencast, who were in the same situation and destroyed pieces destined for Renault by throwing them into a furnace, the workers at New Fabris threatened to move up a gear. Even though they did not execute this threat, the 366 workers got a severance bonus of 12,000 euros, net, in addition to statutory compensation.

In the example of the Chinese auto workers and Egyptian textile workers, normal economic demands end up challenging the legitimacy of the state- first militancy, then self-organization, then clashes with state forces and police, rejection (and ejection) of union leaders. In the case of China, the mystification about 'democratic trade unions' like the wave of Solidarnosc in Poland was skipped- workers formed factory committees and elected delegates from amongst themselves directly to make decisions; in Egypt, at least 1 trade union leader was hospitalized after being physically removed from the mills in Mahalla for trying to negotiate an end to the mass strikes.

[Fionnagáin]

But there is a clear distinction between the economy and politics; it is a division of capitalism and capitalist society. That we communists desire to abolish this division and unify all social activity as human activity isn't the same as recognizing that, under capitalism, there are separate spheres of social life.
The abolition of the bourgeoisie's "spheres of life" isn't some over-the-rainbow ideal, something to be achieved after some revolutionary event-horizon, it is the practical content of the communist movement. To participate in the communist movement is to participate in the abolition of the division between "spheres of life", and to reproduce those divisions (however pragmatically we imagine we are doing so) is to practice anti-communism.

[subcp]

But we are not living through the movement for communism- it doesn't make sense to deny that this division exists. It's idealist to transpose communist principles onto material reality when the bases for this movement is not happening.

I agree that the unity of the political and economic is a necessary part of the movement for communism- I'm making that argument in the context of struggles that begin to go beyond recidivism; but it is not the generalized situation today. The divisions of bourgeois society is the world we live in (until the movement for communism begins).

[Fionnagáin]

In other words, you think we should be social democrats.

[subcp]

I think we're talking at crossed purposes- I agree that what communists should promote is the immediate unity between the economic and political spheres in struggle (and not promoting separate economic and political strategies); it sounded like you were saying this division has already been overcome by the movement for communism.

[The Idler]

Yeah, and if you've demonstrated your leadership among your fellow workers by not doing, I'm pretty sure there'll be nothing doing when you propose political struggle for socialism. Win a battle that puts groceries in the fridge, place that battle in context of the class war, and the odds of having an audience for your political proposals is significantly higher.
Workers are quite capable of leading ourselves, to claim otherwise is patronising.

[The Jay]

Also there isn't such thing as an "economic struggle." It's central to marxism that economics and politics are indistinguishable.

The problem with what you are saying is that while economic power governs political power there is a difference. The economic system utilizes the State as a method of maintaining itself. In order for the state to mitigate or misdirect the anger of the proletariat it does allow concessions with social democrats as one of the main releases of this tension. In consideration of this, what you recognize as a single struggle - rightfully so - acts in some senses as two systems that work in conjunction with each other to maintain the status quo. When you look at the State you can see that it does and has built itself upon channeling the class struggle for its own benefit by effectively having the bourgeois and to a much smaller degree the proletariat bribe them to utilize the state's power for their respective ends.

The State, within liberal democracies, is in the employ of the bourgeoisie and has the vested interest of maintaining their social hegemony. Parliamentary action can in some cases alleviate some of the suffering of the proletariat, but the mechanism for reversing those strides will always be left in place for the bourgeois to excercise their superior power and reverse it. This is best displayed in the New Deal and its dismantlement.

[Fionnagáin]

I think we're talking at crossed purposes- I agree that what communists should promote is the immediate unity between the economic and political spheres in struggle (and not promoting separate economic and political strategies); it sounded like you were saying this division has already been overcome by the movement for communism.
I'm saying that the communist movement- as a real social movement, and not just a milieu of no-good hippy beatniks like ourselves- consists in that overcoming, is realised only in the active abolition of "political" and "economic" spheres. It's a matter of practice, not "promotion", of what is actually done, not what we merely aspire to do at some imprecise date in the future.

As you say, most of the time, such an overcoming is not in evidence, because, most of the time, the communist movement is not in evidence. But that doesn't imply that we should simply accept the bourgeois structure of life in the mean, at least not no more so than we are obliged to, and certainly not that we should seek to participate in the reproduction of those divisions by taking up reformist politics. (There are plenty of people doing that already, and whatever good may come of it doesn't require our involvement.)


Parliamentary action can in some cases alleviate some of the suffering of the proletariat, but the mechanism for reversing those strides will always be left in place for the bourgeois to excercise their superior power and reverse it. This is best displayed in the New Deal and its dismantlement.
As if parliamentary reforms were not always, ultimately, bourgeois reforms, a precaution against the threat (and, most often, reality) of working class insubordination? As if they were achieved against and despite capital, rather than with capital's sufferance- and even, as in your example of the New Deal, its enthusiasm? As if social democracy was a weapon wielded by the working class, and not against it?

[Rafiq]

Also there isn't such thing as an "economic struggle." It's central to marxism that economics and politics are indistinguishable.

To bakuninism, perhaps. Both "economics" and "politics" are part of a larger mode of production, yes, but that does not mean they are the same.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Hit The North]

You might wish to read the works of Ferdinand Lassalle on this subject. Ignore his mistake on the Iron Law of Wages, but understand that his anti-unionism had the purpose of telling workers that only political organization counts, even in the immediate horizon.


This is only true if we recognise that every economic strike is, at the same time, a political action. Other than that, the idea that only the "political struggle" matters is pure bullshit. The majority of workers do not belong to political parties but are, every day, at the point of production and brought into conflict with their main enemy - this being, not this political party or that one, but the individual capitalist and, by extension, his entire class. This is the truth revolutionaries should be drawing out of the economic struggle, not standing on the sidelines with a misplaced superior smirk on our faces, denouncing "mere economic struggle" like some ponce from the middle classes.

If Lassalle thought that the organisation of workers at the point of production was irrelevant, this only shows us another good reason why Marx and Engels saw the man and his ideas as something which the proletariat had to overcome. And given Lassalle followed the orthodox Hegelian notion that the political state (even in bourgeois society) had the aim of developing the "education and development of liberty in the human race" (Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/education and development of liberty in the human race.)) even his "political struggle" amounts to nothing but mere reformism.

Capitalism is a mode of production, not a mere political system. Its overthrow is the task of the proletariat, not its proxy in the official political organs of bourgeois society.

[Fionnagáin]

To bakuninism, perhaps. Both "economics" and "politics" are part of a larger mode of production, yes, but that does not mean they are the same.
Of course not- economic struggle is the business of trade union officials and political struggle is the business of politicians. (The business of workers, for those wondering, is doing what they're told.)

[Geiseric]

The problem with what you are saying is that while economic power governs political power there is a difference. The economic system utilizes the State as a method of maintaining itself. In order for the state to mitigate or misdirect the anger of the proletariat it does allow concessions with social democrats as one of the main releases of this tension. In consideration of this, what you recognize as a single struggle - rightfully so - acts in some senses as two systems that work in conjunction with each other to maintain the status quo. When you look at the State you can see that it does and has built itself upon channeling the class struggle for its own benefit by effectively having the bourgeois and to a much smaller degree the proletariat bribe them to utilize the state's power for their respective ends.

The State, within liberal democracies, is in the employ of the bourgeoisie and has the vested interest of maintaining their social hegemony. Parliamentary action can in some cases alleviate some of the suffering of the proletariat, but the mechanism for reversing those strides will always be left in place for the bourgeois to excercise their superior power and reverse it. This is best displayed in the New Deal and its dismantlement.

You're detatched from reality. The new deal happened because of general strikes, and through the 30s the CIO only grew throughout the New Deal. The condition of the working class also rose as a whole due to things like minimum wage laws and tons of safety and health procedures enacted by the federal government, as a result; not a means of avoiding, strikes.

But you think that suffering in some deterministic way raises class consciousness. Left communists generally think of things in this petit bourgeois idealistic notion that "Oh they're in poverty now, they must hate capitalism EVEN MORE!" It doesn't work like that, people don't strike when they're in poverty; they work harder than ever.

The first thing that was done when germans gained universal suffrage was the election of August Bebel into the Reichstag. Eventually the Leibnachts was elected as well. I'll trust these mens course of action more than your or anybody on the interent's advice.

[Althusser]

"No revolutionary perspective is possible without the primacy of the political struggle over the simple economic struggle. For apolitical economic struggle leads to economism, that is, to class collaboration, while on the other hand, pure concentration on the political struggle, neglect of, scorn for, the economic struggle, leads to voluntarism, i.e., to adventurism." - Louis Althusser

This is one of my favorite quotes. You've definitely got a point, but I think the struggle for certain reforms is a good place to immerse yourself within the working class and bring Marxism to the forefront to convince the working class that mass movements and revolution is the only way.

[Geiseric]

To bakuninism, perhaps. Both "economics" and "politics" are part of a larger mode of production, yes, but that does not mean they are the same.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

You cant just call something an "economic struggle," in the way left communists do. There is only class struggle which manifests itself into specific demands which may or may not correspond with the conscious goals of the rest of the working class.

There is uneven development in consciousness, which some marxists here seem to disregard as a notion of reformism. If you actually talk with and listen to 90% of the population they are more worried about paying rent than ending capitalism. The goal of the communists should be to aid them organize the conditions to raise the standard of living; and show how ultimately their struggle is impossible to solve in the long run without abolishing capitalism.

From chapter two of the Communist Manifesto:

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

[RedMaterialist]

In 1865, Marx in Value, Price and Profit discussed the question of why workers should try to force wages up, and resist a reduction in wages:


Let us now seriously consider the main cases in which a rise of wages is attempted or a reduction of wages resisted...


In their attempts at reducing the working day to its former rational dimensions, or, where they cannot enforce a legal fixation of a normal working day, at checking overwork by a rise of wages, a rise not only in proportion to the surplus time exacted, but in a greater proportion, working men fulfill only a duty to themselves and their race...

...In checking this tendency of capital, by struggling for a rise of wages corresponding to the rising intensity of labour, the working man only resists the depreciation of his labour and the deterioration of his race.

Obviously working people have no difficulty understanding why they should strike for higher wages and benefits. The problem is that the working class and the communists, at least in the U.S., became separated and were turned into each other's enemies; so that now a leftist can ask whether communists should even be fighting for higher wages, shorter working weeks, etc.

The big unions will never see the communists as their allies again. However, communists can still offer their support to the workers at places like Walmart.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also there isn't such thing as an "economic struggle." It's central to marxism that economics and politics are indistinguishable.

Wrong on both counts. Marx himself made distinctions, as noted by the quote earlier in this thread.


I agree. I think the traditional distinction between "economic struggle" and "political struggle" represents the division of labour between trade union bureaucrats and politicians within the social democratic and Stalinist parties, rather than an authentic Marxist analysis.

That in fact is orthodox Marxist analysis, not a weird combination of Marxian analysis and syndicalism.


But there is a clear distinction between the economy and politics; it is a division of capitalism and capitalist society. That we communists desire to abolish this division and unify all social activity as human activity isn't the same as recognizing that, under capitalism, there are separate spheres of social life.

[...]

Apolitical? It's a cornerstone of understanding the course of capitalist development, and applied to historical materialism, the means to understand the mechanism for the revolutionary change of social relations and modes of production based on the class struggle in each epoch.

I don't know what to make of the inconsistency in your post. The "clear distinction" points to a conclusion against growing political struggles out of economic disputes and against harboring any notion that "the economic is political." The "clear distinction" means, in fact, to start with blatantly political struggles from the get-go, and spillovers into economic issues should be welcomed as a bonus.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not to propose economic struggle
Not to steer economic struggle
Not to guide economic struggle
Not to argue for immediate gains unrelated to socialism
Not to call for unity with ever more groups uninterested in socialism
But to propose political struggle for socialism

And here, Idler, you make that other mistake: that the "struggle for socialism" is political and not economic. The "struggle for socialism" is in fact economic, not political (as opposed to class rule).


Obviously working people have no difficulty understanding why they should strike for higher wages and benefits. The problem is that the working class and the communists, at least in the U.S., became separated and were turned into each other's enemies; so that now a leftist can ask whether communists should even be fighting for higher wages, shorter working weeks, etc.

The big unions will never see the communists as their allies again. However, communists can still offer their support to the workers at places like Walmart.

Yes, the merger formula, but such fights for higher wages and shorter workweeks should be at the level of public policymaking pressure. Activist workers in San Jose did a much better job addressing this than the big unions ever will.


This is the truth revolutionaries should be drawing out of the economic struggle, not standing on the sidelines with a misplaced superior smirk on our faces, denouncing "mere economic struggle" like some ponce from the middle classes.

If Lassalle thought that the organisation of workers at the point of production was irrelevant, this only shows us another good reason why Marx and Engels saw the man and his ideas as something which the proletariat had to overcome.

Tell that to low-paid San Jose workers who benefitted from something other than isolated strike action.

Besides, the long-term effectiveness problems of private-sector collective bargaining can be addressed substantively by this: Private-Sector Collective Bargaining Representation as a Free Legal Service [Monopoly] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/private-sector-collective-t124045/index.html). A "State Aid" monopoly on this Mediation-In-Practice function is better than isolated "Self-Help" disputes that rarely turn political.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is only true if we recognise that every economic strike is, at the same time, a political action.

You've got your premise wrong here. The notion that only political organization counts is based on the opposite premise, that less than a handful of economic strike action has any semblance of a political character.


Other than that, the idea that only the "political struggle" matters is pure bullshit.

No it's not, and I'll explain why in my immediate response below to Broody:


From chapter two of the Communist Manifesto

You neglected to quote the earlier, more fundamental part: The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a [political] class [for itself], overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy [or hegemony], conquest of [ruling-class] political power by the proletariat.

To subcp, I guess the Bordigist response would be that my democratic theory interpretation reeks of "democratism," and ironically that would be a more informed disagreement.

[The Jay]

You're detatched from reality.

Hu hu hu, good one.


The new deal happened because of general strikes, and through the 30s the CIO only grew throughout the New Deal.

I know that. The whole point of the New Deal was to make concessions to the interests of the working class as a means to avoid an all out revolt. The ruling class knew that if nothing was done they would lose their power. This risk to the power of the capitalists was most visible in the growth of leftist parties as well as the strength of the unions.

These facts do nothing to show my view as false; in fact, they are examples of my very point.


The condition of the working class also rose as a whole due to things like minimum wage laws and tons of safety and health procedures enacted by the federal government, as a result; not a means of avoiding, strikes.


The strikes made the bourgeois scared, yes. What they feared more was a further radicalization of the populous which they thought could pose a massive threat to their domination. It was not out of fear of a few strikes, but a wider action by the working class.


But you think that suffering in some deterministic way raises class consciousness. Left communists generally think of things in this petit bourgeois idealistic notion that "Oh they're in poverty now, they must hate capitalism EVEN MORE!" It doesn't work like that, people don't strike when they're in poverty; they work harder than ever.

I don't speak for anyone but myself so I'll answer your question from my own perspective.

I do not see the idea of historical materialism as something so coarse as you seem to be implying. It is not necessarily the case that poverty causes radicalization, but what it does say is that it increases the likelihood of radical ideas seeming reasonable imo. It isn't such an un-nuanced thing as you seem to be implying.


The first thing that was done when germans gained universal suffrage was the election of August Bebel into the Reichstag. Eventually the Leibnachts was elected as well. I'll trust these mens course of action more than your or anybody on the interent's advice.

This was just pathetic posturing and had nothing to do with anything you were even implying - wrongly - that I was saying.

[The Jay]

As if parliamentary reforms were not always, ultimately, bourgeois reforms, a precaution against the threat (and, most often, reality) of working class insubordination? As if they were achieved against and despite capital, rather than with capital's sufferance- and even, as in your example of the New Deal, its enthusiasm? As if social democracy was a weapon wielded by the working class, and not against it?

If you want to make a point you should try making some complete and declarative sentences. You should also read what I wrote again because you are all wrong about what I said and I do not feel like re-writing what I have just wrote a page before this.

[subcp]

I don't know what to make of the inconsistency in your post. The "clear distinction" points to a conclusion against growing political struggles out of economic disputes and against harboring any notion that "the economic is political." The "clear distinction" means, in fact, to start with blatantly political struggles from the get-go, and spillovers into economic issues should be welcomed as a bonus.My post to you included examples where workers begin going beyond wage demands and begin to transcend the divisions of capitalist society. Until the movement for communism begins- and I completely agree with the communisation characterization on this, that the movement for communism starts with the generalization and the linking up of such struggles that begin striving to go beyond the limits of economic struggle, the division between the political and economic is affirmed in daily life of all of us. Unless anyone is arguing that we are right now living through the movement for communism.


the revolutionary dynamic of present struggles, which in several cases brings to the surface the drastic refusal of the proletarian condition (struggles without demands, and struggles with demands that develop into violent conflicts without a prospect of a compromise). - Blaumachen

The base on which these possibilities rest, imho, is on the structural shift in world capital with the transition to decadence. That is why capital cannot provide durable reforms; it's why generalized state capitalism came into existence; it's the foundation for the environment of crisis which has become more acute since 2008- all of which is how we get to the place, today, where pitched battles with the state, mass action and mass strikes, riots, etc. begin with 'economic demands'- the inability of capital to meet human needs and desires, or in many cases even mediocre wage demands. It's what makes communism a material necessity and not an ideology. But until the generalization and linking up of the kinds of struggles that have begun to claw out of recidivism (Honda, Hyundai, Misr Spinning & Weaving, etc.), the laws of capitalism still govern life. I don't think it matters whether generalization of open struggle occurs from mass demonstrations against food prices, against police and military repression, or in public or private sector workplaces over wage demands- whats important is that the movement of the working-class to transform all things is underway and linking together.

[Anti-Traditional]

Well, some would argue the role of the vanguard is to guide the struggle from potential revolt into revolution...

To show that simply fighting for reforms will get nowhere in the end and to use historical materialism as a guide to illuminate the need for a totally new system.I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do.

But isn't this exactly what happens when communists ''intervene'' in the struggle? In any case much of the time workers just want to raise their wage and could do without communists preaching at them that their struggle is pointless.



While I'd love to go to work and say to everyone, "Tomorrow, we takeover!" odds are that nobody would take me seriously - and why would they? What have I done to demonstrate meaningful political leadership?.

Yes, but why should we want them to put their faith into our ''leadership''? To me that would indicate a certain passiveness and unawareness of their own abilities.


The focus isn't so much on the ends in themselves. Rather, the focus is on — despite my personal distaste for the phrase — building the Party (i.e. strengthening and developing — through solidarity — the organic community of proletarians, which is immanent to communism: "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things").

Is this not somewhat manipulative? Using their struggle to further your ends.

[Fionnagáin]

But you think that suffering in some deterministic way raises class consciousness. Left communists generally think of things in this petit bourgeois idealistic notion that "Oh they're in poverty now, they must hate capitalism EVEN MORE!" It doesn't work like that, people don't strike when they're in poverty; they work harder than ever.

You cant just call something an "economic struggle," in the way left communists do. There is only class struggle which manifests itself into specific demands which may or may not correspond with the conscious goals of the rest of the working class.
I'm going to have to ask, have you actually ever read any left communists text, or are you going purely by the impressions you've formed on this site? What you're saying here doesn't seem at odds with anything I've read from that tradition, and in fact gels with it a lot more easily than anything coming out of conventional Trotskyism.


That in fact is orthodox Marxist analysis, not a weird combination of Marxian analysis and syndicalism.
You'll have to forgive me for declining to accept the automatic equation of "orthodox" and "authentic". The division of struggles, as far as I can see, is nothing more than the division of labour between union and party functionaries- a division of labour no doubt much-loved by the "Orthodox Marxists" who staff or aspire to staff such roles, but of precious little consequence to the working class.

[Geiseric]

I'm going to have to ask, have you actually ever read any left communists text, or are you going purely by the impressions you've formed on this site? What you're saying here doesn't seem at odds with anything I've read from that tradition, and in fact gels with it a lot more easily than anything coming out of conventional Trotskyism.


You'll have to forgive me for declining to accept the automatic equation of "orthodox" and "authentic". The division of struggles, as far as I can see, is nothing more than the division of labour between union and party functionaries- a division of labour no doubt much-loved by the "Orthodox Marxists" who staff or aspire to staff such roles, but of precious little consequence to the working class.

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.

[subcp]

'Third periodism' was rejected by the communist left at the time and there aren't any proponents of it today.

[Fionnagáin]

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.
So you haven't read any left communist texts. That is what you're saying, yes?

[Geiseric]

'Third periodism' was rejected by the communist left at the time and there aren't any proponents of it today.

Not true ask any left com on this forum about third periodism and none of them will historically support a united front with the KPD and the SPD. I can directly quote Ghost Bebel and the other "Bordigaists" on the forum about this because we've argued this for months.


So you haven't read any left communist texts. That is what you're saying, yes?

sure I have. I started a bordiga essay and it struck me as basic Leninism, but to me what they did in real life, historically as a result of their theory, is more important. The Italian left communists ill fated work in Red Unions was tried in the U.S. with William Z. Foster which had the same results. That along with the rejection of the united front with "reformists" no matter what you're working on are the main tenents of Left Communism, which are mimicked by other sectarian groups such as the Spartacist league.

Bordiga led a sizable amount of people who were against Stalinism not to join the official left opposition. I do not like him for that.

[Fionnagáin]

Half a Bordiga essay doesn't really constitute "reading left communist texts" in any really meaningful sense.

[Devrim]

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

yeah you guys are probably right. It could of been the revolutionary marxist bunch and I got them mixed up somehow.

[black magick hustla]

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

trots confuse the "anti anti fascism" argument of some leftcoms with third period stalinism. ive heard tht before

[Geiseric]

trots confuse the "anti anti fascism" argument of some leftcoms with third period stalinism. ive heard tht before

Both are sectarian positions which i guess was my point

[Fionnagáin]

Both are sectarian positions which i guess was my point
What do you think "sectarianism" actually refers to? :confused:

[Geiseric]

What do you think "sectarianism" actually refers to? :confused:

I'm the context of the rise of Nazism it means denying to form a United front with working class people who voted for the SPD, and insanely marching against their demonstrations, whilst accompanied by Nazis. That's what sectarianism is.

Imagine if the Bolsheviks let the white army kill and imprison any menshevik or provisional government supporters, who are still working class, at the start of the civil war. That's sectarianism, the KPD was more concerned with their own organization than the whole working class.

[Fionnagáin]

You're jumping back and forth between two very different things, there. On the one hand, you say that sectarianism is a concern for political organisations over the working class. Fair enough. But then you flip that around and say that sectarianism is a concern for the working class over political organisations, asserting working class autonomy in opposition to alliance with the bourgeois left. How can it be both?

The answer, I think, is that it isn't both, and is in fact neither: that "sectarianism", in your hands, means one who prefers their narrow organisation to your broad organisation; their little sect to your front-of-the-week. Class only really comes into it as a rationalisation, and even then only barely, as a preferred constituency rather than as the basis for any political agency.