Bourgeois endorsing the Sawant Campaign

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

https://www.facebook.com/smallbusinessforsawant

Speaks for itself, this kinda nails the coffin on any pretenses of leftism the Sawant campaign had.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yeah why stoop to such bourgeois diversions as a city council race when the masses are assembling as we speak in Westlake Park calling for the Seattle Commune!

Oh wait those are the usual skate punks and panhandlers. Never mind.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yeah why stoop at such bourgeois diversions as a city council race when the masses are assembling as we speak in Westlake Park calling for the Seattle Commune!

Here's the problem, by rallying the support of the bourgeois in the opening days of her movement the SA is already preparing the structural flaws that will most likely lead to the social democratization of their politics, if that process hasn't already occured. It's not a matter of theological purity, I am not calling them out for having wrong historical positions or theoretical matters, I'm not even calling her demands into question, however when the bourgeois sees fit to endorse her when this will literally be the first electoral victory of the Socialist Alternative proves that there isn't a healthy orientation towards working class politics in that party

[Geiseric]

OOOHHH a big bad 75 likes. looks like we better call it quits on spreading a socialist program to thousands of people.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Sawant campaign is not appealing to the bourgeois but is making an appeal to the petit bourgeois, small business owners who are up against it.Its not a major direction of the campaign simply a FB page someone set up.

Pf course the whole campaign is a waste of time. We'd be better off orienting to the Seattle Soviet which even now is seizing Yahoo, Amazon and Boeing

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

OOOHHH a big bad 75 likes. looks like we better call it quits on spreading a socialist program to thousands of people.
But of course, the problematic aspect of this is that the "thousands of people" isn't really a large number either. The problem is that the campaign has already begun tailing the bourgeois before it is in the chance to betray the working class, a sign that this movement is fundamentally flawed.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Again, how do you define "bourgeois" ? How would you orient towards small business owners? This is a serious question.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Again, how do you define "bourgeois" ? How would you orient towards small business owners? This is a serious question.

You don't orient towards small-business owners, period. It's simple.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The Sawant campaign is not appealing to the bourgeois but is making an appeal to the petit bourgeois, small business owners who are up against it.Its not a major direction of the campaign simply a FB page someone set up.

Pf course the whole campaign is a waste of time. We'd be better off orienting to the Seattle Soviet which even now is seizing Yahoo, Amazon and Boeing

Of course when Marx wrote his 1850's address to the First International he said that it was theoretically possible for the pettie bourgeois to make a temporary alliance with the proletariat as long as the working class is in the leading role and the petty bourgeois is the subordinate. However that was over a century ago and even he took the time to emphasis how faulty of an ally they would be. That was in the context of a severe economic depression where the petty bourgeois was being proletarinized as feudalism was being dissolved. Now we have fast forwarded int 2013 where this same petty bourgeois rallied around the tea party just a couple years back and where small businesses are the worst places to work in for a proletarian, to the point where there have been some rumors of petty bourgeois firing workers just to spite obamacare.

But more importantly, the working class movement isn't even in the place to form allies yet, it hasn't taken a leading role in a revolutionary process because like you've already said, there are no soviets forming. So at this point there isn't even a question of subordinating the heavily politicized petty bourgeois because that's not a feasible task at this stage.

Presently there exists no context for electoral politics, Communism doesn't exist as a real political alternative in the U.S. We can only reach the point where electoral politics is feasible at a certain stage of "class consciousness" (to use the most awful, flawed, and problematic term in marxism) where the proletariat can use these elections tactically (though I am an abstentionist but that's not the conversation for now) and presently the working class hasn't really been given a coherent idea what they are voting for other than some promise of better wages, which is reflected in this endorsal


Again, how do you define "bourgeois" ? How would you orient towards small business owners? This is a serious question.

The bourgeois is the class which owns the means of production. The Petty bourgeois in Marx's own work are the class which do not own means of production but either hire workers or are self employed to an extent (being that they partially employ their own means of production). This distinction is flawed however because service sector selles services as commodities and this makes up most small busnesses, it's fair to say that the "small buisnesses" she is looking to get an endorsement from are probably bourgeois. To use an example to demonstrate this, a fast food joint produces a product which is sold to a consumer and therefore consists of a means of production, hence the owner of a fast food joint is bourgeois

[Le Socialiste]

But of course, the problematic aspect of this is that the "thousands of people" isn't really a large number either. The problem is that the campaign has already begun tailing the bourgeois before it is in the chance to betray the working class, a sign that this movement is fundamentally flawed.

How is it tailing the bourgeoisie, exactly? All I've seen is a Facebook page supposedly set up by some pro-Sawant small business owners. Now, whether or not the Sawant campaign is behind this move is important. If it's been created by small businesses that are supportive of the fight for $15 currently playing out in parts of the country, then I see very little harm in that. Regardless, the Sawant campaign needs to be reaching out to those most affected by this struggle, and others like it - and push these workers and their demands to the forefront of this election - not small-business owners.

Elections yield very few short-term benefits to socialists without the involvement and activity of the class it's purportedly fighting for, nor do they benefit ordinary workers who would otherwise be caught up in politics as usual. Socialists can use campaigns of this sort for a number of symbolic reasons, but they can also teach us practical lessons for organization and struggle. At the end of the day, election campaigns are most effective when they have a mass movement behind them or can emphasize working-class fightback as a means of regaining the losses experienced by working people across the board. It can even display some of the unifying aspects of what may seemingly be disparate struggles, but all these must take precedence over any catering to the petite-bourgeoisie (I'm not convinced this is what Sawant is doing, for the record).

The middle-class and small business owners will naturally vacillate between labor and the bourgeoisie depending on the state and level of struggle and the prevailing political climate. If several small businesses think getting behind the fight for $15 and Sawant's campaign is a good thing, I'm not going to fight it. Ultimately though, these elements must not be permitted to shape or otherwise influence the goals and demands of the campaign; the middle-classes can only ever play an auxiliary role.

Edit - I will say I think other aspects of your longer post are correct, though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oy. It's a local electoral campaign and so building broad support for it is part of it. The only conflict of principles question that would come into it is if trying to gain support for small business means subordinating workers issues to their issues or promising to do things for specific small businesspeople. Middle class people don't have political cooties... They often just have terrible politics.

But I also don't think it's a case of winning p. bourgeois to workers interests. At best it could be finding some progressive p to the b's who have some money to give. It does point to my larger concern with the campaign though, which is that it doesn't seem to have a concrete basis, there's no social movement behind it which would clearly gain from an election... It seems just to be built on sentiment and dissatisfaction. A social movement candidate could win an election and that validates the movement at the same time that movement gives gravity and force to the elected official. Winning on the basis of more passive dissatisfaction could leave the candidate isolated because they lack political connections or social power to enact anything and their passive dissatisfied voters will become dissatisfied by the official if they do not produce "results".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How is it tailing the bourgeoisie, exactly? All I've seen is a Facebook page supposedly set up by some pro-Sawant small business owners. Now, whether or not the Sawant campaign is behind this move is important. If it's been created by small businesses that are supportive of the fight for $15 currently playing out in parts of the country, then I see very little harm in that.


The fact that small business owners, which by the way isn't entirely inclusive of petty bourgeois but also includes bourgeois as I noted earlier, can find something to approve of in a campaign that ought to be about creating a classless, stateless society shows that there is something fundamentally wrong about the demands she is posing and the audience they are appealing to.

Regardless, the Sawant campaign needs to be reaching out to those most affected by this struggle, and others like it - and push these workers and their demands to the forefront of this election - not small-business owners.

To quote from the facebook page:


We have been hit hard by the recession. We face high rents and taxes and excessive borrowing costs while large businesses receive subsidies and tax exemptions. The regressive tax system places a higher and disproportionate burden on our small businesses. We support Kshama Sawant in her efforts to lower B & O and property taxes on our small businesses, make credit easier for us, and increase taxes and close loopholes on large businesses and corporations. Her opponent, Richard Conlin, is helping large developers and corporations while ignoring the needs of our small businesses.


Lowering property taxes for small business owners? Come on that's just plain old cross-class populism.


Elections yield very few short-term benefits to socialists without the involvement and activity of the class it's purportedly fighting for, nor do they benefit ordinary workers who would otherwise be caught up in politics as usual. Socialists can use campaigns of this sort for a number of symbolic reasons, but they can also teach us practical lessons for organization and struggle. At the end of the day, election campaigns are most effective when they have a mass movement behind them or can emphasize working-class fightback as a means of regaining the losses experienced by working people across the board. It can even display some of the unifying aspects of what may seemingly be disparate struggles, but all these must take precedence over any catering to the petite-bourgeoisie (I'm not convinced this is what Sawant is doing, for the record).


Here's the thing, there is no mass movement behind it. Yes she got some union endorsements, but only on the basis of her pro union policies. Socialist alternative didn't go to the workplace and evolve from there, it seems they want to do everything but that sort of struggle and end up there eventually.

Elections are best used tactically in consideration that they are in preparation for greater struggle. She should have demanded the dismantlement of the local surveillance infrastructure to allow for greater freedom of organization for communists. That would be a tactical goal but only an example of one when such a campaign ought to acheive many. However it seems that for her winning the election is an end to itself rather than a means to something else.


The middle-class and small business owners will naturally vacillate between labor and the bourgeoisie depending on the state and level of struggle and the prevailing political climate. If several small businesses think getting behind the fight for $15 and Sawant's campaign is a good thing, I'm not going to fight it. Ultimately though, these elements must not be permitted to shape or otherwise influence the goals and demands of the campaign; the middle-classes can only ever play an auxiliary role.

It's very doubtful that in the 21st century the petty bourgeois is capable of being an ally in a center of capitalism. We live in a very different world than marx's. After all, remember that these small buisnesses were the major pool of support for the tea party and the various right wing populist movements of our era, turn on the tv now, on fox you'll find some talk show host saying how we need to support our small businesses and how regulation is crushing them. It isn't an accident, it is because they are apparently better at class analysis than some marxists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Now we have fast forwarded int 2013 where this same petty bourgeois rallied around the tea party just a couple years back
Somehow, I don't think this is the same section of the petit bourgeoisie that supports the Tea Party.

[argeiphontes]

I don't think these efforts should be discounted, even for the propaganda value alone. Maybe communists should be everywhere instead of nowhere?

[Taters]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Social Alternative conducted their campaign in a petty bourgeois way, and now they're appealing to their real base.

[Glitchcraft]

I don't see any evidence that this is the Sawant campaign at all. It looks more like some liberal coffee shop owner that got their customers to like it. I think it's more the result of their politics actually appealing to liberal small business owners then the campaign trying to target them.

[Glitchcraft]

Again, how do you define "bourgeois" ? How would you orient towards small business owners? This is a serious question.
Well owning the means of production small or otherwise is a good place to start. Whether you orient toward them or not is less important than them endorsing you.


You don't orient towards small-business owners, period. It's simple.
For all we know some ML made the page just to have this conversation on revleft. The existence of a Facebook page with 75 likes isn't proof of anything. It's proof that their are 75 accounts that clicked the like button.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Elections are best used tactically in consideration that they are in preparation for greater struggle. She should have demanded the dismantlement of the local surveillance infrastructure to allow for greater freedom of organization for communists. That would be a tactical goal but only an example of one when such a campaign ought to acheive many. However it seems that for her winning the election is an end to itself rather than a means to something else.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=2079

First entry that came up on a Google search with the search words 'Sawant' and 'surveillance'.

Also note the -- primary -- campaign kick off at a local bar and grill.

[Creative Destruction]

this kinda nails the coffin on any pretenses of leftism the Sawant campaign had.

This is a ridiculous thing to say but also explains why there is no mass organized "leftism" in this country.

[Glitchcraft]

Speaks for itself, this kinda nails the coffin on any pretenses of leftism the Sawant campaign had.


This is a ridiculous thing to say but also explains why there is no mass organized "leftism" in this country.

"Any pretenses" might be kinda absolute and isn't quite definitive enough to be a master thesis but it's a very valid point. The idea that this statement explains why the left fails at mass organizing is far more ludicrous. I think it's good sign that most revolutionaries won't back a pro police candidate with watered down Trotskyist politics and in fact are outspoken about criticizing it. The left is not divided because we won't all follow any leftist who claims to be revolutionary. it's divided between people who see this type of thing as revolutionary and people who don't. Your saying the problem is that enough leftists don't see this as revolutionary when it isn't.

[Orange Juche]

I see this more as a bellwether of how comfortable Americans are with the idea of anti-capitalism, even if Sawant wouldn't bring that. It's looking uplifting.

[Tim Cornelis]

Either:
Bourgeoisie endorsing the Sawant Campaign
Bourgeois endorsement of Sawant Campaign
But not:
Bourgeois endorsing the Sawant Campaign

[CyM]

Either:
Bourgeoisie endorsing the Sawant Campaign
Bourgeois endorsement of Sawant Campaign
But not:
Bourgeois endorsing the Sawant Campaign

Why, you don't think the bourgeois are endorsing the Sawant campaign?

No, seriously, "bourgeois" can be a noun.

Anyways. I have my issues with the campaign, but it is ridiculous to criticize them over this. Even if the campaign was a revolutionary campaign, you are guaranteed to receive the support of significant parts of the petit bourgeois. Remember, it is not the "center" which can appeal to them (there is no such thing), it is a decisive programme to solve their problems. What are their problems? Unfair taxation in comparison to the monopolies? Sure. High debts and usurious rates from the banks? Yep. The cartels which grind them down? Definitely.

Would a socialist government not lower the taxes of everyone but the large bourgeois? Of course we would! Wouldn't nationalization of the banks lead to loans on better terms for the small petty bourgeois? Definitely! Wouldn't expropriation of the big industries lower the costs of transport, resources etc for them?

The way to win the pb is to carry out a thorough revolutionary programme to destroy the big bourgeois. The support of the pb, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. With a proper programme it is in fact a good thing. We should be targeting them, just not as our main focus. Remember, the bolsheviks targeted the pb by stealing the peasant programme of the SR, who were refusing to apply it, and carrying it out. Yes, the peasantry are petty bourgeois.

And finally, oh no! They launched their campaign at a bar and grill! Where the fuck else would you launch a municipal campaign?

[RedHal]

listen to any of Sawant's talks on youtube, they don't hide trying to appeal to the petty bourgeois elements, "relieve the burden of workers and small business owners" is often spoken.

No different than Alan Woods who makes sure not to frighten off small business owners but ensuring that small business' would not be touched during a revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why, you don't think the bourgeois are endorsing the Sawant campaign?

No, seriously, "bourgeois" can be a noun.

Only as a singular, e.g.: 'a bourgeois endorsing the Sawant campaign.' So it's always 'you don't think the bourgeoisie is endorsing the Sawant campaign' or 'you don't think this bourgeois is endorsing the Sawant campaign'.

[argeiphontes]

The support of the pb, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

We should remember that many small businesses are mom-and-pop operations or personal service companies that don't even hire anyone. Small business people generally put in lots of hard work themselves. Some form LLCs or personal service corporations mainly to protect themselves from legal liability or to appear more professional.

More importantly, many people are small business owners because it's less alienating than being a wage slave. Sometimes, it's lack of other opportunities, too. Check out the growth of crafts that are sold on websites like etsy (http://www.etsy.com/) and merchants on amazon and ebay selling in the secondary market.

Those people aren't enemies, certainly not at this point in our little project. It's a little early to be deciding who will and will not side with the revolution, other than the rich and the corporations.

[International_Solidarity]

Oh, so this campaign is perfect?
Oh, it has problems? I guess Ill just sit back and wait for the perfect Socialist campaign. Even if it doesn't happen until the fucking 34th century, we can't have any socialism if it isn't exactly perfectly executed.
That makes perfect sense, right?
Or maybe you should stop complaining and realize that this is simply a small transitional advance for the people of Seattle and that if Socialists gain support in Seattle than we can possibly gain more support across the country, and then we can actually have the mass movement across the nation and the globe that we have been wanting.

Or you can sit back comfortably and nitpick every little thing about every Socialist upheaval in the country and watch as Capitalism happily retains it's seat of power.

[Skyhilist]

This is whatever... not really something worth bickering over.
The fact that we entertain ourselves by debating over some city council seat in online forums unfortunately seems to be a microcosm of what the communist movement is at the moment though I guess.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

We should remember that many small businesses are mom-and-pop operations or personal service companies that don't even hire anyone. Small business people generally put in lots of hard work themselves. Some form LLCs or personal service corporations mainly to protect themselves from legal liability or to appear more professional.

More importantly, many people are small business owners because it's less alienating than being a wage slave. Sometimes, it's lack of other opportunities, too. Check out the growth of crafts that are sold on websites like etsy (http://www.etsy.com/) and merchants on amazon and ebay selling in the secondary market.

Those people aren't enemies, certainly not at this point in our little project. It's a little early to be deciding who will and will not side with the revolution, other than the rich and the corporations.

Mom-and-pop fuckwits are the sort of impudent little shits that start crying when their windows are smashed in the tumult of an uprising, the sort of little swine that cry to the police for order and discipline and a 'reasonable discussion' rather than forceful action, the sort of vile toxin that pollutes the world with their reserved moral conservatism, the sort of flippant maggots that will support whoever serve their interest - and their interest is for ever incompatible with any true revolution and revolutionary spirit.

Your talk of "corporations" betray hints of a world-view marred by American liberal stereotypes.

brb getting café au lait at a cafeteria crowded with hipsters doing screenplays of sexist telly serials down the street while handing out some daft leaflets promoting higher minimum wages, doing my part to crush the cappies, selling some shitty magazines

[Hermes]

Or maybe you should stop complaining and realize that this is simply a small transitional advance for the people of Seattle and that if Socialists gain support in Seattle than we can possibly gain more support across the country, and then we can actually have the mass movement across the nation and the globe that we have been wanting.


What exactly is this campaign 'transitional' to? An independent Seattle breaking away from the U.S. and initiating SioC?

How does Sawant winning in Seattle bring us any closer to 'more support across the country...' or a 'mass movement across the nation and the globe'? And support for what, a mass movement for what? For what Sawant is currently running for? Because that's not 'Socialism' any more than Sweden is 'Socialist' or Obama is 'Socialist' or healthcare is 'Socialist'.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[Crux]

What exactly is this campaign 'transitional' to? An independent Seattle breaking away from the U.S. and initiating SioC?

How does Sawant winning in Seattle bring us any closer to 'more support across the country...' or a 'mass movement across the nation and the globe'? And support for what, a mass movement for what? For what Sawant is currently running for? Because that's not 'Socialism' any more than Sweden is 'Socialist' or Obama is 'Socialist' or healthcare is 'Socialist'.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Tell me more about how Sweden corresponds to Sawants campaign program.

[Hermes]

Tell me more about how Sweden corresponds to Sawants campaign program.

It doesn't.

I'm talking about the rhetoric used to define 'Socialism', and what it actually means. Likewise, I'm not saying that Obama's trying to do anything that Sweden is, or that Obama is, in fact, doing the same thing that Sawant is.

Apologies if there was a misunderstanding.

[Creative Destruction]

"Any pretenses" might be kinda absolute and isn't quite definitive enough to be a master thesis but it's a very valid point. The idea that this statement explains why the left fails at mass organizing is far more ludicrous. I think it's good sign that most revolutionaries won't back a pro police candidate with watered down Trotskyist politics and in fact are outspoken about criticizing it. The left is not divided because we won't all follow any leftist who claims to be revolutionary. it's divided between people who see this type of thing as revolutionary and people who don't. Your saying the problem is that enough leftists don't see this as revolutionary when it isn't.

That is not what I said. Appreciate it if you back the fuck up and not stick words in my mouth.

Sawant's campaign isn't revolutionary. It never was and it never had the pretense of being revolutionary. This country is not in a state where revolution is appropriate. What Sawant can end up doing is laying the groundwork, which it seems she is. Unfortunately, with how employment is nowadays, that means having to appeal to the petit bourgeois. But what dominates her campaign is speaking out about working class issues. That is extremely important. Why I said that the OP explains why there is no mass leftist movement is because it is that kind of astringency that will prevent the ability of a mass movement to come to fruition. It signals that "revolutionaries" are more interested in circle jerking around theory rather than getting into action and laying the ground to a revolutionary time.

Have at it. I'm not interested. I hope Sawant wins and the other SA campaigns are successful. The left needs it right now.

[argeiphontes]

Mom-and-pop fuckwits are the sort of impudent little shits that start crying when their windows are smashed in the tumult of an uprising, the sort of little swine that cry to the police for order and discipline and a 'reasonable discussion' rather than forceful action, the sort of vile toxin that pollutes the world with their reserved moral conservatism, the sort of flippant maggots that will support whoever serve their interest - and their interest is for ever incompatible with any true revolution and revolutionary spirit.

Your talk of "corporations" betray hints of a world-view marred by American liberal stereotypes.

brb getting café au lait at a cafeteria crowded with hipsters doing screenplays of sexist telly serials down the street while handing out some daft leaflets promoting higher minimum wages, doing my part to crush the cappies, selling some shitty magazines

Well, I guess that's the definitive class analysis right there. It certainly says more than I could ever say.

[Tim Cornelis]

What exactly is this campaign 'transitional' to? An independent Seattle breaking away from the U.S. and initiating SioC?

How does Sawant winning in Seattle bring us any closer to 'more support across the country...' or a 'mass movement across the nation and the globe'? And support for what, a mass movement for what? For what Sawant is currently running for? Because that's not 'Socialism' any more than Sweden is 'Socialist' or Obama is 'Socialist' or healthcare is 'Socialist'.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I saw some demonstration or strike action demanding minimum wage in this relation. If a socialist party captures this sentiment and is allowed leadership over such movements then it can gain ideological hegemony over it. The precondition for this is that such demonstrations and strike actions are relatively common, with a broad appeal. Moreover, if there's an assertive working class willing to undertake action in its interests then this allows socialists to permeate their ideology into a working class movement, a movement which now doesn't exist. Those demands are a means to a working class movement, possibly with some socialist sympathies.

[CyM]

Listen, I'm not with Socialist Alternative, and I have serious disagreements with their methods. I do have problems with the Sawant campaign. I am merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to choose this as your point of disagreement. A good revolutionary campaign would still be able to win the majority of the lower petty bourgeoisie to our side, neutralize the middle petty bourgeois, and paralyze the upper petty bourgeois so they can't get enough support to act on their hostility.

The lower petty bourgeois should actively support us, the middle should abstain more or less, and the tops should be an impotent opposition.

We have no interest in nationalizing the mom and pop shops. No need to. A socialist revolution should offer them a better life as petty bourgeois, while providing an economic advantage to quitting that class and having their debts forgiven if they voluntarily collectivize. If being a worker is more stable better income, it should be easy to abolish the pb within a generation without force. The stalinist idea of collectivisation by force of the middle layers is lunacy, and when it was done it caused absolute chaos and mass starvation.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

We have no interest in nationalizing the mom and pop shops. No need to. A socialist revolution should offer them a better life as petty bourgeois,

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

~Karl Marx

The petty bourgeois is a great enemy of the working class, and is incompatible with proletarian revolution. There's no phase that we can call socialism where they co-exist, as long as there is rule of capital there is no socialism, hence Communists and Petty bourgeois are sworn enemies.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Listen, I'm not with Socialist Appeal, and I have serious disagreements with their methods. I do have problems with the Sawant campaign. I am merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to choose this as your point of disagreement. A good revolutionary campaign would still be able to win the majority of the lower petty bourgeoisie to our side, neutralize the middle petty bourgeois, and paralyze the upper petty bourgeois so they can't get enough support to act on their hostility.

The lower petty bourgeois should actively support us, the middle should abstain more or less, and the tops should be an impotent opposition.

We have no interest in nationalizing the mom and pop shops. No need to. A socialist revolution should offer them a better life as petty bourgeois, while providing an economic advantage to quitting that class and having their debts forgiven if they voluntarily collectivize. If being a worker is more stable better income, it should be easy to abolish the pb within a generation without force. The stalinist idea of collectivisation by force of the middle layers is lunacy, and when it was done it caused absolute chaos and mass starvation.

There's no interest in winning any electoral campaigns. While certain campaigns might be worth it from a point such as accentuating contradictions in capitalism, making capitalism unstable, as well as campaigns for publicity's sake, no attempt ought to be made to win any sort of office or partake in capitalist administration on any level.

The main point is that, while it is no interest as-such to alienate the petit-bourgeoisie, or the 'lower' such - whatever the fuck that is - there is also no interest whatsoever in swaying their support in our favour. We do not want them, we do not represent their interest. They might under some circumstances side with socialism insofar as their interests happen to be shared therewith, but socialism is not about pandering to capitalists.

Yes, we will take their stores from them. They will not own their properties any longer, and they will not make money any more. Insofar as they disagree with this, they shall face no mercy nor leniency, hangers-on to the ancient regieme as they are. And what we want is socialisation, not nationalisation, the transformation of all management and ownership. There will be no blood arse-kissing of the petit-bourgeois. The lack of peasants in the industrial world makes socialisation of farming a very easy thing (and majority of those family farms that remain are not economically solvent in the absence of state support), but that's a another issue.

[Hermes]

I saw some demonstration or strike action demanding minimum wage in this relation. If a socialist party captures this sentiment and is allowed leadership over such movements then it can gain ideological hegemony over it.

Do you have any proof for this, specifically that Sawant campaigning for a higher minimum wage will make people support socialism, or even that Sawant winning and somehow enacting that would make people support socialism?

I'm not arguing against a higher minimum wage, necessarily. I'm arguing that it's not revolutionary, and won't suddenly evolve into revolutionary sentiment if it's achieved.


Moreover, if there's an assertive working class willing to undertake action in its interests then this allows socialists to permeate their ideology into a working class movement, a movement which now doesn't exist. Those demands are a means to a working class movement, possibly with some socialist sympathies.

How does Sawant getting elected and enacting reforms increase class consciousness?

[Brotto Rühle]

It seems that a lot of people here believe revolution is brought about by those outside of the class. That, the class itself must be liberated...by someone on the outside...a lot of emphasis I see is given to that notion. The view of "Look, her message is great, even if she can't get it done! it means that people are anti-capitalist!!!!!"no, it doesn't... and that's not what Marxists should be saying, nor Anarchists. We should be saying "Fuck the Sawant campaign, fuck the petit-bourgeois electoral reformism it promotes. We need direct mass action of the CLASS!"

[Taters]

I see this more as a bellwether of how comfortable Americans are with the idea of anti-capitalism, even if Sawant wouldn't bring that. It's looking uplifting.

Hardly. Reading the page's description, it's more about restraining "big" capitalists, so the "small" capitalists can flourish. Doesn't sound particularly anti-capitalist to me, more like bog standard liberalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you have any proof for this, specifically that Sawant campaigning for a higher minimum wage will make people support socialism, or even that Sawant winning and somehow enacting that would make people support socialism?

Proof? What does that even mean? Empirically verifiable? What makes people support socialism? Whenever we look at leftist mass movements we see they gained mass support by fighting for short-term demands and interests, that improve their lives. If you tie the struggle for such demands to a wider class struggle then it can create momentum for socialist thought. Of course, this presupposes grassroots involvement of socialist activists in the wider working class movement.


I'm not arguing against a higher minimum wage, necessarily. I'm arguing that it's not revolutionary, and won't suddenly evolve into revolutionary sentiment if it's achieved.

Of course it's not "revolutionary"! Nothing is unless we are in a revolutionary situation. But what do you propose, then, that we sit on our arses waiting for this revolutionary situation to arise and only then act because all else is non-revolutionary?

What the Landless Workers' Movement does is not revolutionary, or the Abahlali baseMjondolo, or the CNT-AIT, or SAC, or whatever moment in any part of the world.


How does Sawant getting elected and enacting reforms increase class consciousness?

The momentum is gained through street-level activism and organising, the reforms being enacted would be the victory solidifying this momentum and creating an urge for more (as we see the small-scale victories of SeaSol, for instance, leads to a momentum for more of the same).
A victory would perhaps rehabilitate something remotely resembling a working class movement, a movement which is an absolute requirement for socialism.

[Creative Destruction]

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

~Karl Marx

The petty bourgeois is a great enemy of the working class, and is incompatible with proletarian revolution. There's no phase that we can call socialism where they co-exist, as long as there is rule of capital there is no socialism, hence Communists and Petty bourgeois are sworn enemies.

Good fucking lord.

It depends on how the petty bourgeois react with regard to socializing their property in the event of a revolution. Workers inside a worker co-operative could be considered petty bourgeois because they privately own capital and fully participate in the market system. If they are socialists, are they also class enemies? What about Engels? The man was a capitalist partner in a milling firm. Is he an enemy of the Communists?

This stupid fucking intransigent "class enemy" crap really has to go when it comes to talking about petty bourgeois and their interests in revolution. Some may have been forced into their position for no other reason than they needed employment. The class divisions exist today and the best thing to do is to make a practical determination as to whether their interests lie in a socialist society. If they do, great, then they should be able to help without being labelled as enemies. If they're not, then fine. They're in opposition.

This black/white division is childish shit, though. People have to deal with their material conditions -- and I can't believe I have to remind a fucking communist about that -- and the material conditions in our society compel any socialist looking to make any electoral headway (or any political headway for that matter) to not automatically put down people who are not working class if their sympathies align with our interest.

[argeiphontes]

If worker cooperatives were seen as a realistic alternative, people could be forming those instead of small-scale capitalist enterprises. There's a reason people start businesses, because it's a practical alternative that lets you own the whole profit of your labor without being subservient to a boss, and lets you practice your own initiative and creativity in a nonalienated way. It's what I would choose for myself while being forced to live in capitalism. When communism becomes such a realistic alternative, then we'll have our revolution.

[Creative Destruction]

If worker cooperatives were seen as a realistic alternative, people could be forming those instead of small-scale capitalist enterprises. There's a reason people start businesses, because it's a practical alternative that lets you own the whole profit of your labor without being subservient to a boss, and lets you practice your own initiative and creativity in a nonalienated way. It's what I would choose for myself while being forced to live in capitalism. When communism becomes such a realistic alternative, then we'll have our revolution.

Sure, under a capitalist system, a worker cooperative or collective are preferable to the, frankly, fascist structures of the modern company. But just them being cooperatives doesn't, by virtue, make them socialist. The means of production aren't commonly owned and they still have capitalist economic relations, especially with selling/marketing their product on the market for profit (insofar as there is profit in coops) rather than for need. I think that you still have to run the cooperative for profit (because otherwise it could not exist), rather than the need for all, is still alienating. Still, the workers in this business -- and it is a business so long as there is capitalism -- own the capital. They are, I'd say, petit bourgeois. But many of these workers are socialist, too. There's no reason to call them "enemies" like the poster did before.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It seems that a lot of people here believe revolution is brought about by those outside of the class. That, the class itself must be liberated...by someone on the outside...a lot of emphasis I see is given to that notion. The view of "Look, her message is great, even if she can't get it done! it means that people are anti-capitalist!!!!!"no, it doesn't... and that's not what Marxists should be saying, nor Anarchists. We should be saying "Fuck the Sawant campaign, fuck the petit-bourgeois electoral reformism it promotes. We need direct mass action of the CLASS!"
I'm not sure your analysis of the situation is accurate. There was and still is a mass working class movement of Walmart and fast food workers demanding an increased minimum wage. SA promoted this demand as part of their electoral policies. There's large discontent with tax decreases for the richest and tax loopholes that only the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie can take advantage of. SA expressed this discontent through Sawant's electoral policies. This isn't external forces demanding the working class do what they say and support what they say, this is people who are working class promoting and spreading the demands of the working class.

If you've been asleep for the past three years, I'd maybe forgive you missing the 'mass action of the class' where workers in over 60 US cities went on strike and picketed outside their places of work (McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos etc) demanding higher wages and the right to unionise. Sorry this isn't 'mass' enough for you. Sorry some elements of the petty bourgeoisie agree with the goals of these workers enough to support an electoral platform that supports these goals. Sorry the working class aren't demanding workers councils, right? :rolleyes:

[argeiphontes]

Sure, under a capitalist system, a worker cooperative or collective are preferable to the, frankly, fascist structures of the modern company. But just them being cooperatives doesn't, by virtue, make them socialist.

I don't see them as a final state or anything, just a step in the right direction, that is realistic and can be supported now, in the society we have been given. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." (Like with regards to this election campaign, too.)

[Brotto Rühle]

I'm not sure your analysis of the situation is accurate. There was and still is a mass working class movement of Walmart and fast food workers demanding an increased minimum wage. SA promoted this demand as part of their electoral policies. There's large discontent with tax decreases for the richest and tax loopholes that only the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie can take advantage of. SA expressed this discontent through Sawant's electoral policies. This isn't external forces demanding the working class do what they say and support what they say, this is people who are working class promoting and spreading the demands of the working class.

If you've been asleep for the past three years, I'd maybe forgive you missing the 'mass action of the class' where workers in over 60 US cities went on strike and picketed outside their places of work (McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos etc) demanding higher wages and the right to unionise. Sorry this isn't 'mass' enough for you. Sorry some elements of the petty bourgeoisie agree with the goals of these workers enough to support an electoral platform that supports these goals. Sorry the working class aren't demanding workers councils, right? :rolleyes:

Are you equating what these workers are doing with Sawant running for a council seat?

[Five Year Plan]

The way to win the pb is to carry out a thorough revolutionary programme to destroy the big bourgeois. The support of the pb, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. With a proper programme it is in fact a good thing. We should be targeting them, just not as our main focus. Remember, the bolsheviks targeted the pb by stealing the peasant programme of the SR, who were refusing to apply it, and carrying it out. Yes, the peasantry are petty bourgeois.

I think the point is that if you are openly tailoring your demands around attracting non-workers like the petty bourgeoisie into your movement, you are watering down program and objectively working to build a functionally reformist organization. If you don't try to recruit or attract people on the basis of an explicitly revolutionary program by interweaving minimum demands with transitional and maximum slogans intended to innovate the struggle against capitalism, what hope do you think the group you're building has of pursuing those farther reaching demands when a potentially revolutionary situation appears? The second you suggest stepping beyond beautifying and repairing capitalism through minimal reforms, your coalition will splinter, with reformist workers and large segments of the pb fleeing in horror. You'll be back to square one. That's the problem with tailing. You can get all kinds of people in motion, but that doesn't mean anything in the absence of persuasion and concrete demands bridging those reforms to revolution. This was an important message found in Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution, Trotsky's Transitional Program, and Lenin's What Is To Be Done?

[Thirsty Crow]

Speaking of tailing, it is the factions of the ruling class that need to be forced into tailing the struggle and initiative of the working class through reformism-from-above (as opposed to the formation of alleged workers' parties on broad platforms which aim at bourgeois state power and reforms). Within this context, the role of the revolutionary organization simply needs to be conceived in a realistic and modest way - it simply cannot "innovate" class struggle, no matter the intricacy of the slogans and proposed demands.What it can do is, among other things, to clearly assess the parties which would act in the way I described as anti-worker to the bone.

[CyM]

I think the point is that if you are openly tailoring your demands around attracting non-workers like the petty bourgeoisie into your movement, you are watering down program and objectively working to build a functionally reformist organization. If you don't try to recruit or attract people on the basis of an explicitly revolutionary program by interweaving minimum demands with transitional and maximum slogans intended to innovate the struggle against capitalism, what hope do you think the group you're building has of pursuing those farther reaching demands when a potentially revolutionary situation appears? The second you suggest stepping beyond beautifying and repairing capitalism through minimal reforms, your coalition will splinter, with reformist workers and large segments of the pb fleeing in horror. You'll be back to square one. That's the problem with tailing. You can get all kinds of people in motion, but that doesn't mean anything in the absence of persuasion and concrete demands bridging those reforms to revolution. This was an important message found in Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution, Trotsky's Transitional Program, and Lenin's What Is To Be Done?
Reread the Transitional Programme, comrade.

Particularly the section titled "the alliance of the workers and farmers":

"The peasants (farmers) represent another class: they are the petty bourgeoisie of the village. The petty bourgeoisie is made up of various layers, from the semi-proletarian to the exploiter elements. In accordance with this, the political task of the industrial proletariat is to carry the class struggle into the country. Only thus will he be able to draw a dividing line between his allies and his enemies.

The peculiarities of national development of each country find their queerest expression in the status of farmers and, to some extent, of the urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans and shopkeepers). These classes, no matter how numerically strong they may be, essentially are representative survivals of pre-capitalist forms of production. The sections of the Fourth International should work out with all possible concreteness a program of transitional demands concerning the peasants (farmers) and urban petty bourgeoisie, in conformity with the conditions of each country. The advanced workers should learn to give clear and concrete answers to the questions put by their future allies.

While the farmer remains an “independent” petty producer he is in need of cheap credit, of agricultural machines and fertilizer at prices he can afford to pay, favorable conditions of transport, and conscientious organization of the market for his agricultural products. But the banks, the trusts, the merchants rob the farmer from every side. Only the farmers themselves with the help of the workers can curb this robbery. Committees elected by small farmers should make their appearance on the national scene and jointly with the workers’ committees and committees of bank employees take into their hands control of transport, credit, and mercantile operations affecting agriculture.

By falsely citing the “excessive” demands of the workers the big bourgeoisie skillfully transforms the question of commodity prices into a wedge to be driven between the workers and farmers and between the workers and the petty bourgeoisie of the cities. The peasant, artisan, small merchant, unlike the industrial worker, office and civil service employee, cannot demand a wage increase corresponding to the increase in prices. The official struggle of the government with high prices is only a deception of the masses. But the farmers, artisans, merchants, in their capacity of consumers, can step into the politics of price-fixing shoulder to shoulder with the workers. To the capitalist’s lamentations about costs of production, of transport and trade, the consumers answer: “Show us your books; we demand control over the fixing of prices.” The organs of this control should be the committees on prices, made up of delegates from the factories, trade unions, cooperatives, farmers’ organizations, the “little man” of the city, housewives, etc. By this means the workers will be able to prove to the farmers that the real reason for high prices is not high wages but the exorbitant profits of the capitalists and the overhead expenses of capitalist anarchy."

[Five Year Plan]

Reread the Transitional Programme, comrade.

Particularly the section titled "the alliance of the workers and farmers":

"The peasants (farmers) represent another class: they are the petty bourgeoisie of the village. The petty bourgeoisie is made up of various layers, from the semi-proletarian to the exploiter elements. In accordance with this, the political task of the industrial proletariat is to carry the class struggle into the country. Only thus will he be able to draw a dividing line between his allies and his enemies.

The peculiarities of national development of each country find their queerest expression in the status of farmers and, to some extent, of the urban petty bourgeoisie (artisans and shopkeepers). These classes, no matter how numerically strong they may be, essentially are representative survivals of pre-capitalist forms of production. The sections of the Fourth International should work out with all possible concreteness a program of transitional demands concerning the peasants (farmers) and urban petty bourgeoisie, in conformity with the conditions of each country. The advanced workers should learn to give clear and concrete answers to the questions put by their future allies.

While the farmer remains an “independent” petty producer he is in need of cheap credit, of agricultural machines and fertilizer at prices he can afford to pay, favorable conditions of transport, and conscientious organization of the market for his agricultural products. But the banks, the trusts, the merchants rob the farmer from every side. Only the farmers themselves with the help of the workers can curb this robbery. Committees elected by small farmers should make their appearance on the national scene and jointly with the workers’ committees and committees of bank employees take into their hands control of transport, credit, and mercantile operations affecting agriculture.

By falsely citing the “excessive” demands of the workers the big bourgeoisie skillfully transforms the question of commodity prices into a wedge to be driven between the workers and farmers and between the workers and the petty bourgeoisie of the cities. The peasant, artisan, small merchant, unlike the industrial worker, office and civil service employee, cannot demand a wage increase corresponding to the increase in prices. The official struggle of the government with high prices is only a deception of the masses. But the farmers, artisans, merchants, in their capacity of consumers, can step into the politics of price-fixing shoulder to shoulder with the workers. To the capitalist’s lamentations about costs of production, of transport and trade, the consumers answer: “Show us your books; we demand control over the fixing of prices.” The organs of this control should be the committees on prices, made up of delegates from the factories, trade unions, cooperatives, farmers’ organizations, the “little man” of the city, housewives, etc. By this means the workers will be able to prove to the farmers that the real reason for high prices is not high wages but the exorbitant profits of the capitalists and the overhead expenses of capitalist anarchy."

Thanks, comrade. I've read the TP many times. In light of how quick you are to pick out quotes from it, I find it strange that you don't seem to understand what your quotes are saying. Here Trotsky is talking about winning segments of the petty bourgeoisie to a program of transitional demands because of the numerical importance of those segments of the population in underdeveloped countries creating a need for the proletariat to ally with them under a workers' state. Note this passage in particular: "The sections of the Fourth International should work out with all possible concreteness a program of transitional demands concerning the peasants (farmers) and urban petty bourgeoisie, in conformity with the conditions of each country." Remind me again how many peasants are there in the United States, or explain how many small shopkeepers or restauranteurs the workers will need to have in alliance in order to take power.

The nature of the program's relationship to capitalism comes first for Trotsky, always. And a program of transitional demands consists of measures which undermine the very foundations of property relations and are objectively anti-capitalist. Constructing transitional demands to bring the occasional discontented pb into the movement is a far cry from trying to tailor your program not around objectively undermining capitalist property relations, but around just trying to attract the maximum number of people interested in "reforms" into your movement regardless of their class background by omitting any indications of striving toward socialism.

Are there any other sections of the TP that you think I'm not reading that you would like clarification on?

[Per Levy]

Remember, the bolsheviks targeted the pb by stealing the peasant programme of the SR, who were refusing to apply it, and carrying it out. Yes, the peasantry are petty bourgeois.

ok and where is the peasantry in the usa? oh yeah none exiting. the bolsheviks won, not the landowners, not the buisness owners but the poor peasantry who didnt own shit. this analogy just doesnt work because russia then was in a much different situation than the usa today.

[Creative Destruction]

ok and where is the peasantry in the usa?

The farmworkers who live on barely subsistence labor wages and are often exploited because many do not hold legal citizen status in the country, for one. That's a low level of peasantry. There were also many family farms that barely scraped by yet farmed lots of acres. Many of those folks lost their farms in the 80s or significantly downsized. The family farms that do survive exist primarily on subsidies and credit nowadays.

[baronci]

The Kshama Sawant campaign is unquestionably bourgeois, as it seeks to work within the bounds of the state in order to achieve things which are entirely compatible with the capitalist mode of production. The liberals endorsing the campaign will probably tell you that it's just being done to "raise consciousness" but in reality the campaign is not promoting communism at all, but rather European-styled social democracy aka "socialism".

and lol @ the people saying that the petit-bourgeoisie follows along with the communist revolution. You should all know that the petit-bourgeoisie is the most reactionary of the classes; the class responsible for conservativism and fascism in the 20th century and the present day. They cannot be communist, it's entirely against their class interests.


The farmworkers who live on barely subsistence labor wages and are often exploited because many do not hold legal citizen status in the country, for one.

Impoverished American farmers can hardly be called "peasants" as they don't make up a significant portion of the population at all; either in size or relation to production

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't understand why any of this is controversial. SA are running a candidate on a reformist platform. I don't think anyone would dispute that (or, at least, I hope not). It's a bit interesting, since it's not a thing that's typically successful even in-and-of-itself in the states, but, what, are we going to have a fight about Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) next?

To be fair, I get how this is different, because Sawant is running with some demands (eg the minimum wage thing) that have emerged "organically" from the working class. But, like, let's talk about that, since that's what gives rise to these situation. Reading this thread, you'd think she was going to start wagging the dog or something.

[baronci]

I don't understand why any of this is controversial. SA are running a candidate on a reformist platform. I don't think anyone would dispute that (or, at least, I hope not). It's a bit interesting, since it's not a thing that's typically successful even in-and-of-itself in the states, but, what, are we going to have a fight about Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) next?

Well the group she is aligned with is nominally Marxist and considers itself part of Lenin and Trotsky's political line, so that alone suggests there is controversy over the campaign's political character.

[Per Levy]

The farmworkers who live on barely subsistence labor wages and are often exploited because many do not hold legal citizen status in the country, for one. That's a low level of peasantry.

farmworkers arnt peasants, they are workers who happen to work on farms.


There were also many family farms that barely scraped by yet farmed lots of acres. Many of those folks lost their farms in the 80s or significantly downsized. The family farms that do survive exist primarily on subsidies and credit nowadays.

and they are also not peasants, they are farmowners, farmers whatever you want but not peasants. there is no peasantry in the usa.

[synthesis]

Remember, the bolsheviks targeted the pb by stealing the peasant programme of the SR, who were refusing to apply it, and carrying it out. Yes, the peasantry are petty bourgeois.

What? The peasantry is its own class. It's the working class of the feudal mode of production. It's certainly true that many people who are called peasants today would actually be petty bourgeois, but that's because they own their land - the crucial distinction.


Workers inside a worker co-operative could be considered petty bourgeois because they privately own capital and fully participate in the market system.

I have a really stupid question that I'm sure there's an obvious answer to, but I just can't think of it right now and this seemed to be a good excuse to ask it. I'm not asking you specifically, it's just that the quote above reminded me of it and it didn't seem like it deserved its own thread. If there's not actually an obvious answer (which I'm certain there is) then I'll start a new thread in the Learning forum.

If there's a socialist revolution, and the proletariat becomes the ruling class - and therefore not exploited for our labor - then aren't we by definition not proletarian any more, if the proletariat is defined as the class exploited for its labor? (Past the feudal mode, I mean.) How could it be called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" if this is the case? If we're not being exploited, wouldn't that make us petty-bourgeois? It seems kind of self-contradictory.

[Creative Destruction]

The Kshama Sawant campaign is unquestionably bourgeois, as it seeks to work within the bounds of the state in order to achieve things which are entirely compatible with the capitalist mode of production. The liberals endorsing the campaign will probably tell you that it's just being done to "raise consciousness" but in reality the campaign is not promoting communism at all, but rather European-styled social democracy aka "socialism".

Any campaign that has any practical use is going to be bourgeois. No one is calling Sawant's campaign revolutionary. That's a strawman.


and lol @ the people saying that the petit-bourgeoisie follows along with the communist revolution. You should all know that the petit-bourgeoisie is the most reactionary of the classes; the class responsible for conservativism and fascism in the 20th century and the present day. They cannot be communist, it's entirely against their class interests.

You need to stop with the revisionist history. The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century than anyone else. You forget that fascism and Naziism were movements made up of the dispossessed working class. The American working class is one of the most reactionary and conservative in the world.

Just stop. You need to recognize the actual reality we live in. Otherwise, you're going to go no where.


Impoverished American farmers can hardly be called "peasants" as they don't make up a significant portion of the population at all; either in size or relation to production

Oh yeah? Tell me the threshold in which impoverished farmers stop becoming impoverish farmers and then become, magically, peasants. Where is that line?

[Creative Destruction]

farmworkers arnt peasants, they are workers who happen to work on farms.

and they are also not peasants, they are farmowners, farmers whatever you want but not peasants. there is no peasantry in the usa.

Then what is a "peasant"?

[synthesis]

Oh yeah? Tell me the threshold in which impoverished farmers stop becoming impoverish farmers and then become, magically, peasants. Where is that line?

Whether or not they own the means of production. I'm not sure why this is such a point of controversy - it seems like people place agriculture in some mystical field of its own where Marxist class rules don't apply.

[Creative Destruction]

Whether or not they own the means of production. I'm not sure why this is such a point of controversy - it seems like people place agriculture in some mystical field of its own where Marxist class rules don't apply.

If farm laborers are excluded from the definition of a peasant (which, fine, I'll take) and use yours, then the previous poster's point is still wrong. Small holding family farms exist, and many exist at some pretty impoverished levels. I doubt most people in this thread have actually lived on or near a farm or know what its like, especially in this country. Like I said before, many family farms exist only because of subsidies and credit and barely at that. But they own the means of production. We have a peasant class in this country and it's a prime one for radicalization. Is industrial agriculture starting to put the nail in their coffins? Yeah. Automation may actually do them in. But you can't deny that they don't exist. That's absurd. They are trying to make a come-back and the explosion of the popularity of farmers markets attest to that.

Would they allow their land to be collectivized and merged with industry, like Marx suggests in the Manifesto? Hard to say. It's the fault of leftists for not finding out and trying to radicalize the countryside. Not the fault of the farmers themselves.

As an aside, this is what also gets me about this stupid, childish bullshit about them being "enemies." These soft-footed keyboard Kommunists wouldn't even begin to try and go and do the hard work of reaching out to them. They're for the wolves, as it were, but it's mostly to the left's -- the revolutionary left's -- detriment.

[synthesis]

We have a peasant class in this country and it's a prime one for radicalization.

Can you give me one concrete example of one person in the industrialized West who could actually be considered a peasant in Marxist terminology? Once the feudal mode of production is gone, there's no more peasantry.

And with regards to the petite-bourgeoisie, I don't think it's necessary to keep some kind of ledger that tells us who's who so we can put them in camps or whatever, but it's a huge mistake for a Marxist to pander to them the way these folks are doing in Washington state. If they want to get on board with working class politics, that's great, but class collaboration was the worst and most destructive sin of 20th century Marxists.

Finally, someone's material conditions has no direct bearing on their relationship to the means of production.

[Dabrowski]

It's not a crime against the working class to be supported by this or that petit bourgeois or even bourgeois individual or faction. Indeed it would be a typical sectarian error to forswear any and all such support on "principle." Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat could actually offer a better, more secure life for the vast majority of small business owners, so long as they are willing to take orders from the workers government, obey the workers' laws, and don't get involved in counterrevolutionary activity.

But the question is, what are these liberal coffee shop owners supporting in the Sawant campaign? A liberal coffee shop candidate, misleadingly advertised as some sort of socialist. A vote for SAlt is a vote for imperialist war propaganda against North Korea and a vote for cop and prison guard "unions." That's a liberal, anti-working-class program.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat could actually offer a better, more secure life for the vast majority of small business owners, so long as they are willing to take orders from the workers government, obey the workers' laws, and don't get involved in counterrevolutionary activity.
And so long as they give up their businesses and property!

[Dabrowski]

And so long as they give up their businesses and property!

In the long run, yes. But what the workers need to expropriate in order to break the power of the bourgeoisie and institute a planned economy are the "commanding heights" of the economy -- the mega banks and corporations. It would be a pointless inconvenience to immediately "expropriate" every hairdresser, auto repair shop, pizza joint, etc. So long as the owners obey the new soviet laws (which would doubtlessly include much higher wages, better working conditions, no interference with workers unionizing, etc.), why not leave them in peace and let them run their little shops until they happily die off, or until they can be gradually and voluntarily merged into collective and socialized production?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In the long run, yes. But what the workers need to expropriate in order to break the power of the bourgeoisie and institute a planned economy are the "commanding heights" of the economy -- the mega banks and corporations.
No, what workers need to do is smash capitalist relations at every level.


It would be a pointless inconvenience to immediately "expropriate" every hairdresser, auto repair shop, pizza joint, etc.
Why not leave that to the workers who work there to expropriate?


So long as the owners obey the new soviet laws (which would doubtlessly include much higher wages, better working conditions, no interference with workers unionizing, etc.), why not leave them in peace and let them run their little shops until they happily die off, or until they can be gradually and voluntarily merged into collective and socialized production?
So, we overthrow the bourgeoisie, but leave the petit-bourgeoisie in peace as long as they pay better wages and let workers unionize (why would we need unions to negotiate with petit-bourgeois bosses if workers' councils, or soviets, are administering things)? So some workers have to continue to work for the petit-bourgeoisie (so much for their liberation)? Um, that sounds pretty much like what liberals advocate now, a higher minimum wage and a right to join a union, and, yay, we have "economic justice."

[baronci]

Any campaign that has any practical use is going to be bourgeois. No one is calling Sawant's campaign revolutionary. That's a strawman.

so then why are you defending it so much


The American working class is one of the most reactionary and conservative in the world.

This is bullshit. Have you ever actually been exposed to the American working class at all, apart from the garbage you're reading in Huffington Post and The Nation? The working class's primary class interest is communism, whether it realizes it or not. The petit-bourgeois is the most reactionary because it's place in between the working and ruling classes forces it to promote the values of dead generations. You really do not understand Marxism if you don't know this.


You need to stop with the revisionist history. The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century than anyone else. You forget that fascism and Naziism were movements made up of the dispossessed working class.

Is that why the Spanish communes were the most capable force against the fascists in Spain? What about when Mussolini instituted massive police domination of working class cities in Italy where the workers were refusing to go along with the Fascists demands? I guess they were just unconsciously promoting fascism.


Just stop. You need to recognize the actual reality we live in. Otherwise, you're going to go no where.

lol. try reading a book or two, or at least an encyclopedia


Oh yeah? Tell me the threshold in which impoverished farmers stop becoming impoverish farmers and then become, magically, peasants. Where is that line?

The peasantry is a class that was present in pre-modern Europe and most of Asia. A farmer living in poverty (very uncommon in any modern advanced capitalist country) is just that - a poor farmer. not tied to the land in any way or a member of a special class. The peasant class cannot coexist with the level of capitalist social relations that America has achieved.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Are you equating what these workers are doing with Sawant running for a council seat?
Maybe I failed to put forward my position clearly enough, or maybe you chose to ignore what I wrote, but that wasn't what I was implying at all.


Why not leave that to the workers who work there to expropriate?
Doesn't being petty bourgeois indicate a certain level of direct labour involved? As in, the people who work in small businesses are also the people who own them? Not always, of course. This sort of blurred distinction is what makes it so hard to destroy the capitalist relations at every level; you can't encourage workers to seize ownership if they already techically own their businesses.

[Thirsty Crow]

Doesn't being petty bourgeois indicate a certain level of direct labour involved? As in, the people who work in small businesses are also the people who own them? Not always, of course. This sort of blurred distinction is what makes it so hard to destroy the capitalist relations at every level; you can't encourage workers to seize ownership if they already techically own their businesses.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that small business owners employ wage workers. So for that 3, 4, 5 workers, it just might make a lot of sense to seize ownership and reorganize the labor process in some way.

At least that's what I consider a petite bourgeois, the key factor being employing wage labor for the sake of accumulation (of course, in constant competition with larger capitals; this more often than not accounts for the horrifying modes and effects of exploitation and labor relations in small enterprises, speaking from the experience and information on those here where I live).

[synthesis]

This is bullshit. Have you ever actually been exposed to the American working class at all, apart from the garbage you're reading in Huffington Post and The Nation? The working class's primary class interest is communism, whether it realizes it or not. The petit-bourgeois is the most reactionary because it's place in between the working and ruling classes forces it to promote the values of dead generations. You really do not understand Marxism if you don't know this.

I find that this sort of insistence on the revolutionary potential of the petite-bourgeoisie often goes hand-in-hand with an implicitly pessimistic (sometimes contemptuous) view of the revolutionary potential of the working class.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Doesn't being petty bourgeois indicate a certain level of direct labour involved? As in, the people who work in small businesses are also the people who own them? Not always, of course. This sort of blurred distinction is what makes it so hard to destroy the capitalist relations at every level; you can't encourage workers to seize ownership if they already techically own their businesses.
A hairdresser who has no employees? Even under socialism, there will be individuals providing skilled services to other individuals. A hairdresser who hires employees and pays them a wage? That's a capitalist relation.

Dabrowski seems to be saying there will still be small private businesses that pay wages, and unions negotiating with the owners of those small private businesses, under socialism. Which is problematic on several levels.

[Five Year Plan]

A hairdresser who has no employees? Even under socialism, there will be individuals providing skilled services to other individuals. A hairdresser who hires employees and pays them a wage? That's a capitalist relation.

Marx wrote of how, under capitalism, the independent craftsman is "cut in two" as both owner and laborer. That these alienated processes are embodied by a single person doesn't mean they aren't alienated processes. Under capitalism, the labor of the independent craftsman is no more directly social than that of wage workers who own no means of production. Under socialism, labor will be directly social and planned. It will not be validated or planned post hoc through commodity exchange by independent producers, as with all producers under capitalism whether they are independent craftsmen or proletarians.


Dabrowski seems to be saying there will still be small private businesses that pay wages, and unions negotiating with the owners of those small private businesses, under socialism. Which is problematic on several levels.Dabrowski was talking about small private businesses and so on in the immediate aftermath of workers smashing the bourgeois state and transitioning to socialism/communism. Obviously, as the transition progresses these will disappear because they do not exist under socialism. He was not talking about small businesses under socialism.

[argeiphontes]

That these alienated processes are embodied by a single person doesn't mean they aren't alienated processes. Under capitalism, the labor of the independent craftsman is no more directly social than that of wage workers who own no means of production. Under socialism, labor will be directly social and planned.

It looks like you're "social" in the sense of socially useful. Why does labor have to be socially useful to not be alienated? Am I alienated from my act of cooking dinner? Also, I don't understand how an owner can be alienated from something they own.

[Creative Destruction]

so then why are you defending it so much

I already explained why. Try paying attention for a change.


This is bullshit. Have you ever actually been exposed to the American working class at all, apart from the garbage you're reading in Huffington Post and The Nation?

I am a part of the working class. Since I live in reality, I don't need to read about it on the net or stick dogmatically to theories.


The working class's primary class interest is communism, whether it realizes it or not.

Agreed! That doesn't change the fact that much of the working class in this country cling to right-wing reactionary movements. It doesn't sound like you've been very well acquainted with the American working class.


The petit-bourgeois is the most reactionary because it's place in between the working and ruling classes forces it to promote the values of dead generations. You really do not understand Marxism if you don't know this.

Much of the petty bourgeois is reactionary. I never denied that. What I was saying is that there are petty bourgeoisie that are sympathetic to socialism. Automatically labeling them as enemies because of their class status is wrong-headed and absurd. It isn't a way to build up a movement. Again, try to fucking read for a change. Or wring your hands over theory. I don't care.


Is that why the Spanish communes were the most capable force against the fascists in Spain? What about when Mussolini instituted massive police domination of working class cities in Italy where the workers were refusing to go along with the Fascists demands? I guess they were just unconsciously promoting fascism.

Did I say that the entire working class were a part of these movements? I didn't. Stop being an idiot.

[Creative Destruction]

I find that this sort of insistence on the revolutionary potential of the petite-bourgeoisie often goes hand-in-hand with an implicitly pessimistic (sometimes contemptuous) view of the revolutionary potential of the working class.

I guess it's a good thing no one was being pessimistic about the revolutionary potential of the working class!

[Five Year Plan]

It looks like you're "social" in the sense of socially useful. Why does labor have to be socially useful to not be alienated? Am I alienated from my act of cooking dinner? Also, I don't understand how an owner can be alienated from something they own.

You need to distinguish be labor being directly social and being useful. On this I would recommend the first two chapters of Capital Vol. 1. Of course alienated labor is also socially useful. When I say that labor is "directly social," I mean that it is validated as social from the start through democratic planning, rather than being validated socially only through a process of commodity exchange.

[argeiphontes]

You need to distinguish be labor being directly social and being useful. On this I would recommend the first two chapters of Capital Vol. 1. Of course alienated labor is also socially useful. When I say that labor is "directly social," I mean that it is validated as social from the start through democratic planning, rather than being validated socially only through a process of commodity exchange.

Yeah, I was hoping that would be done. However, I still don't understand why labor has to be socially validated to not be alienated. I'm not sure I would agree with Marx's reasoning either. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

[Five Year Plan]

Yeah, I was hoping that would be done. However, I still don't understand why labor has to be socially validated to not be alienated. I'm not sure I would agree with Marx's reasoning either. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Alienated in the Marxian sense means not belonging to the nature of a thing or group. In this tradition, humans are by nature cooperative and empathetic, having a "species knowledge" that enables them to understand not just their own needs but also the needs and interests of others and the creative capacity to plan according to the good of the species. This is why, according to Marx, communist society represents a de-alienation of humanity from the perspective of meeting people's material needs. It need no longer occur through a process of selfish accumulation at the expense of other people in the species. Instead everyone plans together in a process that is social before production takes place.

In class society, though, an alien power always holds sway and is embodied in the form of either nature itself (as in primitive communism) or in the form of a ruling exploitative class. If labor is not being planned democratically, as in socialism or communism, it is being planned through an alienated system of property relations manifest in people's interactions with one another. Under capitalism, "planning" takes place through commodity exchange where how much a firm or person produces next year depends upon how many commodities that person or firm managed to sell on the market this year, which then enters into that person or firm's calculations regarding how to produce most efficiently with an eye toward turning a maximum surplus. It is that struggle to extract a surplus in the face of scarcity-imbued social relations, and not people's needs as such, that drives the planning process of capitalism. This is why it is alienated.

All of this is covered in Marx's writings on capitalism. I highly recommend you take the time to work through it.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I find that this sort of insistence on the revolutionary potential of the petite-bourgeoisie often goes hand-in-hand with an implicitly pessimistic (sometimes contemptuous) view of the revolutionary potential of the working class.
There's some aspect of valid criticism of some of the populist message of the electoral platform of the SA. However, this thing about the petty bourgeoisie being such a vital aspect of Sawant's campaign as some in this thread seem to want to imply in order to affirm their own bias is frankly ridiculous. The SA have run most of their campaign with the help of ordinary working people and local trade union branches, not small businesses, and the vast majority of their platform echoes the demands of working people in Seattle and beyond and not the businesses they work for.


A hairdresser who has no employees? Even under socialism, there will be individuals providing skilled services to other individuals. A hairdresser who hires employees and pays them a wage? That's a capitalist relation.

Dabrowski seems to be saying there will still be small private businesses that pay wages, and unions negotiating with the owners of those small private businesses, under socialism. Which is problematic on several levels.
Fair enough, good point. I guess I'm just thinking of a pub owner I know who pays his workers the living wage and himself works at the pub often without taking any wage in order to ensure that the business stays afloat and he can continue to pay his workers a good wage and sell beers from companies that similarly treat their own workers relatively well (when his major competitors pay the minimum wage, treat their staff like shit and sell beer like the anti-union Carlsburg etc).

There are some small businesses run like this, workers co-ops etc as well, but most are run echoing the same relations as the larger corporations, you are correct. In theory you would want to treat all these situations as the same because underlying it all are the capitalist relations that inherently exploit the workers. Applying praxis to these situations inevitably comes with issues, however. I guess I disagree that alienating these people, whilst we unfortunately still live in capitalism and rely on money to fund our activity, is a bad tactic even if the strategy is to inevitably do away with their positions of privilege.

[synthesis]

There's some aspect of valid criticism of some of the populist message of the electoral platform of the SA. However, this thing about the petty bourgeoisie being such a vital aspect of Sawant's campaign as some in this thread seem to want to imply in order to affirm their own bias is frankly ridiculous. The SA have run most of their campaign with the help of ordinary working people and local trade union branches, not small businesses, and the vast majority of their platform echoes the demands of working people in Seattle and beyond and not the businesses they work for.

I just find it disappointing when a left-electoral campaign harnesses popular discontent and then starts advocating class collaboration for opportunistic reasons. What have we got to lose by demanding genuine working class politics from self-proclaimed socialists?

[Tim Cornelis]

The Kshama Sawant campaign is unquestionably bourgeois, as it seeks to work within the bounds of the state in order to achieve things which are entirely compatible with the capitalist mode of production. The liberals endorsing the campaign will probably tell you that it's just being done to "raise consciousness" but in reality the campaign is not promoting communism at all, but rather European-styled social democracy aka "socialism".


The problem with this ultra-left sentiment is that everything is bourgeois and reproduces the preconditions for the existence of capital in a non-revolutionary situation. Everything we do and can do in the contemporary era will reproduce capital, even class struggle. Everything is reformist and everything is bourgeois. Look at the Landless Workers' Movement, their call for land reform is compatible with the capitalist mode of production. Look at the AbM in RSA, their call for housing is compatible with the capitalist mode of production. Look at SeaSol, their campaigns against employer and landlord abuse is compatible with the capitalist mode of production. Look at the CNT-AIT, CGT, Common Struggle in the USA, the PAME in Greece. All the class struggle waged by these organisations merely renegotiates the position of labour versus capital, but does not and cannot abolish it because we lack a revolutionary momentum to sustain a social revolution which will remove the preconditions for the reproduction of capital.

So if the criticism of the Sawant-campaign is is that it's "bourgeois" then, pushing this to its logic conclusions, we have to refrain from waging class struggle, from activism, from organising, from doing anything at all, until a revolutionary situation arises.

Class struggle has to correspond to the level of consciousness amongst the working class, or else it will not be fertile. Does the Sawant campaign promote European-style social democracy? As a means, yes. The problematic thing with such parties is that they forget to explicitly and constantly remind potential supporters that their actual aims go beyond this, which allows for opportunism and reformist elements to enter the organisation, destroying it from the inside (as has been done with hundreds of socialist and social-democratic parties).

So how do we promote communism if everything short of communism is bourgeois? How do we connect these goals of communism with the consciousness and perception of the working class? Historically, this has always been done by using short-term demands as a catalyst for revolutionary ideas. I cannot think of any revolutionary leftist movement whom did not rally around short-term demands.

I can completely understand the sentiment, because the reformist demands of the Sawant-campaign in and of itself do nothing. Had they been proposed by a centre-left party no one here would champion it (beyond 'i'd like to earn more'). Look at it this way: the CPUSA used to organise unemployed councils. Fighting unemployment in and of itself does nothing for the communist cause, and — if done by benevolent Christians — neither does organising unemployed councils. But done under the banner of class struggle it can enhance class consciousness. The same with a campaign such as that of Sawant. As long as the centre of gravity is on grassroots organising by and for workers, and the electoral aspect is merely icing on the cake to solidify the grassroots demands (at the end of the day you need willing politicians to implement them and claim victory), then the net result of the Sawant campaign will be positive.

[CyM]

I think we're going to need to have an in-depth discussion on how to deal with the petit-bourgeoisie for this discussion to be fruitful.

Again, I am not with Socialist Alternative, and I have my reasons to disagree with their campaign. Hell, maybe they even have bent the stick a bit too far with the PB, I don't know, I would need to look more into it. But the fact is, to oppose any attempt to win over the middle layers on principle is lunacy.

If you're putting forward increased wages, free public transport, nationalization of the banks and big industries, you would get mass support amongst the Petit-Bourgeois. The reality is that they have to follow either one or the other of the big classes. Often in revolutions the bulk, the lower layers, will swing over to the revolution. The "mom and pop" shops can be very close to the working class, often exploiting no one but themselves. These people are even more fucked than the workers, because if their business goes under they don't just go find another job, they're stuck with massive debts.

These people hate the big bourgeois as much as the workers do, and so long as no concession is made to them on the working class programme, they should be allies.

After the revolution, they will have the choice between continuing under the burden of competition with the big nationalized industries, paying debts (at reduced rates, but still), etc... or else agreeing to join up with the collective industries and be forgiven their company debts. The economic calculation will be a simple one: I can't make enough profit per hour to keep up with the average workers' wage, and I can't keep up with these debts or this competition, if I leave this store I will get a job where I make more money per hour as a worker, without the instability of a capitalist operation.

Within a generation, none will be left. The "family business" will have a time limit. Worst case scenario, that cutoff point is pretty hard. Abolition of inheritance is an essential part of the programme.

[baronci]

Agreed! That doesn't change the fact that much of the working class in this country cling to right-wing reactionary movements. It doesn't sound like you've been very well acquainted with the American working class.

I've seen no evidence of that. In fact much of the working class is either totally disconnected from politics or aligns with the unions.


Much of the petty bourgeois is reactionary. I never denied that. What I was saying is that there are petty bourgeoisie that are sympathetic to socialism. Automatically labeling them as enemies because of their class status is wrong-headed and absurd. It isn't a way to build up a movement. Again, try to fucking read for a change. Or wring your hands over theory. I don't care.Except the Marxist view of class shows that the petit-bourgeois is an economic entity, just like the upper bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So there is no way you can so "ohhh but some of them are nice guys!" No. As a class it is reactionary and fully supportive of the capitalist mode of production.


Did I say that the entire working class were a part of these movements? I didn't. Stop being an idiot.Don't insult me when you're the one backpedaling like a coward. You said: "The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century than anyone else. You forget that fascism and Naziism were movements made up of the dispossessed working class." Nice try.

[Thirsty Crow]

Except the Marxist view of class shows that the petit-bourgeois is an economic entity, just like the upper bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So there is no way you can so "ohhh but some of them are nice guys!" No. As a class it is reactionary and fully supportive of the capitalist mode of production.

Yeah, I don't think this view does justice to the actual situation of the many petite bourgeois people in times of crisis.
The thing is, it seems to me that a section of that class that is in immediate threat of proletarianization and loss of even modest livelihood standards can, in certain conditions, swing towards the camp of the proletariat. But the crucial point is that these sections can't be approached from the perspective of the petite bourgeoisie - but that of the proletariat.

And a question regarding political campaigns such as this one. Do proponents of this approach believe that this will in some way create the basis for class struggle in the workplaces and the streets?

[Creative Destruction]

I've seen no evidence of that. In fact much of the working class is either totally disconnected from politics or aligns with the unions.

Okay, I'll give you that many are disconnected/apathetic about politics. But are you seriously going to use unions as an argument for how strongly the working class feels about revolutionary politics, in the United States? Let's leave aside the fact that the unions in this country are mostly reactionary and collaborationist; union membership in this country is 7.2%. Most workers in this country do not have representation. Many do not want representation because of negative (though false) views about the motives of unions or they just oppose them on ideological grounds.

You've seen no evidence of it because you don't want to face up to the reality of the situation.


Except the Marxist view of class shows that the petit-bourgeois is an economic entity, just like the upper bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So there is no way you can so "ohhh but some of them are nice guys!" No. As a class it is reactionary and fully supportive of the capitalist mode of production.

Was Engels fully supportive of the capitalist mode of production? He was more than petit-bourgeois. The workers who work in a radical worker co-operative; are they reactionary and fully support of the capitalist mode of production?

Yeah, that's the reality: the one you can't find scrawling through books that date back at least 100 years ago. We have to deal with our conditions right now -- at this moment. Class lines have become muddied over time.

If you want to build a movement, you cannot immediately just write some one off as a class enemy simply because of you dogmatically stick to a certain line. That's just fucking dumb, especially with the way things are now. Marx is not around right now. You have to think for yourself. Theory can be a good framework, but you have to allow for practicality otherwise you'll go absolutely nowhere. You'll be stuck on an Internet message board, until you give up your position or die, pontificating about class enemies and other bullshit.


Don't insult me when you're the one backpedaling like a coward. You said: "The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century than anyone else. You forget that fascism and Naziism were movements made up of the dispossessed working class." Nice try.

That wasn't a backpedal, you twit. The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century. The fascist movements were aimed at and recruited and was propagated by large sections of the German and Italian working class. There would have been no other way for them to have risen to the heights that they did. The working class is just as much responsible for that as it is with the socialist Spanish uprisings and the resistance to the Nazis.

The working class aren't a monolithic political entity. They are a class of people made up with a variety of views that are influenced by their experience. Just like the petit bourgeois and the bourgeois. And just because I believe that our (the working class') interests are best served under a socialist system, does not mean that the entire working class will be on board with that. They clearly aren't. You only need to look at the state of the working class today and its political make-up. They are also different going along racial lines. The black and hispanic working classes feel a whole lot different about politics and organizing than the white working class does. The black and hispanic working classes feel a hell of a lot different about politics! Hell, look here:


Sixty percent of white, working-class respondents believe that discrimination against whites is just as big of a problem as discrimination against blacks in the U.S; 57 percent believe that illegal immigrants taking jobs are to blame for our economic woes; and 70 percent believe that God has given the U.S. a "special place in human history."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/20/white_working_class_americans_beliefs_voting_prefe rences_broken_down_in_new_prri_survey_.html

That doesn't sound very revolutionary to me! It actually sounds like the reactionary reasons that broke the socialist movement in the early 1900s (especially in places like Oklahoma and Texas) are still there and just as strong as ever. So, tell me again, how revolutionary the American working class actually is, when it is actually very divided along multiple lines and many along very reactionary lines.

Many are radical, many are reactionary, many are politically ignorant and apathetic with some opinions. The assumption that you can just stroll up to a working person and extol the virtues of communism and socialism and expect them to jump on board with you, especially in this country, may be the reason the left is so fucking decrepit in this country. They have no understanding of the actual political make-up of the working class in this country.

[Creative Destruction]

Do proponents of this approach believe that this will in some way create the basis for class struggle in the workplaces and the streets?

It's hard to tell. There's a high chance that it won't, but there's a high chance that it can. The entrance of these Socialist candidates can pave the way for more radical ones to enter in the arena, as it were. But that all depends on whether rev socialists are actually willing to go out there and seriously get their message out. We're just now finding out that, after years of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and all the conservatism that came with them, the American public isn't so scared by the word "socialism." What is unclear is what people think "socialism" is.

But that's the important part. Leftists need to step outside their comfort zone. I've sort of dropped out of the activist scene because it doesn't go anywhere and no one wants it to really go anywhere. They just want to wait for people to come to them instead of going to the people. You can organize workshops, coffee house meetings and protests all you want, but that doesn't go very far these days.

I think getting socialists in local and state electoral races is a good thing, even if they don't have a chance of winning. But this must be paired with on-the-ground, in-the-boots organizations doing valuable social work and propaganda, kind of like the Philly Socialists or the old Black Panthers. People are amiable to the word "socialism," but they need to see the faces and hear the ideas. There needs to be some sort of revitalization of our alternative media, like the old labor papers in the late 1800s, early 1900s -- credible alternative media, aside from the aggregating, anonymous Indymedia outlets.

And we really need to form organizations that go beyond the traditional avenues of organizing. Not just in the cities, but in the suburbs and in the countryside.

But yeah, if the visibility of socialists are raised, then it's a good thing. Sawant's campaign is a positive thing that can lead to positive short-term goals. But it's ridiculous to expect her to spout off revolutionary rhetoric when none of those revolutionaries are coming to her aid or even doing an iota of work trying to get a good, viable message out that resonates with people.

[Thirsty Crow]

;2673120 There's a high chance that it won't, but there's a high chance that it can. This is a terribly confused statement. First there is the assessment of the great degree of improbability, then an assessment of a great degree of probability of possibility (a high chance that it can).

If it can't do what I asked if it can, what purpose could there be apart from that?

And apart from this assessment, you provide no coherent answer:


The entrance of these Socialist candidates can pave the way for more radical ones to enter in the arena, as it were.
Completely irrelevant to my question, as the rest of the paragraph.


But that's the important part. Leftists need to step outside their comfort zone. I've sort of dropped out of the activist scene because it doesn't go anywhere and no one wants it to really go anywhere. They just want to wait for people to come to them instead of going to the people. You can organize workshops, coffee house meetings and protests all you want, but that doesn't go very far these days.Again, there's no answer to my question here. Can stepping outside the comfort zone of closed intellectual activity among the left create the basis for class struggle?

If not, to what end these activities?


I think getting socialists in local and state electoral races is a good thing, even if they don't have a chance of winning.Why?


But this must be paired with on-the-ground, in-the-boots organizations doing valuable social work and propaganda, kind of like the Philly Socialists or the old Black Panthers.What's the relationship between providing community service and class struggle?


People are amiable to the word "socialism," but they need to see the faces and hear the ideas. Why? And what is the point to being amiable to a mere word?


There needs to be some sort of revitalization of our alternative media, like the old labor papers in the late 1800s, early 1900s -- credible alternative media, aside from the aggregating, anonymous Indymedia outlets.
To what end?


But yeah, if the visibility of socialists are raised, then it's a good thing. Why?

So, basically, my response to this post containing allegations and claims is a series of whys and to-what-ends. There's no thought out goals and ends strategy here, merely inherited ideas from the traditional labor movement.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Dabrowski was talking about small private businesses and so on in the immediate aftermath of workers smashing the bourgeois state and transitioning to socialism/communism. Obviously, as the transition progresses these will disappear because they do not exist under socialism. He was not talking about small businesses under socialism.
I just can't imagine a successful workers' revolution smashing the bourgeois state and putting power in workers' councils but leaving some workers to work for wages paid by the remaining petit-bourgeoisie and needing unions to intercede between workers and petit-bourgeois employers--even temporarily as a transition.

[Glitchcraft]

You know it is possible to be highly critical of a groups politics and have very severe disagreements without calling for their dissolution and still defending their right to run for office.

[synthesis]

The working class is just as much responsible for conservatism and fascism in the 20th century. The fascist movements were aimed at and recruited and was propagated by large sections of the German and Italian working class. There would have been no other way for them to have risen to the heights that they did. The working class is just as much responsible for that as it is with the socialist Spanish uprisings and the resistance to the Nazis.

I have written a detailed rebuttal to this argument here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=183827).

[Devrim]

I just can't imagine a successful workers' revolution smashing the bourgeois state and putting power in workers' councils but leaving some workers to work for wages paid by the remaining petit-bourgeoisie and needing unions to intercede between workers and petit-bourgeois employers--even temporarily as a transition.

I absolutely agree. Some of the conceptions of socialism here are a world removed from mine. The one below exemplifies them:


Would a socialist government not lower the taxes of everyone but the large bourgeois? Of course we would! Wouldn't nationalization of the banks lead to loans on better terms for the small petty bourgeois? Definitely! Wouldn't expropriation of the big industries lower the costs of transport, resources etc for them?

What sort of socialism is this?

Devrim

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What sort of socialism is this?

Devrim

Socialism with American Characteristics obviously

[Thirsty Crow]

You know it is possible to be highly critical of a groups politics and have very severe disagreements without calling for their dissolution and still defending their right to run for office.
As I've said on numerous occasions here, the point is that running for office needs to be thought out and have a clear goal (supposing that the organization in question isn't only an reformist org). I've seen nothing like that in this thread.

[argeiphontes]

As I've said on numerous occasions here, the point is that running for office needs to be thought out

But not so well thought out that you miss the filing deadline ;)



and have a clear goal (supposing that the organization in question isn't only an reformist org). I've seen nothing like that in this thread.

What sorts of goals would justify running a candidate for office for you? Personally I'm thinking mostly of propaganda when I support this action. This is largely the stage we're stuck at, anyway, building support--or at least indifference ;)

Certainly there's no danger of communism breaking out anywhere, only reforms, and a minimum wage is probably better pursued through strikes and labor action rather than legislation, because increasing worker power is more revolutionary than passing laws in capitalist legislatures, and having presence among the working class is probably going to be important. However, I'm sure communists have little access or influence over the labor movement.

Running a candidate shows that one is participating in "serious politics", probably doesn't require too many people to execute, and makes communism present to people who never hear of it at all in their day to day lives. Communist critique would have a venue in which to be deployed. Maybe it can get some people to investigate the claims and take them seriously. Sawant puts a rational, reasonable face on communism, to at least some extent. Of course, politics requires money and may not be an efficient use of an organization's money.

Besides, to get back to the joke in the first part, sometimes it's better to execute an imperfect strategy than use none at all.

Anyway, that's how I think of the whole thing. Maybe it's too simplistic.

[Creative Destruction]

This is a terribly confused statement. First there is the assessment of the great degree of improbability, then an assessment of a great degree of probability of possibility (a high chance that it can).

If it can't do what I asked if it can, what purpose could there be apart from that?

I didn't realize I needed to give exact percentages of the probability vs. improbability that Sawant's campaign will be positive. I'm sorry I can't quantify a figure of speech for you. Would you feel better if I just said "equal" chances?


And apart from this assessment, you provide no coherent answer:

Completely irrelevant to my question, as the rest of the paragraph.

It's absolutely relevant to your question. If you pave the way or lay the basis for radical politics to become relevant again, you're necessarily laying the basis for class struggle...since class struggle is integral to a radical socialist program.


Again, there's no answer to my question here. Can stepping outside the comfort zone of closed intellectual activity among the left create the basis for class struggle?

If not, to what end these activities?

Yeah, it can. Staying in an insulated intellectual comfort zone will prevent laying any basis for class struggle. You can talk all you want to your friends and to yourself about spreading class consciousness, but until you actually do the work -- actually laying that basis -- it's nothing more than idle talk.


Why?

To raise the profile of socialists and socialism.


What's the relationship between providing community service and class struggle?

Recruitment, building networks, etc. See: Black Panther Survival Programs.


Why? And what is the point to being amiable to a mere word?

To what end?

Why?

So, basically, my response to this post containing allegations and claims is a series of whys and to-what-ends. There's no thought out goals and ends strategy here, merely inherited ideas from the traditional labor movement.

No, basically you're being antagonistic and not offering up any constructive critiques. You're responding like an ignorant child.

How is it not in the interest of spreading class consciousness and laying a basis for class struggle to revitalize alternative media outlets? How is stepping outside of small, navel-gazing activist groups and reaching out to the larger masses not beneficial for laying that basis, either? It seems pretty self-evident that talking to yourself and your friends and not actually putting ideas into action won't lay a basis for anything, much less to prepare for class struggle.

[Thirsty Crow]

What sorts of goals would justify running a candidate for office for you? Personally I'm thinking mostly of propaganda when I support this action. This is largely the stage we're stuck at, anyway, building support--or at least indifference ;)
I'm not positing any position of mine here. I'm asking for projected goals, because there is little reason to support an electoral campaign that is based on notions of support for the sake of expressed nominal socialism.

The preliminary question I asked is important in my view as an approach to such campaigns: to they serve to create the basis for class struggle at the workplace and in the streets? This, in my opinion, formulated in a specific way, and depending on the orientation of the revolutionary organization, is the goal - to aid in developing class struggle.

The general conception of Leninist organizations makes it probable, in my opinion, that they will aim to co-create the basis for class struggle, if not the struggle itself. This is why I'm asking the questions.

What you mention here is different. Propaganda relates specifically to the consciousness of the existence of a specific program carried by a specific organization advocating socialism - whatever that may be (it depends on theoretical elaboration and understanding, and lecture activities aimed at the broad working class and not only professionals, scensters of the left, academics and so on). What kind of a relationship between the electoral platform here and the propaganda of socialism are we dealing with?


Certainly there's no danger of communism breaking out anywhere, only reforms, and a minimum wage is probably better pursued through strikes and labor action rather than legislation, because increasing worker power is more revolutionary than passing laws in capitalist legislatures, and having presence among the working class is probably going to be important. However, I'm sure communists have little access or influence over the labor movement.This feeds into the viewpoint I advocate.

The purpose of the revolutionary movement is working class power, which does not only relate to the dictatorship of the proletariat, but also to the development of the class, its political composition, within capitalism.

This also brings up the orientation of the revolutionary organization. As you imply, communists are part of the working class and it is on its class terrain that we (also as workers) gain power and engage in struggle. Which, yet again, leads me to my main question. What is projected as a possible achievement of this elctoral campaign?


Running a candidate shows that one is participating in "serious politics", I'd doubt that many proletarians are interested in "serious politics" at all (which does not mean that they do not vote and that they should not vote). It has only a mediated effect upon them, and not in any immediate way in the sense of offering means of organization, the formation of ideas and so on.


Sawant puts a rational, reasonable face on communism, to at least some extent.I'd argue that this rational and reasonable face of communism is actually defacing communism (but do note that I do not, definitely, claim that SAlt should run a revolutionary positions campaign; it is a mere question of fact that the presented program doesn't represent communism)


Besides, to get back to the joke in the first part, sometimes it's better to execute an imperfect strategy than use none at all.
See, this is the kind of activism for activism's sake that I find absolutely ridiculous and probably a bit dangerous (a bit because we're talking about tiny impotent organizations; but this mania of "do something" might hamper the possibilities for regroupment and elaboration of the ideas on how to proceed; and also to hamper the contact with and intervention into point-of-production struggles by other workers and other forms of struggle that develop without the input of the organization)

Furthermore, if it were really strategy we're talking about here, then we'd have socialist reformism - since the strategy of achieving socialism would amount to electioneering, coalitions, and passing reform legislation. The word you're looking for here is tactics.


I didn't realize I needed to give exact percentages of the probability vs. improbability that Sawant's campaign will be positive. I'm sorry I can't quantify a figure of speech for you. Would you feel better if I just said "equal" chances?I never said anything of what you claim here.
The fact is you're statement is confused and makes no sense.
You said: "There's a high chance that it won't" and immediately added "there's a high chance it can".
What this actually means, no one can tell.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

[Creative Destruction]

I never said anything of what you claim here.
The fact is you're statement is confused and makes no sense.
You said: "There's a high chance that it won't" and immediately added "there's a high chance it can".
What this actually means, no one can tell.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

This is such an odd, pedantic, inconsequential thing to pick on that I'll say this and I'm done with it: "high chance" means the probability is high. It doesn't have to be quantified necessarily, and there can be a "high chance" of something happening and a "high chance" of an opposite thing happening. It's a figure of speech. It doesn't need scientific or mathematical precision. The chance of something not positive happening with Sawant's campaign depends on how we react to her campaign. If we do nothing, spurn the campaign and just whine about how it's not revolutionary enough, then there is a high chance that nothing valuable will come of it in our eyes. On the other hand, if we stop acting like a bunch of children who see the world along strict lines, there is a high chance that something positive could happen.

[Two Buck Chuck]

With their occupy/99% rhetoric, celebrating the 2012 elections with a "Right Wing Defeated" headline on the cover of their magazine, and this "Small Business for Sawant" shit, how soon until Socialist Alternative changes their name to something less threatening, like "Progressive Alternative"?

[Thirsty Crow]

This is such an odd, pedantic, inconsequential thing to pick onAre you high ore something? I asked do proponents of this approach think that there is a probability that this will create the basis for class struggle.
This is crucial as a potential rationale behind the campaign.
You then go on to say as someone who's jut recently dropped from the sky and never heard of logic, probably it won't, but probably it can.

You're contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence.

[argeiphontes]

I'm not positing any position of mine here. I'm asking for projected goals, because there is little reason to support an electoral campaign that is based on notions of support for the sake of expressed nominal socialism.


The statements you make are merely your position, aren't they? ;) Aren't you basically just calling the campaign out for being reformist? >:-) ;)



campaigns: to they serve to create the basis for class struggle at the workplace and in the streets? This, in my opinion, formulated in a specific way, and depending on the orientation of the revolutionary organization, is the goal - to aid in developing class struggl e.

...

This also brings up the orientation of the revolutionary organization. As you imply, communists are part of the working class and it is on its class terrain that we (also as workers) gain power and engage in struggle. Which, yet again, leads me to my main question. What is projected as a possible achievement of this elctoral campaign?
I think your point of view, your starting point, is too "strugglist", if I can coin a word ;) The prerequisite for class struggle is people willing to struggle. Why is consciousness something that is only gained in this "struggle". This kind of position assumes an impossibility (maybe just pessimism) to electoral politics that I don't share, invalidating it a priori. It's perilously close to a Catch-22, isn't it?



I'd doubt that many proletarians are interested in "serious politics" at all (which does not mean that they do not vote and that they should not vote). It has only a mediated effect upon them, and not in any immediate way in the sense of offering means of organization, the formation of ideas and so on.
Yet, there is a segment of society that makes politics some part of its life. Maybe they currently hold liberal reformist positions and need to see the light.



See, this is the kind of activism for activism's sake that I find absolutely ridiculous and probably a bit dangerous (a bit because we're talking about tiny impotent organizations; but this mania of "do something" might hamper the possibilities for regroupment and elaboration of the ideas on how to proceed; and also to hamper the contact with and intervention into point-of-production struggles by other workers and other forms of struggle that develop without the input of the organization)
I think this is overly "strugglist". Why is it "dangerous", what's the worst that can happen? "Nothing" is happening already. I'm not a big fan of grasping at straws, but I don't think this is that, and something does have to be done. It might be a good time to take advantage of worsening conditions for workers in the United States.

I think the campaign will accomplish some of what I claimed were the propaganda goals in my previous post. It just may be very inefficient. ;) If she wins, things will be looking up, from what I can see.

This is just my opinion on the matter. The fact is, I'm just willing to irrationally "believe" that supporting Sawant is the right thing to do ;) and live with that. Politics is partly irrational anyway.

[synthesis]

I didn't realize I needed to give exact percentages of the probability vs. improbability that Sawant's campaign will be positive. I'm sorry I can't quantify a figure of speech for you. Would you feel better if I just said "equal" chances?

...

No, basically you're being antagonistic and not offering up any constructive critiques. You're responding like an ignorant child.

How is it not in the interest of spreading class consciousness and laying a basis for class struggle to revitalize alternative media outlets? How is stepping outside of small, navel-gazing activist groups and reaching out to the larger masses not beneficial for laying that basis, either? It seems pretty self-evident that talking to yourself and your friends and not actually putting ideas into action won't lay a basis for anything, much less to prepare for class struggle.

I don't understand the reason for the wildly defensive tone of your posts in this thread. It reminds me of the other thread about General Giap or some threads where Castro is criticized - it's like you can't just disagree with the criticism, you have to paint it as morally unconscionable. Is it because at some level you know the criticism is correct, but the concrete effects of what's being criticized make it worth defending? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) (That's not intended as a loaded or rhetorical question.) This seems like a necessary progression in order for the discussion to continue.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't understand the reason for the wildly defensive tone of your posts in this thread. It reminds me of the other thread about General Giap or some threads where Castro is criticized - it's like you can't just disagree with the criticism, you have to paint it as morally unconscionable. Is it because at some level you know the criticism is correct, but the concrete effects of what's being criticized make it worth defending? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) (That's not intended as a loaded or rhetorical question.) This seems like a necessary progression in order for the discussion to continue.

I'm generally confrontational. And LinksRadikal wasn't putting forth any criticism. Asking "why, why, why" without putting in any effort to trying to understand the post like an adult human being with cognitive skills can is quite aggravating. It isn't good criticism, though.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm generally confrontational. And LinksRadikal wasn't putting forth any criticism. Asking "why, why, why" without putting in any effort to trying to understand the post like an adult human being with cognitive skills can is quite aggravating. It isn't good criticism, though.
The point is that there is no content to criticize. Beliefs and assumptions necessitate the question of why does one believe that in the first place.

[Thirsty Crow]

The statements you make are merely your position, aren't they? ;) Aren't you basically just calling the campaign out for being reformist? >:-) ;)It is quite clear that the campaign is reformist. Therefore it would amount to no criticism at all to call a spade a spade. I'm questioning the strategic and political implications of the approach, trying to uncover those assumptions, and their soundness, that haven't been voiced clearly. That's without going into sweeping political statements on the viability of the electoral approach in the first place.


I think your point of view, your starting point, is too "strugglist", if I can coin a word ;)That's quite okay for a term. Indeed, I'd be happy with it as it describes my positions quite well. Though, on the other hand, I'm confronting this approach on its own terrain so to speak, as electoralism has been rebranded as a mere tactic which serves the purpose of inducing class struggle, at least from the experience drawn by the historical CP's from the implosion of social democracy (it is only genuine reformism that conceives the issue in a different way, Eurocommunism included). This experience had become the ideological basis for this issue on behalf of the groups claiming the legacy of Leninism.


The prerequisite for class struggle is people willing to struggle. Why is consciousness something that is only gained in this "struggle". This kind of position assumes an impossibility (maybe just pessimism) to electoral politics that I don't share, invalidating it a priori. It's perilously close to a Catch-22, isn't it?It also assumes pessimism towards what I call the evangelical approach - preaching socialism to workers.
The starting point to this approach is the recognition that social being determines consciousness - and struggle, not to mention mass struggle, serves as a vital part of "social being" whereby seemingly abstract theoretical arguments become tangible, so to speak, to the mass of workers in struggle. Contesting the power of capital opens the horizon to the possibility, or to be more precise, to the recognition of the possibility of communism (since this possibility is far removed from lived experience in both the times of expanding economy whereby greater shares of the social product are distributed to labor, and in times of class decomposition - fragmentation and atomization resulting in the severe difficulties in even engaging in labor struggles, most often in times of crisis, and markedly in this crisis as well in some parts of the globe).


Yet, there is a segment of society that makes politics some part of its life. And it is precisely communism that aims at abolishing just that.

Maybe they currently hold liberal reformist positions and need to see the light.I don't think the issue is one of bad attitudes and ideas. It is the fact that the material situation of said cadres depends on the continuation of this same basis, of their professional and specialist status, which during the course of events becomes the source of ideological development that is antithetical to both communism and independent workers' struggles.


I think this is overly "strugglist". Why is it "dangerous", what's the worst that can happen?I already stated the potential developments:


but this mania of "do something" might hamper the possibilities for regroupment and elaboration of the ideas on how to proceed; and also to hamper the contact with and intervention into point-of-production struggles by other workers and other forms of struggle that develop without the input of the organizationRelevant parts highlighted.

This presupposes the potential for hijacking the aforementioned and steering them into the parliamentary arena, recruiting votes essentially (I'm talking about electoral activism for activism's sake, not other forms of the same phenomena obviously)


It might be a good time to take advantage of worsening conditions for workers in the United States.And yet again to reiterate, I don't see how this taking advantage of the situation will actually come about (because I consider political class composition, working class power, as the criterion, and not the prosperous existence of cadres).


This is just my opinion on the matter. The fact is, I'm just willing to irrationally "believe" that supporting Sawant is the right thing to do ;) and live with that. Politics is partly irrational anyway.This is a huge subject matter, and altogether different from the one at hand, but obviously connected. In short, I think this approach is hugely problematic.

[Creative Destruction]

The point is that there is no content to criticize. Beliefs and assumptions necessitate the question of why does one believe that in the first place.

There's plenty of content in my replies for you to wrangle with, if you disagree with my stance. Whether you choose to address it or not is a different issue. Aside from that there are better ways to ask me why I believe the things I do aside from incessantly asking "why" like a clueless child, or you could actually address my arguments with an argument of your own.

[Thirsty Crow]

There's plenty of content in my replies for you to wrangle with, if you disagree with my stance. Whether you choose to address it or not is a different issue. Aside from that there are better ways to ask me why I believe the things I do aside from incessantly asking "why" like a clueless child, or you could actually address my arguments with an argument of your own.
I did not mean to state that your last reply, to which I only replied in relation to the ridiculous contradictions you get yourself into, is devoid of content. But of course that "confrontational" stance of yours might account for the dishonest implications of this post.

And indeed I think the perspective of the clueless child is infinitely better than that of the one mindlessly inheriting the forms of activity and their justifications from the traditional labor movement, without as much as a second of pause for critical thought. Considering that, you might wish to write on the newest clueless infantilism.

[argeiphontes]

It also assumes pessimism towards what I call the evangelical approach - preaching socialism to workers.
The starting point to this approach is the recognition that social being determines consciousness - and struggle, not to mention mass struggle, serves as a vital part of "social being" whereby seemingly abstract theoretical arguments become tangible, so to speak, to the mass of workers in struggle. Contesting the power of capital opens the horizon to the possibility, or to be more precise, to the recognition of the possibility of communism (since this possibility is far removed from lived experience in both the times of expanding economy whereby greater shares of the social product are distributed to labor, and in times of class decomposition - fragmentation and atomization resulting in the severe difficulties in even engaging in labor struggles, most often in times of crisis, and markedly in this crisis as well in some parts of the globe).


I'll grant you most of that, I certainly think something similar, but I don't think it's the only dynamic. I'm not as optimistic about anything approaching correct ideology just materializing thru struggle. This is probably what accounts for most of our differing viewpoints.

Thanks for your response. Your posts are intelligent and informative as usual :)

[Thirsty Crow]

I'll grant you most of that, I certainly think something similar, but I don't think it's the only dynamic. I'm not as optimistic about anything approaching correct ideology just materializing thru struggle. This is probably what accounts for most of our differing viewpoints.

Thanks for your response. Your posts are intelligent and informative as usual :)
I don't think it is the only dynamic as well, but I do think that it is most important.

As far as ideology, I don't think that it is even necessary for workers to adopt an ideology (though I consider "ideology" something very specific, which many members of this board would not; in short sure as hell don't think that, for instance, workers' need to accept Cliffite Trotskyism or left communism or anything like it for us to be able to deal the death blow to capital).

But the issue of the consciousness of class and the potential venues of liberations are something else in fact, and I do not think that they will simply materialize through struggle in a uniform, uni-linear way. That is why I advocate the revolutionary party, unlike comrades such as those from the Council Communist current (this is much more complex than what I wrote, but basically I think it stands).


Thanks for your response. Your posts are intelligent and informative as usual :)Well, I don't know about that honestly, but yeah, thanks for actually discussing things, although I feel all weird and tingly because of the fact that I have to say something like that here :lol:

[argeiphontes]

That is why I advocate the revolutionary party, unlike comrades such as those from the Council Communist current (this is much more complex than what I wrote, but basically I think it stands).

I agree and am a hard partier myself. My gut instinct is that I prefer my parties a little more impossibilist, but that's only if they adopt my pet project, which by now you should know ;) Otherwise, the political arena might serve some of the function of making things concrete for people, since a $15/hr minimum wage is pretty concrete. I think the concrete element is very important for building consciousness, i.e. the idea of communism as a real possibility.

My fear is that pursuing electoral politics would, eventually, result in a strong socialist state, like a dictatorship of the proletariat, because of the need to suppress one's political enemies, or pressure to implement state-based solutions to problems. or maybe other dynamics.

Damn it, I keep arguing against myself ;)

But, we are nowhere near such a stage now, and I still support the propaganda aspects of the campaign, watered-down as it may be. There is some sense I have that communists should be everywhere, not nowhere, and I'll go with that. :) Do I wish it was a party like my hypothetical LSP? Of course, but you don't always get what you want. But, if you try, sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need... ;)

[blake 3:17]

Dude actually overtakes the Democratic Party machine through a grass roots radical perspective and praxis & folks want to knock him down because some petty bourgeois radicals support him? WTF?

Is it better to have union bureaucrats run it into the ground? Go totally abstentionist until the 100% perfect time?

I'm planning on working on an election campaign for a pretty interesting centrist (in the Trotskyist sense) and prominent left critic of social democracy here. Guess what? He runs a store! OMG

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Dude

I don't know what political point you're trying to make, but Ksama Sawant is female.


actually overtakes the Democratic Party machine through a grass roots radical perspective and praxis & folks want to knock him down because some petty bourgeois radicals support him? WTF?


"Radicalism" is of little value, what is needed is firm anti-capitalist programme, without which there is little value to her campaign for the Communist cause. Communism is the real movement which aims to bring about the abolition of all hitero conditions, such a task can not be completed by a class which is wedded to the capitalist mode of production.



Is it better to have union bureaucrats run it into the ground? Go totally abstentionist until the 100% perfect time?


It is better for us Communists to oppose the union bureaucrats and unions in general because the commodity which unions sell is labor peace, the anti-thesis of class struggle and Communism. It is the task of the Communist then, to attack the unions from the left, to demolish them and to create new organizational models for class struggle.


I'm planning on working on an election campaign for a pretty interesting centrist (in the Trotskyist sense) and prominent left critic of social democracy here. Guess what? He runs a store! OMG


There's nothing morally wrong with that, since as materialists our ethical framework rather than an idealist framework. However, my question is why do you want to bother? Why do you want to get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night to help some politician get elected? Don't you have better uses for your time? Watching some TV, hanging out with friends, reading a book, seeing the world around you and maybe even writing some poetry? I mean if you genuinely enjoy political campaigning more than all of the other possible uses for your time, and you have enough disposable income to do it, then why not? If that's what makes you go then go for it, some people like whips and chains, some people like cupcakes, and some people like electioneering

However, being left of social democracy is irrelevant. "Left" as a relative concept is meaningless. If you go as far left on the political spectrum as possible, you'll probably find some dumbasses who were really bad at managing capitalism and most likely fucked up the economy of their respective states when they were in charge. Anti Capitalist politics is not quantitatively leftwards of capitalist politics, rather it represents a qualitatively different form of politics. To be precise, our politics is not the best of their politics, our politics is the hammer which crushes their's. Hence, although we are all different people with different interests and perhaps you enjoy politics, I personally will be playing EU3 and hosting a minecraft server with my peeps.

[argeiphontes]

To be precise, our politics is not the best of their politics, our politics is the hammer which crushes their's.

I only see the harsh hammer of capitalism striking right now. Their politics is in no danger of being crushed.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I only see the harsh hammer of capitalism striking right now. Their politics is in no danger of being crushed.

You're acting as if electioneering is the only thing we can do. Union membership comprises only 7% of the working class in the U.S, who cares about them? I'd be more productive to be entryist into the catholic church (and hell, liberation theology had a fair amount more success than the american left is). The vast majority of the American working class is not politicized, and that's a good thing because it means they haven't internalized bourgeois ideology. Instead we ought to go to the work place, to go to every point of struggle and seek the needs of the broad working masses and turn those into coherent demands. From the people to the people. What we have here is a campaign by a "socialist" organization patched together by a coalition of dying "progressive" unions and organizations without any basis in the class. Hence why her political base is a patch work of unions, petty bourgeois, and students.

[argeiphontes]

You're acting as if electioneering is the only thing we can do.

Not at all, I think multiple strategies should be pursued. On the same note, though, the existence of other valid strategies doesn't invalidate electioneering either. Socialism/Communism needs some good PR--a pretty face, if you will. And it is getting that to some extent with this campaign.

[synthesis]

Socialism/Communism needs some good PR--a pretty face, if you will. And it is getting that to some extent with this campaign.

The problem with this line of argument is that it presumes the working class to be some blank slate that must be manipulated into socialism; the working class doesn't need "PR," although working class people could be reminded of the existence of working class politics, which a class-collaborationist campaign such as Sawant doesn't do anything for.

[argeiphontes]

The problem with this line of argument is that it presumes the working class to be some blank slate that must be manipulated into socialism

I don't think so black-and-white about it; I expect a reflexive relationship between the working class and the party. That being said, I don't expect socialist ideology to arise spontaneously from the struggle of the masses, since I'm an antistrugglist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not at all, I think multiple strategies should be pursued. On the same note, though, the existence of other valid strategies doesn't invalidate electioneering either. Socialism/Communism needs some good PR--a pretty face, if you will. And it is getting that to some extent with this campaign.
Do you really think that an organization with an extremely limited number of cadre can pursue multiple tactics? That's supposing that this hit-and-miss, shoot on all sides approach can actually be unequivocally useful.

But then again the purpose just might be to extend the organizational base, to provide a more stable financial basis as well through dues, and to extend cadre. In other words, promotion of the organization. Not of communism.

Which is clearly visible in what I said, that such campaigns deface communism, to continue with your metaphor, in the sense of actually platform and ideas presented not at all being tantamount to the advocacy of communism (this is the problem I mentioned, of the relationship between the platform and the supposed propaganda of communism).

After all, didn't dozens upon dozens of similar organizations pursue similar tactics? Yet no desired result of rising class consciousness (not even in terms of what they think amounts to class consciousness). The tactic has been shown as a failure, but due to what exact reasons, this needs to be investigated, as well as the potential for other ways of acting.


I don't think so black-and-white about it; I expect a reflexive relationship between the working class and the party. That being said, I don't expect socialist ideology to arise spontaneously from the struggle of the masses, since I'm an antistrugglist.
You keep repeating the line of socialist ideology as a prerequisite. I'm not sure why is that so important as there is no need to accept any ideology for workers to engage in the struggle against the bourgeois state, and its status as variable capital since the development of capital is such that it is inherently pitted against the working class on which it depends for its very existence.
In short, at a point in rising mass struggle, yes the conscious and well disseminated understanding of the necessity, goals, and ways to workers' power will be important, but that doesn't amount to an "acceptance of an ideology". And spontaneous developments of workers ideas about the possibilities for action can indeed become a fruitful ground for a well thought out outreach on behalf of communists.


I agree and am a hard partier myself. My gut instinct is that I prefer my parties a little more impossibilist, but that's only if they adopt my pet project, which by now you should know I'm not so sure what you mean here. Anyway, I think our conceptions of the party probably differ, but that's a matter for another thread. But in short, no such party exists nowadays. Conditions for its formation do not exist either.

[argeiphontes]

You keep repeating the line of socialist ideology as a prerequisite. I'm not sure why is that so important as there is no need to accept any ideology for workers to engage in the struggle against the bourgeois state, and its status as variable capital since the development of capital is such that it is inherently pitted against the working class on which it depends for its very existence.

I don't mean any party-dictated ideology or anything so hard and fast, but the goal of socialism/communism and what that entails and means for next actions. "Struggle" should align with the ultimate goal of replacing capitalism and not focus primarily on reform. (The workers should struggle primarily against the capitalist economy not the bourgeois state per se but that's another thread.) The party should try to spread understanding of communism and commitment to the goal through whatever strategies it adopts. It's in a reflexive relationship with "struggle", but it provides struggle with something it needs--direction.

I'm a historical materialist, but I don't think material causes are the only causes of everything. (i.e. they're not the only determinants.) The ideas and actions of the party can influence people and movements just as their material situation or objective "struggle" can, in my opinion.

And again, I don't like the mystical sound of this purifying "struggle" that brings the Holy Spirit of "class consciousness". It makes it sound like you can't influence anything, when in practice, you can.

[Thirsty Crow]

And again, I don't like the mystical sound of this purifying "struggle" that brings the Holy Spirit of "class consciousness". It makes it sound like you can't influence anything, when in practice, you can.
That's a dishonest portrayal of the views presented.
And unfortunately, small political organizations really can influence very little in the sense of actually creating the basis for a decisive struggle (what other words should be used here) against capitalism.

And as I've said, decades have passed and this approach of bringing the idea of socialism to the masses has been shown as a complete and utter failure. Yeah, I don't dispute that people can influence the course of events, but the precise way how that can happen is at stake here.


"Struggle" should align with the ultimate goal of replacing capitalism and not focus primarily on reform.And here's the problem of a would be political specialist telling workers not to fight for better life conditions, which completely disregard the conditions which enable revolutionary ideas to make sense and take hold among the wider class.

It is completely illusory that political organizations can in this way command the existing movements of the class (in labor disputes, strikes, demos and social movements and so on) since it is oblivious of the way antagonism arises in capitalist society.


(The workers should struggle primarily against the capitalist economy not the bourgeois state per se but that's another thread.)This is meaningless since it is the state that is the ultimate guarantee of continued capitalist rule, and as if there can even be a struggle against capital in its aspect of the basic social relation of production which is not secured by the political rule of the working class and the development of the reorganization of production on completely different lines.


The party should try to spread understanding of communism and commitment to the goal through whatever strategies it adopts. It's in a reflexive relationship with "struggle", but it provides struggle with something it needs--direction.I don't dispute that, but it is entirely foolish to even consider that it is viable to go as a specialist and a cadre member over to workers and telling them that they shouldn't fight for better conditions now (as far as I understand it, this is indeed the position of the contemporary Impossibilists in the SPGB and affiliated orgs), and the fact that this mutual interaction cannot happen anytime, anyplace, without regard for concrete circumstances.

Finally, it is very weird to see a person describing themselves as Impossibilist to first argue, as a supposed "anti-strugglist", against workers' fighting for amelioration of the conditions of exploitation, all the while advocating this approach of electioneering which is most definitely in this case not geared towards a political elaboration of communism and disseminating it throughout the class. That's, honestly, a very interesting contradiction, probably stemming from the specifically American worry with "socialism needs PR and a pretty face" (specifically American in that decades of ideological counter-revolution have produced a sense of the very idea of socialism being completely alien to the political discourse and the working class) in combination with that nasty gotta-do-something phenomenon, which is indicative more of perceived self-importance of radical minorities, or the potential for it.

[argeiphontes]

That's, honestly, a very interesting contradiction, probably stemming from the specifically American worry with "socialism needs PR and a pretty face" (specifically American in that decades of ideological counter-revolution have produced a sense of the very idea of socialism being completely alien to the political discourse and the working class)

I suppose that could be true. As for contradicting myself, I support this campaign even though it's imperfect. I'm not such a die-hard impossibilist.

[argeiphontes]

Links, I've already privately admitted to synthesis that I'm a partial Idealist so I may as well admit it to you too. Some of my view is going to stem from Idealist notions of the party and its role. So we are probably at a fundamental impasse.

[Thirsty Crow]

Links, I've already privately admitted to synthesis that I'm a partial Idealist so I may as well admit it to you too. Some of my view is going to stem from Idealist notions of the party and its role. So we are probably at a fundamental impasse.
Well why did you then claim historical materialism - I'm askin not in the sense "gtfo that's MINE" but why not openly state your opinions? Do you think people here will given you hard time for it?

Sure as hell I won't, apart from honest criticism. Though, I can hardly doany such thing since you did not explain this partial idealism. Maybe we couldm talk about it, if you feel like it, privately or in another thread.



It's absolutely relevant to your question. If you pave the way or lay the basis for radical politics to become relevant again, you're necessarily laying the basis for class struggle...since class struggle is integral to a radical socialist program.
This is an open statement of that underlying approach, that political propaganda creates class struggle, or at least the basis for it.

If it creates the class struggle, then we're dealing with an inherently substitutionist approach - claiming that the only important form of struggle is waged by party cadre.

If it is taken in its weakened form, it proposes that political consciousness, the awareness of radical ideas, is a prerequisite for immediate class struggle waged by workers outside the party. It is more reasonable than the strong version, but still flawed in that it presupposes inability on behalf of workers to fight for themselves, on their own terrain - the workplace, for immediate demands. If it is coupled by a materialist analysis of the underlying material difficulties (e.g. workers' debt burden and resulting psychological phenomena such as fear and lack of will), this view is forced to conclude that the party simply cannot affect the underlying causes.

This is, I think, the most relevant aspect, and its very basis, so there's no need to engage with other points you make.

[argeiphontes]

Well why did you then claim historical materialism - I'm askin not in the sense "gtfo that's MINE" but why not openly state your opinions? Do you think people here will given you hard time for it?


It was more of a realization that that's where my views were coming from, than trying to hide anything. I would *prefer* to stick to material explanations because I think they're more solid. My views are in a state of flux, mostly as a result of this board, and aren't theoretically sound, I'm sure.

I don't deny materialist causes, in fact I would (and do) say that historical materialism has plenty of explanatory power, and many things can be explained very well by only referring to their material antecedents. I just think that material determination (of events, ideas, etc) is not the only force at work. If you add ideas as an objective determinant, then maybe it becomes "complete". (Even though ideas are nonmaterial, they have material antecedents, though they are partially independent. When they enter into a relationship with other things, they can act as objective determinants. For example, to even have the idea for an atomic weapon, you need a certain level of development in mathematics and physics. It's not enough to just evolve into an aggressive ape or even have the technological sophistication to build the thing. But maybe that's not a good example--I feel I'm not thinking strictly enough about this and that's because I'm missing some philosophy here... ;) )



Sure as hell I won't, apart from honest criticism. Though, I can hardly doany such thing since you did not explain this partial idealism. Maybe we couldm talk about it, if you feel like it, privately or in another thread.
I'm open to that, but I think the discussion might be one-sided, though I'm sure I'd learn something :)



This is an open statement of that underlying approach, that political propaganda creates class struggle, or at least the basis for it.

If it creates the class struggle, then we're dealing with an inherently substitutionist approach - claiming that the only important form of struggle is waged by party cadre.

If it is taken in its weakened form, it proposes that political consciousness, the awareness of radical ideas, is a prerequisite for immediate class struggle waged by workers outside the party. It is more reasonable than the strong version, but still flawed in that it presupposes inability on behalf of workers to fight for themselves, on their own terrain - the workplace, for immediate demands. If it is coupled by a materialist analysis of the underlying material difficulties (e.g. workers' debt burden and resulting psychological phenomena such as fear and lack of will), this view is forced to conclude that the party simply cannot affect the underlying causes.
I wouldn't say that radical ideas are a prerequisite for "immediate class struggle" but I think that one role of the party is to provide ideas, strategies, education, theory even, that wouldn't automatically arise just from struggling against capitalist power. It is not that people are not able to fight for immediate needs, but tying it to the larger struggle for socialism is helped along by the various "activist" activities of the organizations.

Conditions alone can cause dissatisfaction, but something is needed to channel that dissatisfaction toward the proper explanatory ideology that condemns the system as a whole and provides a way forward. (The work done by Marx and his followers.) Capitalist relations are very powerful because they appear with the force of objectivity, so something is needed to counteract that, and I don't think just relying on organically occurring phenomena is going to work. The ideas need to be "available" (more than just present in the general consciousness, but also usable, perhaps in the sense of being realistic) for people to do this. So when I say that the party has a propaganda purpose, part of that is to make Marxism available as an explanation, and socialism/communism real and available as a solution.

I don't think it's as black and white as which element "creates" the struggle--it's a mutual, reflexive relationship, the dynamics of which I don't know, and might even require some empirical knowledge. That's another reason I sound so indeterminate when I write. ;) I do think that parties can mobilize struggle though.

[synthesis]

I don't deny materialist causes, in fact I would (and do) say that historical materialism has plenty of explanatory power, and many things can be explained very well by only referring to their material antecedents. I just think that material determination (of events, ideas, etc) is not the only force at work. If you add ideas as an objective determinant, then maybe it becomes "complete". (Even though ideas are nonmaterial, they have material antecedents, though they are partially independent. When they enter into a relationship with other things, they can act as objective determinants. For example, to even have the idea for an atomic weapon, you need a certain level of development in mathematics and physics. It's not enough to just evolve into an aggressive ape or even have the technological sophistication to build the thing. But maybe that's not a good example--I feel I'm not thinking strictly enough about this and that's because I'm missing some philosophy here... ;) )

Historical materialists don't deny that ideas exist or that they have an effect outside the mind; they just deny that ideas exist independently of people and conditions, and more importantly for Marxism, they deny the primacy of ideas as catalysts for social and political developments.

[argeiphontes]

Historical materialists don't deny that ideas exist or that they have an effect outside the mind; they just deny that ideas exist independently of people and conditions, and more importantly for Marxism, they deny the primacy of ideas as catalysts for social and political developments.

Well, I think that ideas have some independence, and can at least direct social and political developments. If ideas have an effect outside the mind, why can't they be catalysts of social change?

Look at Mao's quote, "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent." To me, this means that the situation is excellent for the promotion of ideas, thus ordering the chaos towards beneficial ends.

Again, all my thinking on this isn't strict or fully formed.

[argeiphontes]

Because that change must first be facilitated by conditions and precipitated by changing circumstances.

Ideas and conditions are kind of like the chicken and the egg - well, now we know that the egg came first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Proteins), and we must think about this in the same way: which existed first, ideas or conditions?


I agree. I just think the chicken has some emergent properties.



This shouldn't take a whole lot of deep thinking.


I don't lose too much sleep over it ;) But I would like to clarify my thinking about it a bit, if only for the sake of being able to wage better arguments. (Not for the sake of "winning" any argument, just to be able to explain and/or clarify my position for others.)

[Creative Destruction]

This is an open statement of that underlying approach, that political propaganda creates class struggle, or at least the basis for it.

If it creates the class struggle, then we're dealing with an inherently substitutionist approach - claiming that the only important form of struggle is waged by party cadre.

If it is taken in its weakened form, it proposes that political consciousness, the awareness of radical ideas, is a prerequisite for immediate class struggle waged by workers outside the party. It is more reasonable than the strong version, but still flawed in that it presupposes inability on behalf of workers to fight for themselves, on their own terrain - the workplace, for immediate demands. If it is coupled by a materialist analysis of the underlying material difficulties (e.g. workers' debt burden and resulting psychological phenomena such as fear and lack of will), this view is forced to conclude that the party simply cannot affect the underlying causes.

This is, I think, the most relevant aspect, and its very basis, so there's no need to engage with other points you make.

Well, first, I never said the most important struggle is one waged by "party cadre." The most important struggle is the one waged by the working class against capital, of course. And nothing in that presupposes that workers can't fight for themselves, however if you leave the working class to its own devices, without raising the profile of any political alternative, it will probably choose to go with whatever outlet it deems most viable. That's just the logical thing to do. You can see how that worked out in the 20th century with the unions. The radical unions and groups pretty much died out as a viable alternative toward the late 60s. Since then, it's been nothing but collaborationist, conservative union federations like the AFL-CIO, and of that, only 7% of the American population belongs to them. There was no other direction for the working class to go because there was no good alternative presented. Aside from that, of course class struggle can happen independent of being apart of any socialist movement. We see that with the Boston busdrivers and their wildcat strike, but was that strike calling for all the working class to get together and overthrow the capitalist system? No. They were demanding immediate goals, to better their positions within a capitalist society (although the leader of the strike does seem to be a pretty radical dude.)

That is key to my entire issue with this: you're not going to get the alternative out in the streets if you do nothing but stay within your own intellectual circles. This is the way it is with anything if it has to do with getting a message out. If you have a major scientific breakthrough, you don't just share it with your inner-circle. You get that out into journals and publications so people know, so they can study it and replicate the experiment, and you do that through which ever avenue is that is available to you and which would also provide you the best opportunity to get it to the intended audience.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, first, I never said the most important struggle is one waged by "party cadre."
I know.
Roughly, I distinguish between the strong and weak variants of this position (which can be called vanguardism quite appropriately), and the points I raise about the importance of struggle by party cadre - i.e. electoral and propaganda activity - is a necessary outcome of the strong variant, whether its proponents are ready to admit it or not (and following Marx, I think it is best not to let ourselves be misguided by statements of motives and intentions, or by anyone's self-understanding).

This is why I pose the question of where does class struggle come from, how it happens, and what is its relationship to communist propaganda (in this case, a distorted, at best reformist propaganda). Because I do not think that such a basis can be created by radicals if it doesn't already exist in the concrete conditions of the working class.



The most important struggle is the one waged by the working class against capital, of course. And nothing in that presupposes that workers can't fight for themselves, however if you leave the working class to its own devices, without raising the profile of any political alternative, it will probably choose to go with whatever outlet it deems most viable. That's just the logical thing to do. You can see how that worked out in the 20th century with the unions...

The radical unions and groups pretty much died out as a viable alternative toward the late 60s. Since then, it's been nothing but collaborationist, conservative union federations like the AFL-CIO, and of that, only 7% of the American population belongs to them.
I don't even think any union form can function as a viable alternative in the sense of a organizing form for smashing the bourgeois state and instituting the rule of the working class. In short, there is no distinction to be made between class collaboration and union radicalism, and any apparent difference should be located merely in a) the limited numbers, and therefore bargaining power of base unions and b) ideology (which is related to the material basis, the relationship to the means of production of the union apparatus - which is based on continued rule of capital).


That is key to my entire issue with this: you're not going to get the alternative out in the streets if you do nothing but stay within your own intellectual circles. That's very much correct.
But the point is not that I advocate only theoretical work - just that this form of "going out" is, in my view, based on certain mistakes which are far from being innocent ones that can be remedied easily (at root there is the material position of the paid party cadre).


I get it, the way I engage in criticism can be taken as coming from an intellectualist position, advocating only theoretical work. But this is not the case. Now, in all honesty, I don't know exactly what kind of activities in this sense I would advocate. It's just that, I think, historical practice, those long decades of experimenting with that same approach, has yielded nothing. Nothing at all. And the fact that such parties position themselves within class struggle in a way that I'd call extremely counter-productive (so even if the party manages to yield results in this way, it is most probably that it will succumb to opportunism and reformism, in the end).

And finally, to be frank, such kinds of approaching this huge problem seem to me to be rooted, ironically, in a kind of an impatience that the so called ultra-left is commonly accused of. In short, I don't think there's much we can do as radicals and that it seems that we're gonna have to wait it out, for the sleeping giant of the working class to wake (that, however, doesn't mean we can't do absolutely nothing).



I don't think it's as black and white as which element "creates" the struggle--it's a mutual, reflexive relationship, the dynamics of which I don't know, and might even require some empirical knowledge. That's another reason I sound so indeterminate when I write. ;) I do think that parties can mobilize struggle though.
In short, my contention is that the approach manifest in electioneering such as the one we're talking about unwittingly reproduces this black-and-white view, with the underlying idea that radicals and politicos can induce class struggle. This has a lot of implications, and possible trajectories of development for said party. I definitely don't agree. But I think I understand where it comes from, especially in the case of a country such as the USA (the impatience I'm talking about; it can verge on outright desperation, trust my I know; and that's a part of the basis for such "activism", the psychological part of the life of a radical).


If ideas have an effect outside the mind, why can't they be catalysts of social change?

The point to what synthesis argues centers around the notion of primacy of ideas and theoretical elaborations. The set of ideas first needs to make sense - in that it arises from the understanding of the common social position, and then in that it charts in an exact manner the potential for change in that position.

And to be honest, I think your self-understanding, in terms of partial idealism, is wrong. There's nothing idealist about your approach which is focused on the necessity for radical intervention, therefore radical ideas. I only think the said impatience gets the best of you, and that's why any and all approach (do-something-do-anything) by political radicals is good in your book, at all times and in all conditions.

[argeiphontes]

This is why I pose the question of where does class struggle come from, how it happens, and what is its relationship to communist propaganda (in this case, a distorted, at best reformist propaganda). Because I do not think that such a basis can be created by radicals if it doesn't already exist in the concrete conditions of the working class.


I'd like to talk more about this, but I'm not really sure how to approach it. Can you suggest any reading material?

I would say that the concrete conditions always exist, although in a latent form, just by virtue of the fact that we live in the exploitative system. It needs to be activated in an appropriate manner, i.e. turned into "class consciousness" and given some direction for making change that isn't reformist. Look at how the Tea Party takes advantage of dissatisfaction but turns it into some form of false consciousness (not the bourgeois cadres, but the masses from which they need to extract votes). Why isn't something like that possible on the left? (Obviously without the cadres, but under the auspices of a broad-based party or organization.)



And to be honest, I think your self-understanding, in terms of partial idealism, is wrong. There's nothing idealist about your approach which is focused on the necessity for radical intervention, therefore radical ideas. I only think the said impatience gets the best of you, and that's why any and all approach (do-something-do-anything) by political radicals is good in your book, at all times and in all conditions.Yeah, you're right about the first part. Since joining this board, I no longer know what the words mean anymore, I'm in a period of cognitive dissonance.

But I won't apologize for impatience. Unfortunately, I have a finite lifetime. So, in exchange, I'll say that it seems to me that your position sounds like an elaborate justification of not engaging in action. :P ;)

I'm not at all a fan of do-something-do-anything and routinely make fun of such a position in other contexts. However, in the context of paralysis it can make sense to offer up its dialectical opposite in order to try to create a balance. Call it my Hermetic praxis; we are not in any danger of beginning to labor under the sign of Priapus, since we are doing that already, and it seems to me that some movement in our consciousness is necessary to get out from under it. ;)

Anyway, thanks for your response. If I figure out what I want to ask, I'll start another thread about it.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..." (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar)

[Five Year Plan]

I have a question for the CWI folks here. If there were a Green Party or Democratic Party candidate running on a program very similar to Sawant's, would you endorse that candidate, too? If not, why the difference? Is it only because Sawant is a member of your organization? Because it couldn't be a matter of different programs at that point.

[Five Year Plan]

No takers on that last question? Disappointing..

[Crux]

I have a question for the CWI folks here. If there were a Green Party or Democratic Party candidate running on a program very similar to Sawant's, would you endorse that candidate, too? If not, why the difference? Is it only because Sawant is a member of your organization? Because it couldn't be a matter of different programs at that point.
Then you obviously do not know our programme, comrade.

[CyM]

I have my problems with the CWI's method, but to equate them to the bourgeois parties is just ridiculous.

[Five Year Plan]

Then you obviously do not know our programme, comrade.

Where did I mention the CWI's program? I mentioned the program that Sawant is running on, her election platform. You seem to be mistaking a program a candidate for electoral office is running on, with the full program of the organization of which she is a member, which of course she is not running on and receives no mention on her campaign website. Are you going to answer my question? If somebody from the Green Party or Democratic Party ran on a platform identical to Sawant's, would you endorse them as well? Or are you going to pretend that Sawant's program is is the full CWI program, but that she is hiding it from the public, a claim that resembles the worst misreadings and caricatures of the transitional method "tricking" workers into socialist revolution. The CWI's program, if it is similar to any other Trotskyist organization's, will include agitational demands that are immediately actionable, transitional demands that are currently propagandistic in nature but provide a context for how to understand the realization of agitational minimum demands, and also socialist propaganda in which the full program of socialist transformation is mentioned. Sawant's campaign contains no propaganda at all, either for transitional or for maximum demands. It is all actionable concrete demands of the kind you would see a 'progressive' Democrat in Seattle running on.

[Five Year Plan]

I have my problems with the CWI's method, but to equate them to the bourgeois parties is just ridiculous.

I didn't equate the CWI to a bourgeois party. I equated Sawant's platform with the platform a person from the Green Party or Democratic Party would run on. If you are you having difficulties understanding the distinction, I will be happy to answer whatever questions you might have.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't equate the CWI to a bourgeois party. I equated Sawant's platform with the platform a person from the Green Party or Democratic Party would run on. If you are you having difficulties understanding the distinction, I will be happy to answer whatever questions you might have.
Don't bother. Almost any criticism which is grounded in (working) class politics stands a good chance to be misconstrued as "equating the CWI with bourgeois parties".

[CyM]

I didn't equate the CWI to a bourgeois party. I equated Sawant's platform with the platform a person from the Green Party or Democratic Party would run on. If you are you having difficulties understanding the distinction, I will be happy to answer whatever questions you might have.

You're playing semantics. You know precisely what I was saying and it is exactly what you are doing, so don't play dumb. They are not running on a bourgeois programme.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're playing semantics. You know precisely what I was saying and it is exactly what you are doing, so don't play dumb. They are not running on a bourgeois programme.
So it's a revolutionary programme? Is that the right distinction here?
Or does it have to do with another distinction - a programme of the working class, aiming at ameliorating workers' conditions, as against a programme of the capitalist class, facilitating accumulation and profit making? If it is so, what's the value of the concept of the revolutionary programme in an election campaign? Is that even necessary?

[Five Year Plan]

You're playing semantics. You know precisely what I was saying and it is exactly what you are doing, so don't play dumb. They are not running on a bourgeois programme.

It's not semantics to distinguish between the program underlying a particular election campaign, and the program underlying a party. You might consider the example of an anti-choice Democrat running on an anti-choice program, despite belonging to a party with a program that is, by and large, pro-choice. Sawant might belong to a party that has the abolition of commodity production and the worldwide overthrow of capitalism emblazened at the top of its program. It's just not a part of her campaign program, at all. This distinction might not be a big deal to somebody who thinks that the push for reforms has a built-in logic that is automatically and spontaneously socialist, and that therefore propaganda about transitional demands or socialism isn't necessary to make a program socialist. The history of the socialist movement over the past 100 years should lay to rest this blind faith in spontaneity. The staggering defeats marking the 20th century have shown repeatedly that if you don't actively and openly propagandize for socialism, and attempt to struggle for how to understand immediate demands by setting them within the context of more fundamental demands for transitional measures and socialist revolution, the immediate demands you fight for will be interpreted by default within the existing dominant political paradigm of bourgeois reformism. Without a long-term alternative driving the argument for immediate reforms, those immediate reforms will just bolster people's confidence in the inherent reformability and flexibility of capitalism.

These distinctions are not playing dumb or quibbling over semantics. They are just stating basic facts that you are trying to bury under your umbrage at caricatures of what I have been saying. I am not sure if this is a deliberate strategy to try to divert the discussion away from my questions, or if you are honestly just confused. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, and would like to see more in your next response besides baseless and unsubstantiated accusations about me.

[synthesis]

I wish I could just thank part of a post.


The history of the socialist movement over the past 100 years should lay to rest this blind faith in spontaneity.

Or it could lay to rest the concept that the working class has anything to gain from buying into socialist/communist parties that openly advocate class collaboration to achieve short-term political goals.

[Althusser]

Somehow, I don't think this is the same section of the petit bourgeoisie that supports the Tea Party.

Do you think this section of the American petty-bourgeoisie's support for Sawant constitutes a submission to proletarianization and a recognition of socialist revolution as the way forward?

Or do you think they feel Sawant's petty-bourgeois anti-corporation "Occupy-ish" rhetoric makes her beneficial to them in the reactionary sense of "fighting for the little guy?" (Something Marx literally called turning back the wheel of history) In a way, All the eclectic anti-big corporation rhetoric would make Sawant's approval by the petty-bourgeois liberals almost identical to the approval of tea party candidates to the petty-bourgeois conservatives.

[blake 3:17]

She sounds awesome! I find it pretty funny that she's being put down as a liberal, when she's running openly as a socialist against a left liberal...


At the forum earlier this month, Conlin, 64, replied to Sawant’s talking points by listing awards and endorsements he has accumulated during his 16-year tenure on the council: He has been endorsed by the King County Labor Council, won Hunger Fighter of the Year, been named Social Justice Visionary, and so on.

Sawant stuck to her main message: the minimum wage, which became a hot-button issue this summer as fast food workers protested across the country, demanding better pay.

“In order to fight for something like the $15 an hour minimum wage, you need to stand boldly against corporate interests and say I don’t care what they think, I’m fighting for working people and low income people,” she said.

Conlin said the issue is more complicated than that: “You can’t necessarily assume that by passing a regulation, everything is going to change.”

Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party, uses academic language to address the issue of homelessness: The roots of homelessness are within the roots of our capitalist society itself, she said at a candidate forum.

Tent cities and tent encampments are a really necessary Stop gap measure to help homeless people, she said. “Mr. Conlin voted to end Nicklesville and he voted against a measure that would allow the city to ease its regulation.”

Conlin sounded defensive as he explained his position, saying that the council had been advised by the federal government’s homelessness initiative.

“Places that wind up focusing on camps don’t put their resources into the things that really need to be changed – to providing people with low-income housing, with real housing opportunities and options,” he said.

Toward the end of the forum, Conlin countered Sawant’s premise, arguing that Seattle’s problem have more to do with success.

“One of the things we’re suffering from is that Seattle is so successful,” he said. “We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. People are flocking here, they want to be here.”

In the audience, watching the debate, Jodi Grage said she had known Conlin for decades and were both part of the group that started Sustainable Seattle years back.

“I think that any group that has the same people over and over it inherently becomes narrower. We need more than two parties; we need more opportunities,” Grage said.

Asked if she would vote for Sawant, Grage paused.

“Well,” she said, hesitating, “yes.”

http://kuow.org/post/socialist-candidate-sawant-keeps-conlin-defensive

[Tim Cornelis]

I have a question for the CWI folks here. If there were a Green Party or Democratic Party candidate running on a program very similar to Sawant's, would you endorse that candidate, too? If not, why the difference? Is it only because Sawant is a member of your organization? Because it couldn't be a matter of different programs at that point.

I'm by no means a member of the CWI but I'll respond. What matters is context: the reforms advocated are not in and of itself worth anything. If pursued by a Green Party or Democratic Party I would not support it. If, however, it is advocated by a socialist party I would. If there is a section of the working class willing to struggle for improvements in their living conditions, the socialists need to back these efforts, facilitate the struggle, aid them in articulating their demands, and functioning as mouthpiece for those demands through all means, media, legislation, etc.

Ultimately, socialism and communism have, historically, exclusively drawn support from struggling for immediate and short-term demands. Arguing that such demands are compatible with the bourgeois other of things is irrelevant, as it can create class consciousness.

It is important though, that there are people out there on the streets advocating these demands, and the socialists merely taking up these demands. Implementing reforms without working class action backing it produces no results in relation to class consciousness.

So the conditions for support for reforms is:

- The centre of gravity in campaigns has to be on street-level organising and action.
- The demand for reforms needs to arise out of action.
- The active pursuit of reforms is to be done by workers and socialists.
- The legislative aspect is a mere mouthpiece of workers in the streets, and it takes no initiative beyond it.
- Reforms need to remain a means to an end, not become an end in itself.
- Class independence needs to be preserved.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm by no means a member of the CWI but I'll respond. What matters is context: the reforms advocated are not in and of itself worth anything. If pursued by a Green Party or Democratic Party I would not support it. If, however, it is advocated by a socialist party I would. If there is a section of the working class willing to struggle for improvements in their living conditions, the socialists need to back these efforts, facilitate the struggle, aid them in articulating their demands, and functioning as mouthpiece for those demands through all means, media, legislation, etc.

Based purely on your response in this post, it sounds like what matters to you isn't the program being put forward by the candidate, which in the case of Sawant is literally nothing different than what a progressive Democrat would advance, but that candidate's affiliation. To me, that sounds like the ultimate in sectarianism. "That Democrat over there is advancing the same issues from the same perspective of raising the consciousness of workers to take on corporations, but she's not a member of my sect!" Funny how people like me who prioritize program and insist on programmatic principles are often the ones accused of "sectarianism" when this may be the clearest example of it ever.


Ultimately, socialism and communism have, historically, exclusively drawn support from struggling for immediate and short-term demands. Arguing that such demands are compatible with the bourgeois other of things is irrelevant, as it can create class consciousness.Yes, movements for communism grow and "draw support," as you say, from fighting for immediate demands. That is also how labor bureaucracies co-opt leadership and consolidate their control of trade unions. It is also how bourgeois parties present the illusion of being for "the people." What makes a push for reforms specifically socialist in nature is by presenting those reforms within propaganda that makes clear the role of those reforms in the longer-term struggle to establish socialism. Otherwise, as I said, they will be interpreted within the dominant reformist framework of beautifying capitalism and proving how efficiently it can work to address people's needs. Why? Because immediate reforms are very much compatible with those other, anti-worker ideologies.

Nobody is arguing that we must cease struggling for immediate reforms. What is important is how those reforms are struggled for. As Roxa Luxemburg argued against the reformist current in the SPD: "The difference is not in the what, but in the how. ... According to the present conception of the party, trade-union and parliamentary activity are important for the socialist movement because such activity prepares the proletariat, that is to say, creates the subjective factor of the socialist transformation, for the task of realising socialism." If you are struggling for reforms in a way that is perfectly compatible with ruling class ideology, you're not preparing workers for anything but defeat. You're not even helping to build a truly independent class consciousness on their part, mired as workers will still be in petty-bourgeois reformism. You are cynically adapting to their low level of consciousness and hoping that the struggle for reforms in and of themselves will grow into independent and revolutionary class consciousness.


It is important though, that there are people out there on the streets advocating these demands, and the socialists merely taking up these demands. Implementing reforms without working class action backing it produces no results in relation to class consciousness.I am not sure how this even makes sense. Reforms are "implemented" by the working class taking action, and not in any other way. The question that is of great importance, though, is how the working class perceives the action it is taking.


So the conditions for support for reforms is:

- The centre of gravity in campaigns has to be on street-level organising and action.
- The demand for reforms needs to arise out of action.
- The active pursuit of reforms is to be done by workers and socialists.
- The legislative aspect is a mere mouthpiece of workers in the streets, and it takes no initiative beyond it.
- Reforms need to remain a means to an end, not become an end in itself.
- Class independence needs to be preserved.I agree with all this, especially with the last two planks. However, you can't use reforms as a means to a socialist end by burying all talk of socialism in your program. And you certainly can't maintain class independence by echoing the demands and justifications for those demands made by the trade union bureaucracy. From what I can see of Sawant's campaign material, this is all the campaign is doing. I would of course welcome corrections from people who might be more familiar with the arguments Sawant might be presenting more informally in speeches on the ground.

[Thirsty Crow]

Class independence is eventuated by the working class, not socialist organizations.

[blake 3:17]

Based purely on your response in this post, it sounds like what matters to you isn't the program being put forward by the candidate, which in the case of Sawant is literally nothing different than what a progressive Democrat would advance, but that candidate's affiliation. To me, that sounds like the ultimate in sectarianism. "That Democrat over there is advancing the same issues from the same perspective of raising the consciousness of workers to take on corporations, but she's not a member of my sect!" Funny how people like me who prioritize program and insist on programmatic principles are often the ones accused of "sectarianism" when this may be the clearest example of it ever.


I'm starting to wonder why you're so intent on attacking an independent socialist's campaign.

Edited to add: This is over the election of someone to city council who has a good chance of winning as a socialist in the United States. This is neither the peak of power nor the last thing on the left, but it'd be a bit of breakthrough in terms of using the 'S' word and hopefully encouraging some other meaningful left interventions in American electoral politics. At the very very least, this is a learning experience. Electoral politics are mostly really ugly, and it sounds like there's some painful frictions in Seattle, and I can't see why a revolutionary would be hating on Sawant.

*** And just she just might win some of things she's campaigning on or help build a movement that will ***

[Five Year Plan]

Class independence is eventuated by the working class, not socialist organizations.

It is a truism to say that working class independence occurs through the working class's agency. That is axiomatic. But the working class does not always act in its own long-term interests because it is constantly inundated with a multi-billion dollar apparatus of bourgeois persuasion and propaganda. Their agency is subsumed into the interests of the ruling class, struggles are diverted into reformism, etc. The task of revolutionary socialists in fighting alongside other workers is not just to struggle, but to struggle in the context of presenting an alternative understanding of the nature of the tasks they are undertaking, in order to combat the constant barrage of pro-capitalist propaganda that implicitly, and at least partially, informs their present understanding.



I'm starting to wonder why you're so intent on attacking an independent socialist's campaign.

Edited to add: This is over the election of someone to city council who has a good chance of winning as a socialist in the United States. This is neither the peak of power nor the last thing on the left, but it'd be a bit of breakthrough in terms of using the 'S' word and hopefully encouraging some other meaningful left interventions in American electoral politics. At the very very least, this is a learning experience. Electoral politics are mostly really ugly, and it sounds like there's some painful frictions in Seattle, and I can't see why a revolutionary would be hating on Sawant.

*** And just she just might win some of things she's campaigning on or help build a movement that will ***

Bernie Sanders uses the "s" word, and calls himself a socialist, and, in view of the positions that Sanders has historically taken, would actually fully support Sawant's program. Is it now time to endorse him when he runs into the Senate, because he uses the "s" word to describe himself? Is his winning elections in Vermont a breakthrough? Or is the important thing here that he is not affiliated with a particular sect? Is anybody who criticizes him a sectarian whose constant criticism we should "wonder" about?

I think I've been clear in this thread why I don't think the approach the CWI is taking with Sawant is a useful one in advancing revolutionary politics. If she were some garden variety liberal, I wouldn't give her campaign a second thought. But because some Trotskyists seem to think her victory would represent a victory for the revolutionary struggle, albeit a small one, I am taking the time to explain how that belief is steeped in a number of errors regarding the necessary tasks that revolutionaries are confronting in the present moment. Why? Because those Trotskyists already share my aspirations, and having a polemical exchange would them on this matter could win them to what I think would be a far more productive approach. More successful at winning city council seats? Probably not.

Reformist movements following reformist programs don't move us closer to revolution. In the absence of independent working-class (revolutionary socialist) ideas driving a struggle for reforms, those reforms stabilize capitalism and build faith in its reformability. This is why rev socialists should measure success by the raising of revolutionary consciousness through struggle, not by which member of which Trot group wins a city council seat on a reformist program.

It's nothing personal, and doesn't involve "hate" or "hating" at all. I regret that you seem to have hurt feelings about my remarks. My advice: grow thicker skin and learn to put principles over pride.

[Tim Cornelis]

Based purely on your response in this post, it sounds like what matters to you isn't the program being put forward by the candidate, which in the case of Sawant is literally nothing different than what a progressive Democrat would advance, but that candidate's affiliation.

To me, that sounds like the ultimate in sectarianism. "That Democrat over there is advancing the same issues from the same perspective of raising the consciousness of workers to take on corporations, but she's not a member of my sect!" Funny how people like me who prioritize program and insist on programmatic principles are often the ones accused of "sectarianism" when this may be the clearest example of it ever.

The issue is not the demands or reforms being advanced, the issue is the strategical framework in which it happens. Again, I already stated that the reforms in and of itself do nothing. It depends whom is pushing the demands in what context. Let's take the 8 hour work day. One could argue that left-liberals and social-democrats upheld the same position, namely in favour of it, circa 1900 and therefore socialists advocating it should not have done so. After all, the 8 hour work day does not damage capitalist society.
By taking up the issue of an 8 hour work day, socialist militants showed, by means of struggle of the working class, that tangible short-term demands could be defended. It allowed socialists to position themselves as bilateral leadership of the more militant section of the working masses. The net result was quite obviously positive, yet it was a 'social-democratic' reform. The 8 hour work day in and of itself does not advance us closer in the direction of socialism, but the struggle for it does.

Opposing employer abuse is not revolutionary, and if done by the Democratic Party would not in and of itself produce net positive results for socialism. Yet, done under the banner of SeaSol, an IWW-linked anarchic group, it does produce net positive results for socialism.

Advocating housing is not revolutionary, and if done by the ANC would not in and of itself produce net positive results for socialism. Yet, done under the banner of Abahlali baseMjondolo, a communistic group, it does produce net positive results for socialism.

The same applies for workers' conditions and the CNT-AIT, or land reform and the MST, unemployed councils and CPUSA. From a previous post:

I can completely understand the sentiment, because the reformist demands of the Sawant-campaign in and of itself do nothing. Had they been proposed by a centre-left party no one here would champion it (beyond 'i'd like to earn more'). Look at it this way: the CPUSA used to organise unemployed councils. Fighting unemployment in and of itself does nothing for the communist cause, and — if done by benevolent Christians — neither does organising unemployed councils. But done under the banner of class struggle it can enhance class consciousness. The same with a campaign such as that of Sawant. As long as the centre of gravity is on grassroots organising by and for workers, and the electoral aspect is merely icing on the cake to solidify the grassroots demands (at the end of the day you need willing politicians to implement them and claim victory), then the net result of the Sawant campaign will be positive.

It has nothing to do with sectarianism.


Yes, movements for communism grow and "draw support," as you say, from fighting for immediate demands. That is also how labor bureaucracies co-opt leadership and consolidate their control of trade unions. It is also how bourgeois parties present the illusion of being for "the people." What makes a push for reforms specifically socialist in nature is by presenting those reforms within propaganda that makes clear the role of those reforms in the longer-term struggle to establish socialism. Otherwise, as I said, they will be interpreted within the dominant reformist framework of beautifying capitalism and proving how efficiently it can work to address people's needs. Why? Because immediate reforms are very much compatible with those other, anti-worker ideologies.

I agree, from a previous post:

Class struggle has to correspond to the level of consciousness amongst the working class, or else it will not be fertile. Does the Sawant campaign promote European-style social democracy? As a means, yes. The problematic thing with such parties is that they forget to explicitly and constantly remind potential supporters that their actual aims go beyond this, which allows for opportunism and reformist elements to enter the organisation, destroying it from the inside (as has been done with hundreds of socialist and social-democratic parties).




I am not sure how this even makes sense. Reforms are "implemented" by the working class taking action, and not in any other way. The question that is of great importance, though, is how the working class perceives the action it is taking.

That makes no sense though. Workers possess no legislative power. With a small communistic group Breakthrough in Holland we've been trying to organise welfare workers (forced to do work below minimum wage). The Socialist Party is a bourgeois party and nominally socialist, but opposed to this practice. I will vote for the SP in the 2014 municipal elections because struggling against the practice of forced welfare labour is easier with more SP city council members. At the end of the day you need willing politicians to legislate your demands into practice. Hence, why electoral activity can be a complementary to street-level organising and action.


I agree with all this, especially with the last two planks. However, you can't use reforms as a means to a socialist end by burying all talk of socialism in your program. And you certainly can't maintain class independence by echoing the demands and justifications for those demands made by the trade union bureaucracy. From what I can see of Sawant's campaign material, this is all the campaign is doing. I would of course welcome corrections from people who might be more familiar with the arguments Sawant might be presenting more informally in speeches on the ground.

Agreed. That should've been another bulletin.

[blake 3:17]

@aufheben -- the hurt or painful feelings aren't my own. It sounds like there's tensions in Seattle, a place I've never been to.

If I'm irritated it's by foolishness of either neglecting the bourgeois political sphere or elevating it into something it's not.

I'm very interested in the campaign on a number of fronts. I'm hoping there may be a couple of local municipal seats seriously contested by open socialists though they are open reformists We'll see what happens. The current governing Right in Toronto is splintering, so there's space for the liberal social dem progressives to sweep back in with no mandate other than not being drug dealers.

We're looking for a break here from the stupid social democrats that aren't even social democrats.

[Five Year Plan]

@aufheben -- the hurt or painful feelings aren't my own. It sounds like there's tensions in Seattle, a place I've never been to.

If I'm irritated it's by foolishness of either neglecting the bourgeois political sphere or elevating it into something it's not.

I'm very interested in the campaign on a number of fronts. I'm hoping there may be a couple of local municipal seats seriously contested by open socialists though they are open reformists We'll see what happens. The current governing Right in Toronto is splintering, so there's space for the liberal social dem progressives to sweep back in with no mandate other than not being drug dealers.

We're looking for a break here from the stupid social democrats that aren't even social democrats.

I agree with you in principle. Revolutionary socialists shouldn't boycott elections, but they shouldn't bury their revolutionary program in the hopes of winning seats, as though the winning of a seat, like any other "reform," is an end in itself. Revolutionaries use elections to propagandize about the need for socialism, and to measure workers' level of consciousness by seeing their response to that message.

You claim this campaign is different than one run by reformists and social democrats. I am prepared to accept this statement as fact if you can show me anywhere in Sawant's campaign literature you see any message being advanced beyond what you would see from a social democrat or reformist. So far, I haven't seen it, but have seen a lot of that is in line with reformist thinking. This doesn't make Sawant a reformist per se. It just makes the campaign she is running reformist.

A campaign doesn't magically become revolutionary just because somebody who perceives herself to be a revolutionary, or is a member of a revolutionary organization, is running in it. Campaigns, like parties, are to be judged by the programs they publicly advance. Do you disagree? By that measure, the Sawant campaign is reformist.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree with you in principle. Revolutionary socialists shouldn't boycott elections, but they shouldn't bury their revolutionary program in the hopes of winning seats, as though the winning of a seat, like any other "reform," is an end in itself. Revolutionaries use elections to propagandize about the need for socialism, and to measure workers' level of consciousness by seeing their response to that message.
How about workers' inquiry? I'd wager that this is a better way to gauge the level of consciousness.

[Five Year Plan]

The issue is not the demands or reforms being advanced, the issue is the strategical framework in which it happens. Again, I already stated that the reforms in and of itself do nothing. It depends whom is pushing the demands in what context. Let's take the 8 hour work day. One could argue that left-liberals and social-democrats upheld the same position, namely in favour of it, circa 1900 and therefore socialists advocating it should not have done so. After all, the 8 hour work day does not damage capitalist society.

You are placing too much stake in ad hominem. A reformist program is a reformist program, even if it is being advocated by somebody who otherwise considers herself a revolutionary. Bernie Sanders' election platform doesn't magically morph into a revolutionary program when Sawant echoes it, just because she happens to be a member of the CWI. Do you think that the goal is to put CWI members in positions of power on reformist programs, so that they can then, once in office, take off their reasonable moderate masks and start yelling about revolution? You think that kind of about face would impress workers?


By taking up the issue of an 8 hour work day, socialist militants showed, by means of struggle of the working class, that tangible short-term demands could be defended. It allowed socialists to position themselves as bilateral leadership of the more militant section of the working masses. The net result was quite obviously positive, yet it was a 'social-democratic' reform. The 8 hour work day in and of itself does not advance us closer in the direction of socialism, but the struggle for it does.Socialists defend the 8-hour work day as a defense of working class interests against a fundamentally antagonistic and exploiting bourgeois class that workers will ultimately need to overthrow to overcome the very exploitation that makes bosses want to extend the workday as long as they can in the first place. That is how a revolutionary presents the struggle for and defense of that demand, not just saying, "It's good for workers and makes people militant." Militant about what? Making capitalism work better?


Opposing employer abuse is not revolutionary, and if done by the Democratic Party would not in and of itself produce net positive results for socialism. Yet, done under the banner of SeaSol, an IWW-linked anarchic group, it does produce net positive results for socialism.You're right that such a struggle is not inherently revolutionary. Arguments can be made about worker safety and autonomy as bourgeois principles. What would make such a struggle revolutionary isn't the political membership cards that might or might not be in the wallets of the people leading the struggle. It's the understanding that workers assign to role of those reforms within the larger framework of capitalist exploitation. In other words, it's about the program, the roadmap of additional struggle, presented alongside the demand.


Advocating housing is not revolutionary, and if done by the ANC would not in and of itself produce net positive results for socialism. Yet, done under the banner of Abahlali baseMjondolo, a communistic group, it does produce net positive results for socialism.

The same applies for workers' conditions and the CNT-AIT, or land reform and the MST, unemployed councils and CPUSA.Ibid. Struggling for workers' conditions while remaining mum about revolutionary principles and program is just blending into the existing, implicit reformist understanding of those struggles. They contain no inherent logic leading workers spontaneously beyond it.


From a previous post:

I can completely understand the sentiment, because the reformist demands of the Sawant-campaign in and of itself do nothing. Had they been proposed by a centre-left party no one here would champion it (beyond 'i'd like to earn more'). Look at it this way: the CPUSA used to organise unemployed councils. Fighting unemployment in and of itself does nothing for the communist cause, and — if done by benevolent Christians — neither does organising unemployed councils. But done under the banner of class struggle it can enhance class consciousness. The same with a campaign such as that of Sawant. As long as the centre of gravity is on grassroots organising by and for workers, and the electoral aspect is merely icing on the cake to solidify the grassroots demands (at the end of the day you need willing politicians to implement them and claim victory), then the net result of the Sawant campaign will be positive.

It has nothing to do with sectarianism.

Class struggle has to correspond to the level of consciousness amongst the working class, or else it will not be fertile. Does the Sawant campaign promote European-style social democracy? As a means, yes. The problematic thing with such parties is that they forget to explicitly and constantly remind potential supporters that their actual aims go beyond this, which allows for opportunism and reformist elements to enter the organisation, destroying it from the inside (as has been done with hundreds of socialist and social-democratic parties).Where do you see Sawant reminding her supporters in the election that her aims extend to overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism? That would mean her program is for full socialism, even if the socialist aspect is only presented as propaganda for setting her immediate demands in context. As I said in the post previous to this one, I'm open to be corrected if anybody can show me where she has said this in any of her campaign literature.

I've seen the argument made a thousand times in my lifetime that socialists have to meet less advanced workers where they at. That doesn't mean we meet them there and setup a permanent residence, and not try to get them to come along with us, through struggle, down the road to a more advanced politics. What is the alternative? Workers aren't revolutionary, so we can't talk about revolution. Then how will they become revolutionary, if nobody talks to them about the necessity for it, including the subjective revolutionaries who want to bury their program in order to get the masses in motion, as if that by itself is going to go anywhere in the absence of revolutionary program? Will they start talking about revolution when the struggle really heats up, when the state is more serious about deploying its coercive instruments to silence radical dissent? I highly doubt it.

A reformist program is a reformist program, independent of the person who proposes it or advances it. Your argument about slithering into the positions of leadership then unveiling true agendas reeks of trickery and cynicism toward the working class. It's not a viable path forward.


That makes no sense though. Workers possess no legislative power. With a small communistic group Breakthrough in Holland we've been trying to organise welfare workers (forced to do work below minimum wage). The Socialist Party is a bourgeois party and nominally socialist, but opposed to this practice. I will vote for the SP in the 2014 municipal elections because struggling against the practice of forced welfare labour is easier with more SP city council members. At the end of the day you need willing politicians to legislate your demands into practice. Hence, why electoral activity can be a complementary to street-level organising and action.Saying workers are responsible for reforms is different than saying that the workers are passing legislation. It means that their resistance to the labor-capital relation is what is responsible for the kinds of destabilization that makes the passage of reforms necessary.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is a truism to say that working class independence occurs through the working class's agency.
Not at all since typical social-political situations that do not involve such a development but do the heightened exposure of a party are also described as those pertaining to increasing class independence and even power.

[Five Year Plan]

Not at all since typical social-political situations that do not involve such a development but do the heightened exposure of a party are also described as those pertaining to increasing class independence and even power.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is a "typical social-political situation"? And what do you mean by "such development"? Class independence means a class acting in its own long-term interests, independent of the long-term interests of other classes. This necessarily entails a "subjective component." A working class that supports an eight-hour workday because it thinks this will help both capital and labor get a fair share of the product is not acting independently. It is acting according to bourgeois assumptions about what the ruling class is supposedly entitled to.

Every class is variegated and will have some members who do not act in line with long-term interests, but exploited classes have the disadvantage of not possessing the means of intellectual production. They have to battle through ruling class ideology to act independently. This happens through struggle over competing programs. Workers' agency is a necessary but not a sufficient component to workers acting independently. Also necessary is an independent program.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is a "typical social-political situation"? And what do you mean by "such development"?
Clear example from experience.

There was a kind of a wave of workers' struggles at the beginning of the 2000s here where I live, whereby unusual media exposure was granted to the wreck of a socialist party, who then went on to claim that it was this basis for the spread out if its own propaganda and programme (ultimately unsuccessful) that marked the beginning of the class independence. When, in reality, the struggles receded without much of a political and immediate gain.

Precisely this is my point - proclamations pertaining to class independence.

[blake 3:17]

Campaigns, like parties, are to be judged by the programs they publicly advance. Do you disagree?

We call that Resolutionary Socialism. And I don't agree.

That's fine.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

@aufheben -- the hurt or painful feelings aren't my own. It sounds like there's tensions in Seattle, a place I've never been to.

If I'm irritated it's by foolishness of either neglecting the bourgeois political sphere or elevating it into something it's not.

I'm very interested in the campaign on a number of fronts. I'm hoping there may be a couple of local municipal seats seriously contested by open socialists though they are open reformists We'll see what happens. The current governing Right in Toronto is splintering, so there's space for the liberal social dem progressives to sweep back in with no mandate other than not being drug dealers.

We're looking for a break here from the stupid social democrats that aren't even social democrats.

The misconception here is that passive support for candidates in an elections can be equated to class consciousness. It can not. Today Communists of the world are being face with the great uprising in paris 2005, london and sweden 2012, and uprisings throughout the world. While the "communists" of the day are supporting this and that candidate for this and that office, the working class of the world finds itself increasingly humiliated and increasingly in a position of rebellion against class rule. What is not needed is the election of a few magistrates but the destruction of the entire electoral system all together. An oft quoted statement from the signalfire collective goes like this:


With the looters and against the left



A single engagement in the actual class war is worth a thousand patronizing proclamations by microscopic leftist sects.
“We are not involved in the looting and unlike the knee-jerk right or even the sympathetic-but-condemnatory commentators from the left, we will not condemn or condone those we don’t know for taking back some of the wealth they have been denied all their lives.”

North London Solidarity Federation

“This is counter-productive behaviour whose only results will be division amongst working-class communities and an excuse for the state to step up its use of force.”

Post on the blog of UK libertarian socialist group the Commune

“It is not for communists to condemn the riots. They are a sign of capitalism’s crisis and decay. Neither do we romanticise the riotous act as an effective form of struggle against capitalist exploitation.”

Internationalist Communist Tendency

The potential for communism today is not centered in the orderly struggles of well off minorities of the class to defend their privileges against encroaching restructuring. Struggles all too often draped in national flags, defined by whiteness and speaking in the discourse of democracy. The coming social revolution will not be an orderly civil affair resolved upon by a majority vote in Syntagma or any other square peacefully occupied by the indignant and naive.

No on the contrary our hope for the future lies in the real majority of the class which is excluded, unemployed, precarious, malnourished, and “criminal”. Not in the hopeless demands of unionized workers for the restoration of a lost social contract or in populist movements for reform which take the moral high ground on a terrain defined by the mass media and petty bourgeois notions of what is “respectable”.

The systematic looting and destruction which has swept England is of course completely insufficient in and of itself for the development of autonomous proletarian politics. It is however a thousand times preferable to the demands for democracy which buried the Arab Spring in a cosmetic restructuring of the state. The mass appropriation of Nikes and Iphones without explanation or justification is like any struggle for higher wages and fewer hours of work a direct assertion of the material needs of the class-and as such immeasurably closer to the living content of communist politics then any nationalist and reformist movement with a “coherent” message.

Those who identify more with the vigilante gangs of the petty-bourgeois defending their small enterprises (where proletarians are exploited, humiliated and cheated everyday), then with working class youth carrying out the dictatorial expropriation of the social wealth show clearly that they are not revolutionaries but cops in waiting-and should be treated accordingly.

So then, to answer your question. The lessons that Seattle can teach us are not the lessons which are required for our tasks as Communists. We do not need to learn how to appear clean shaven in front of the camera to sell "socialism" without scaring away the kids and the small store owner. All of these things have nothing to do with the task of negating capital. The lessons we need to learn are those of Paris, of London, of Sweden, of Bangladesh and of all other places in the world where the working class has risen up.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm starting to wonder why you're so intent on attacking an independent socialist's campaign.

Edited to add: This is over the election of someone to city council who has a good chance of winning as a socialist in the United States. This is neither the peak of power nor the last thing on the left, but it'd be a bit of breakthrough in terms of using the 'S' word and hopefully encouraging some other meaningful left interventions in American electoral politics. At the very very least, this is a learning experience. Electoral politics are mostly really ugly, and it sounds like there's some painful frictions in Seattle, and I can't see why a revolutionary would be hating on Sawant.

*** And just she just might win some of things she's campaigning on or help build a movement that will ***

I'm skeptical. When has something like this ever led to a breakthrough? What she calls herself is irrelevant. Most Americans think socialism is Scandinavian style social democracy or the existence of public schools. The victory of a "socialist" pushing for an increase in the minimum wage in a city council race won't change anything.

[synthesis]

I'm starting to wonder why you're so intent on attacking an independent socialist's campaign.

Edited to add: This is over the election of someone to city council who has a good chance of winning as a socialist in the United States. This is neither the peak of power nor the last thing on the left, but it'd be a bit of breakthrough in terms of using the 'S' word and hopefully encouraging some other meaningful left interventions in American electoral politics. At the very very least, this is a learning experience. Electoral politics are mostly really ugly, and it sounds like there's some painful frictions in Seattle, and I can't see why a revolutionary would be hating on Sawant.

*** And just she just might win some of things she's campaigning on or help build a movement that will ***

blake 3:17: How do you reconcile this post and attitude towards the Sawant campaign with your comments in the fracking thread?


@ Radio Spartacus -- I would really prefer this thread not get derailed into a debate on the PFLP. I would however suggest that there parallels between indigenous struggles here in the Americas and the struggles of the Palestinian people. One of the central means in which colonialism has and is happening here in Canada and in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza is the exclusion of its native peoples from work. Unemployment is incredibly high amongst Canada's native peoples and amongst the Palestinians. Conventional Marxism actually has few answers to these problems.

Now, having said that, I'd also like to point out that it in terms of workers organizations it has only been the most radical and either Marxist, syndicalist, or left trade unionists or community based class struggle fighters who have been supportive of native struggles here in Canada or the Palestinian struggle. We're the folks that see beyond an extra few dollars or a short term growth in employment.

It's very unfortunate that most of the unions have not taken an anti-fracking stance and that many are supportive of fracking. They see it as a chance to grow their membership, develop their dues base, and work out deals with the bosses.

If we're the folks that see beyond an extra few dollars, shouldn't this mean we also apply this principle to electoral politics, especially a campaigning politician whose only major talking point is adding "an extra few dollars" to the minimum wage?

[Five Year Plan]

Clear example from experience.

There was a kind of a wave of workers' struggles at the beginning of the 2000s here where I live, whereby unusual media exposure was granted to the wreck of a socialist party, who then went on to claim that it was this basis for the spread out if its own propaganda and programme (ultimately unsuccessful) that marked the beginning of the class independence. When, in reality, the struggles receded without much of a political and immediate gain.

Precisely this is my point - proclamations pertaining to class independence.

People can make whatever declarations they want about what serves as the basis of class independence. Ultimately the only way to determine which claims are correct is by testing them as different programs of action and seeing where they lead, and looking at previous tests and where those have led. (That brings us back to my comment about the past 100 years of socialist politics and what we can learn from it.) Basing my ideas on that history, I think the best answers lay in the social-scientific writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. I happen to think that class independence entails rejecting the ideology of the bourgeois ruling class, i.e., a clear rejection of reformism, through open and consistent struggle of a program explicitly calling for undermining the foundations of capitalist property relations, the seizure of power by an organized and revolutionary working class, and their leading society to communist world free from economic exploitation and oppression.


We call that Resolutionary Socialism. And I don't agree.

That's fine.

You call what "resolutionary socialism"? Judging a group's politics by their program, what they are doing and what they propose to do in the future? Like LinksRadikal, you do not seem to understand that that is what a program is, not some abstract declaration or resolution written on a piece of paper after being conjured up by an anarchist sitting on his crumb-filled sofa. A program is the conceptual crystallization, not necessarily a written one, of the group's practical action, which necessarily has embedded in its an understanding of how present actions relate to a vision of the future. (Capitalist programs, for instance, conveniently don't include any proposal for a society beyond capitalism to inform whatever immediate reforms they might want to advance in the present.) To the extent that a group deviates in action from its written program, that program is no longer really their program but is instead a dead letter not worth the paper it is written on. The abstract fluff about socialism in the early 20th century SPD's "program," which was actually not its real program of winning as many elections as it could by burying any scary talk of the need to get to (or how to get to) socialism, comes to mind. Sound familiar?

By what other metric would you judge a person or a group's politics? Their shoe size? Maybe we could call this "shoe size socialism." It does seem some people here want to pooh-pooh program, and make a person's political membership card, independent of practical action (including what Luxemburg called its subjective components), the barometer by which to measure politics. So perhaps shoe size wouldn't be much of a, aherm, step down from that, as far as inanimate objects go.

[blake 3:17]

blake 3:17: How do you reconcile this post and attitude towards the Sawant campaign with your comments in the fracking thread?


If we're the folks that see beyond an extra few dollars, shouldn't this mean we also apply this principle to electoral politics, especially a campaigning politician whose only major talking point is adding "an extra few dollars" to the minimum wage?

I certainly don't oppose fights for higher wages. And the struggle for a higher minimum wage is a class wide demand, not one limited to a bargaining unit. What I was specifically referring to was a limit of conventional trade unionism.

Unions and class organizations should be fighting over bread n butter issues, it's just problematic when that's all they fight for.

I've been involved in minimum wage campaigns and am a supporter of groups which are running one here right now, so...

There's odd challenges and opportunities in municipal politics for radicals. Often the actual elected position doesn't give a lot of power, but CAN be used for good ends. I've been really impressed with a couple of local city councillors who've been really great on supporting certain local struggles and also been clear that they can't do it for people but will help, which is very different than a bureaucratic paternalistic way of using an elected office.

And to be clear, I have no idea if Sawant will be able to accomplish much. I'd be happy if she won and interested in seeing what happens.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Doug Henwood recently interviewed Sawant on his radio show. It's a sympathetic interview but it is informative. (Starts at the 28 minute mark):

http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2007/13_10_17.mp3

(Preceding it is an interesting interview with Jodie Dean on the subject of the pressing need for a mass socialist party,)

[Alexios]

I hope they advance to the presidency and initiate permanent revolution from below.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I hope they advance to the presidency and initiate permanent revolution from below.

Shh don't give away the secret plan.

[Sasha]

if anyone want to actually read her positions in her own words, she did an rather decent AMA on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1pp763/my_name_is_kshama_sawant_candidate_for_seattle/cd4o7bp

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

if anyone want to actually read her positions in her own words, she did an rather decent AMA on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1pp763/my_name_is_kshama_sawant_candidate_for_seattle/cd4o7bp

Thank you very much for providing this information. Ksama Sawant is doing is a valuable service here and we should all appreciate this. This is the aforementioned post:

Unfortunately, economics as a discipline tends to provide academic cover for policies that mainly benefit corporations and the wealthy and hurt the majority of working people. For example, many economists are critical of even the existence of a minimum wage. Most oppose public health care systems, in spite of enormous historical evidence that single-payer healthcare is more cost effective and creates decisively better outcomes.
A commonly made argument against rent control is that it would take away incentives and development would slow or halt. In reality, in cities where rent control has been implemented there has been no such stagnation of development. Real estate development will not cease to be viable because of the creation of a cap on rental rates, any more than the creation of a minimum wage or an eight hour day devastated overall economic development, as was once predicted.
Another common reason people oppose rent control is the idea that it would lead to lack of maintenance. In fact, whether or not units are maintained is primarily a reflection of tenants' rights. In the absence of consistently enforced legal protections, units inhabited by low-income people tend to be poorly maintained, because low-income people are less able to relocate or to access the legal system when their rights are abused by a landlord. Effective rent control legislation can and should also empower tenants to secure regular maintenance of units. Our campaign is also calling for a tenant's hotline with established timelines and substantial penalties for landlords failing to maintain residences or respect tenant rights.
Another claim is that rent control causes homelessness. There is zero evidence for this. The reality is that homelessness is increasing because of unemployment, lack of healthcare, cuts to social programs, and the rapidly rising cost of housing. Homelessness and urban blight are consequences of the way the capitalist economy functions when in crisis. During periods of economic crisis, corporations and the wealthy act to cut labor costs and limit investment - creating unemployment and even greater inequalities, while seeking to lay the burden of recession on working families and the poor.
In fact, the claim that rent control leads to homelessness is actually based mainly on one study by William Tucker. Tucker's study has been roundly discredited due to its flawed methodology and statistical analysis.
Contrary to the popular myth, rent control in San Francisco is a veritable lifeline for tenants who would otherwise be completely priced out of the city. The problem is that it is not broadly applied, and therefore many tenants aren't able to obtain rent controlled units. While the way rent control was implemented in San Francisco has not eliminated high rents there, it has still played a major role in keeping rents lower than they would otherwise be. The example of Boston illustrates this all too well. When its rent control laws were eliminated in 1997, apartment rates nearly doubled within the months that followed.

All of this is very fine and what not, why I would love rent controls! However, there is not a single word of socialism mentioned in this block of text. Not even a pretense is made of Leftism here! It seems that she is not even pretending to uphold the transitional programme. Instead of raising demands which are incompatible with capitalism, she is bending over backwards to show how "reasonable" she is, to prove how well her party will do at managing capital. If I might quote the old renegade, her demands are little more than the fashionable stylings of old social democracy which put off that horrifying spectre of Communism to another day, some time far in the future:


Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying.

~Leon Trotsky, The Transitional Programme


Now, is the Ksama Sawant campaign a positive thing for the world communist movement? Of course it is! What would the Marxist Programme be without a left-wing of capital to oppose it! Why, our opposition to the mistakes of the past were only out of mere necessity before, now that the great ebb of class struggle is just beginning to reverse on a world scale and these mistakes are being repeated again, such an opposition will be out of principle, and that is the finest place for a communist to find himself in!

[reb]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but have socialists not been running for office for over a hundred years now with no success? But whatever, I guess if we get a million people and throw them off a bridge one of them will manage to levitate and then be able to teach everyone else how to levitate.

[Lily Briscoe]

Unfortunately, economics as a discipline tends to provide academic cover for policies that mainly benefit corporations and the wealthy and hurt the majority of working people. For example, many economists are critical of even the existence of a minimum wage. Most oppose public health care systems, in spite of enormous historical evidence that single-payer healthcare is more cost effective and creates decisively better outcomes.
A commonly made argument against rent control is that it would take away incentives and development would slow or halt. In reality, in cities where rent control has been implemented there has been no such stagnation of development. Real estate development will not cease to be viable because of the creation of a cap on rental rates, any more than the creation of a minimum wage or an eight hour day devastated overall economic development, as was once predicted.
Another common reason people oppose rent control is the idea that it would lead to lack of maintenance. In fact, whether or not units are maintained is primarily a reflection of tenants' rights. In the absence of consistently enforced legal protections, units inhabited by low-income people tend to be poorly maintained, because low-income people are less able to relocate or to access the legal system when their rights are abused by a landlord. Effective rent control legislation can and should also empower tenants to secure regular maintenance of units. Our campaign is also calling for a tenant's hotline with established timelines and substantial penalties for landlords failing to maintain residences or respect tenant rights.
Another claim is that rent control causes homelessness. There is zero evidence for this. The reality is that homelessness is increasing because of unemployment, lack of healthcare, cuts to social programs, and the rapidly rising cost of housing. Homelessness and urban blight are consequences of the way the capitalist economy functions when in crisis. During periods of economic crisis, corporations and the wealthy act to cut labor costs and limit investment - creating unemployment and even greater inequalities, while seeking to lay the burden of recession on working families and the poor.
In fact, the claim that rent control leads to homelessness is actually based mainly on one study by William Tucker. Tucker's study has been roundly discredited due to its flawed methodology and statistical analysis.
Contrary to the popular myth, rent control in San Francisco is a veritable lifeline for tenants who would otherwise be completely priced out of the city. The problem is that it is not broadly applied, and therefore many tenants aren't able to obtain rent controlled units. While the way rent control was implemented in San Francisco has not eliminated high rents there, it has still played a major role in keeping rents lower than they would otherwise be. The example of Boston illustrates this all too well. When its rent control laws were eliminated in 1997, apartment rates nearly doubled within the months that followed.[...]she is bending over backwards to show how "reasonable" she is, to prove how well her party will do at managing capital.
Yes, exactly; she makes that crystal clear from the very start. Single-payer healthcare is more "cost effective", rent controls don't negatively impact "development" and "incentives". Other than mentioning the word 'capitalism' one time, this is literally indistinguishable from something you'd hear from a Democrat.

[Sasha]

decent article: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/kshama-sawant-return-of-the-alternative/

[Popular Front of Judea]

decent article: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/kshama-sawant-return-of-the-alternative/

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/kshama-sawant-return-of-the-alternative/Content?oid=18085005

[Alan OldStudent]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but have socialists not been running for office for over a hundred years now with no success? But whatever, I guess if we get a million people and throw them off a bridge one of them will manage to levitate and then be able to teach everyone else how to levitate.
How would you define a successful socialist electoral campaign?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Remus Bleys]

How would you define a successful socialist electoral campaign?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates
He wouldn't.

[Tolstoy]

https://www.facebook.com/smallbusinessforsawant

Speaks for itself, this kinda nails the coffin on any pretenses of leftism the Sawant campaign had.

Will you dumb shitfuckers quit kicking around Sawant. Just because she's gaining real support for Socialism by making realistic promises to working class people like a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage and not droning on about Cuba or some stuff that ultimately doesent matter to the workers of Seattle doesent make her a bourgeois candidate.

Further, its natural that smal businesses would support Socialism, they are getting trampled upon by large corporations as we speak. Besides, plenty of socialist countries have allowed small businesses to exist

[Fourth Internationalist]

Will you dumb shitfuckers quit kicking around Sawant. Just because she's gaining real support for Socialism by making realistic promises to working class people like a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage

The voters that are voting for her aren't largely socialists, they're liberals and social democrats who support a more progressive capitalism. In fact, most of them probably are just former democrats who have been dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.


Further, its natural that smal businesses would support Socialism, they are getting trampled upon by large corporations as we speak. Besides, plenty of socialist countries have allowed small businesses to exist
First of all, the petty bourgeoisie's interests are against socialism. Only the working class has an interest in abolishing classes. Hence, its revolutionary capabilities. Second, what "socialist" countries? Other than the early USSR, socialist only insofar as it was a transitional economy headed towards socialism under a workers' dictatorship, what other country could possibly be labelled "socialist"?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Socialist Alternative (CWI) candidate Kshama Sawant is on the verge of a spectacular victory for Position 2 on Seattle city council

As counting continues the gap between Kshama Sawant and 16-year incumbant Democrat Richard Conlin has narrowed from 6,136 votes after the first day of counting on Tuesday to just 1,237 votes by the end of the second ballot announcement on Friday. In the latest batch of 8,500 vote Kshama Sawant took 58.45% of the vote.

The current percentages in terms of the overall vote are

Conlin 76,170 (50.31%)
Sawant 74,933 (49.49%)

There are in excess of 33,000 votes still to be counted. The Socialist Alternative campaign team are now hoping that the margin of victory for Sawant will exceed the approx 1,850 votes margin (1% of the total vote) that would automatically trigger a machine recount (a manual recount would take place if the margin is less than 150 votes). Current expectations are that Sawant will win by 1,800 votes.

The Democrats have drafted teams of lawyers and lobbyists in an effort to defeat the Socialist Alternative candidate.

So far the Democrats have succeeded in having over 8,000 votes from working class districts in Seattle disqualified and Socialist Alternative are mounting a major campaign of door-to-door knocking to complete voter verification forms for these 8,000 votes in order that they can be re-admitted and counted. This is a major undertaking involving large numbers of volunteers and significant financial costs.

It is also likely that when the now expected victory of Socialist Alternative is announced the Democrats will embark on a major legal campaign in an effort to overturn the election result. Socialist Alternative is launching a major fundraising appeal to meet the cost of fending off the legal challange.

In the Sectac Proposition 1 vote which would implement a $15 minimum wage for 7,500 workers in the Sectac airport the margin in favour has now dropped to just 43 votes but the slippage to the no side has deceased during Friday's count. The outcome of this ballot will be decided by a handful of votes.

[Tolstoy]

The voters that are voting for her aren't largely socialists, they're liberals and social democrats who support a more progressive capitalism. In fact, most of them probably are just former democrats who have been dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.


First of all, the petty bourgeoisie's interests are against socialism. Only the working class has an interest in abolishing classes. Hence, its revolutionary capabilities. Second, what "socialist" countries? Other than the early USSR, socialist only insofar as it was a transitional economy headed towards socialism under a workers' dictatorship, what other country could possibly be labelled "socialist"?
Yes well, most people are in fact not Socialists, just as much as not everyone who voted for Obama was a Democrat. The fact that some of Sawants voters arent Socialist's doesent negate her being a Socialist by any means. People are fed up with capitalism in it's current form, and this is a trend that should be embraced

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes well, most people are in fact not Socialists, just as much as not everyone who voted for Obama was a Democrat. The fact that some of Sawants voters arent Socialist's doesent negate her being a Socialist by any means. People are fed up with capitalism in it's current form, and this is a trend that should be embraced

The trend should not be embraced. The upset with capitalism in it's current form is just that. The trend in this country is merely looking for a new form of capitalism, not a socialist alternative. Socialists, though, should use this trend as a way to spread our ideas in opposition to the liberal reformists. Sawant's campaign has not shown the more radical side of socialism because it would mean she'd lose (or maybe SA doesn't believe in the radical side of socialism?), so she is running a campaign based on reforms with little to no mention of communism.

[Per Levy]

Further, its natural that smal businesses would support Socialism, they are getting trampled upon by large corporations as we speak. Besides, plenty of socialist countries have allowed small businesses to exist

and there i was thinking that socialism would eliminate private proberty but i seem to be wrong, since, the way you describe it, socialism allows small capitalists to opperate and exploit their workers and keep their private proberty. also are you sure you're a trot? isnt the usual term trots use for the "socialist countries" degenerated/deformed workers states?

[Tolstoy]

The trend should not be embraced. The upset with capitalism in it's current form is just that. The trend in this country is merely looking for a new form of capitalism, not a socialist alternative. Socialists, though, should use this trend as a way to spread our ideas in opposition to the liberal reformists. Sawant's campaign has not shown the more radical side of socialism because it would mean she'd lose (or maybe SA doesn't believe in the radical side of socialism?), so she is running a campaign based on reforms with little to no mention of communism.
Sawant has not shied the least bit from Socialism. Theres a reason shes not running as an independent and openly refers to herself as a Socialist. It's just that it's silly to talk about abolishng capitalism when thats really something you cant do as a councilperson, so it makes sense that she would advocate what she's going to try to do and possibly succeed

[Per Levy]

Sawant has not shied the least bit from Socialism. Theres a reason shes not running as an independent and openly refers to herself as a Socialist. It's just that it's silly to talk about abolishng capitalism when thats really something you cant do as a councilperson, so it makes sense that she would advocate what she's going to try to do and possibly succeed

in other words, we can give capitalism a human face, therefore vot for us.

[Tolstoy]

Seriously, what is more masturbatory than tryng to bring down a person who is closer to bringing socialist change than any of us in the US?

[Fourth Internationalist]

isnt the usual term trots use for the "socialist countries" degenerated/deformed workers states?

The Trotskyist view of the "socialist" countries is not all the same.

Some Trotskyists believe that the USSR was a workers' state, then a degenerated workers' state (degenerated, rather than deformed, because it had originally been a workers' state created by a proletarian revolution) up until its dissolution, with all the other "socialist" countries being deformed workers' states (deformed, rather than degenerated, because they had not been created by a proletarian revolution).

However, others believe that the USSR was a workers' state, then a degenerated workers' state up until the late 1930's (marked by capitalist counter revolution) where it became state capitalist. The "deformed workers' states" that formed are not viewed as workers' states but are considered state capitalist.

Those are the two I know most about, but there are even more different "Trotskyist" views on the matter.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Sawant has not shied the least bit from Socialism. Theres a reason shes not running as an independent and openly refers to herself as a Socialist. It's just that it's silly to talk about abolishng capitalism when thats really something you cant do as a councilperson, so it makes sense that she would advocate what she's going to try to do and possibly succeed

But I did not say that she should call for the abolition of capitalism (or the creation of soviets or any other untimely demand) as an immediate demand.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Will you dumb shitfuckers quit kicking around Sawant.

When she gives up pretensions of being within the tradition of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, then yes I will.


Just because she's gaining real support for Socialism by making realistic promises to working class people like a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage and not droning on about Cuba or some stuff that ultimately doesent matter to the workers of Seattle doesent make her a bourgeois candidate.


Gaining support for socialism would entail gaining support for the abolition of capitalism, not a 15$ wage. Her party is throughly bourgeois, despite the fact that it might have some workers in it and contains socialist rhetoric, as Lenin said:


Indeed the concepts 'political organisation of the trade union Movement' or 'political expression of this movement' are wrong ones. Of course the bulk of the members of the Labour Party are workers; however whether a party is really a political party of the workers or not, depends not only on whether it consists of workers, but also upon who leads it, upon the content of its activities, and of its political tactics. Only the latter determines whether we have before us really a political party of the proletariat


The political tactics employed by socialist alternative, are to swindle social democrats, liberals, and small buisness owners into voting for it. The fact that they are not winning over the broad working class to a socialist programme proves that they do not follow such a programme.


Further, its natural that small businesses would support Socialism, they are getting trampled upon by large corporations as we speak. Besides, plenty of socialist countries have allowed small businesses to exist


Karl Marx warned against collaboration with the petty bourgeois in 1850, a context when this class had a great revolutionary potential. In his Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League he said:


The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible.


He goes on:


At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner. Instead of lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus, the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a center and nucleus of workers’ associations in which the position and interests of the proletariat can be discussed free from bourgeois influence.

Now considering that this was written in 1850, I think it is fair to say that within the modern context the progressive potential of the petty bourgeois has waned and completely withered and that there is nothing to be gained in appeasing them.

[Art Vandelay]

The voters that are voting for her aren't largely socialists, they're liberals and social democrats who support a more progressive capitalism. In fact, most of them probably are just former democrats who have been dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.
Do you think that socialist consciousness is present anywhere in the U.S.? It quite clearly isn’t and if that is a pre-requisite for independent political work, then no campaign could be run at this point in the class struggle. I’m not even sure how this could be considered as an argument. Socialist consciousness doesn’t exist, so we shouldn’t seek to help foster and raise it? That’s the only logical conclusion I can come to from reading this tripe.

First of all, the petty bourgeoisie's interests are against socialism.
Where the hell is anyone getting the impression that hoardes of the petite-bourgeoisie are fawning over the SA campaigns? As someone who was recently on the ground, I can assure you the petite-bourgeoisie are some of the most ardent supporters of the the opposition candidates to SA. In what world do people live, where small businesses have the capital available to them to conform to a 15 minimum wage? Since when has the workers class interests and those of the petite bourgeoisie, become one and the same?

Only the working class has an interest in abolishing classes.
Simply isn’t true. The proletariat is the only revolutionary class in capitalist society, but that certainly doesn’t mean that individual member of alien claslses cannot gain revolutionary consciousness and adopt class interests which are one and the same with those of the proletariat. And in all honesty, while it maybe doesn't manifest itself subjectively, many member of alien classes would benefit from the proletariat succeeding in its historical task of abolishing itself.

The trend should not be embraced. The upset with capitalism in it's current form is just that. The trend in this country is merely looking for a new form of capitalism, not a socialist alternative. Socialists, though, should use this trend as a way to spread our ideas in opposition to the liberal reformists. Sawant's campaign has not shown the more radical side of socialism because it would mean she'd lose (or maybe SA doesn't believe in the radical side of socialism?), so she is running a campaign based on reforms with little to no mention of communism.
Oh really? And you know this how. It is quite clear that you don’t know what you are talking about. I just recently got back from one of the campaigns and there has been no shying away from the fact that SA is a socialist and anti-capitalist organization. This is constantly mentioned on the ground, when engaged in voter outreach, or when given spotlight in the media. It is also being stressed (when militantly defending the homes of people who have been unfairly evicted, or organizing around issues of police brutality) the role the state plays in perpetuating the status quo. The fact of the matter is that you aren’t on the ground with these campaigns and you have no idea the work they’re doing or how the message of the campaign may not be represented in totality on the website; so I don’t understand why you pass yourself off as some authority on the matter. If I’m not mistaken you’ve been in highschool classes while these campaigns have been entering into the final push before election, so to see you flippantly dismiss SA in the manner you have, just comes off as posturing.

[Art Vandelay]

When she gives up pretensions of being within the tradition of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, then yes I will.

Well this is entirely subjective, no? You view Mao as the proper continuation of M&E and Lenin, myself Trotsky. Obviously if there is to be a fruitful discussion, we can't use such ideologically charged lines of argumentation.

Gaining support for socialism would entail gaining support for the abolition of capitalism, not a 15$ wage. Her party is throughly bourgeois, despite the fact that it might have some workers in it and contains socialist rhetoric, as Lenin said:

The Transitional program is a method which includes minimum demands, transitional demands and the maximum demand of socialist revolution. So actually a call for a 15$ minimum wage is entirely consistent with a minimum demand, which as Marx articulated was a demand which would weaken the position of the state, in comparison with that of the proletariat

Now considering that this was written in 1850, I think it is fair to say that within the modern context the progressive potential of the petty bourgeois has waned and completely withered and that there is nothing to be gained in appeasing them.

Being lectured about the revolutionary potential of socio-economic classes and class collaboration...by a maoist. The irony is palpable. :lol:

[Per Levy]

Seriously, what is more masturbatory than tryng to bring down a person who is closer to bringing socialist change than any of us in the US?

what socialist change? there is nothing socialistic about her campaign, all that her campaign is promising are social democratic reforms and nothing else. personally i dont care if she running for a council seat or whatever but after a century of electoral tactics wich didnt brought us one step closer to socialism i would just wish that some people would start thinking and stop using failed tactics. but instead it is done again and again. sawants campaign wont bring any of us any closer to socialism, it wont hurt capitalism, and it fosters illusions of reformism and that voting can actual change something.

[reb]

How would you define a successful socialist electoral campaign?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

If it resulted in the abolition of capital and the emancipation of the proletariat then yes, I would consider that a success but I doubt that such a change in society would come about from electoral success.

[VivalaCuarta]

Nothing but a revolution that smashed the bourgeois state and establishes a workers' dictatorship is capable of ending capitalism and opening the road to a socialist society.

Nothing else can. Not election campaigns, not voting, not mass protests, not a general strike, not a civil war!

The question is what are the tactics and strategy for convincing the working class of the need for such a revolution, and organizing them for that purpose.

That SAlt and its recent U.S. electoral campaigns are not, in themselves, a socialist revolution is not a serious criticism.

The problem with SAlt/CWI is that they are social democrats. Their goal is to administer the capitalist state and help their own imperialist masters in their reactionary wars.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

If it resulted in the abolition of capital and the emancipation of the proletariat then yes, I would consider that a success but I doubt that such a change in society would come about from electoral success.


The problem with SAlt/CWI is that they are social democrats. Their goal is to administer the capitalist state and help their own imperialist masters in their reactionary wars.
The goal of the election campaign wasn't to destroy capitalism but to spread the message of socialism, advance and support the struggles of workers and to challenge bourgeois hegemony in order to set the groundwork to eventually destroy capitalism. The CWI know that election campaigns won't bring about the end of capitalism and that a revolution is the only thing that would end the class system and the domination of capital. In terms of how well the tactic worked, well I'm certain Seattle and Minneapolis will now have a large network of, if not dedicated socialists, sympathetic working class people with a bit more confidence to challenge capitalism.

[Five Year Plan]

Sawant has not shied the least bit from Socialism. Theres a reason shes not running as an independent and openly refers to herself as a Socialist. It's just that it's silly to talk about abolishng capitalism when thats really something you cant do as a councilperson, so it makes sense that she would advocate what she's going to try to do and possibly succeed


The goal of the election campaign wasn't to destroy capitalism but to spread the message of socialism, advance and support the struggles of workers and to challenge bourgeois hegemony in order to set the groundwork to eventually destroy capitalism.

These two posts contradict one another. I hope you see how. Maybe you can be the first person to demonstrate by reference to her campaign literature where she talks about revolutionary socialism (not Bernie Sanders' social-democratic "socialism"). I've asked this repeatedly and have not received any response.

If Sawant wins, what exactly does she intend to do differently than what a democrat would do? Why would a revolutionary be any more excited about her winning than they would about Bernie Sanders winning Senate elections in Vermont? Will she use her position to propagandize for socialist revolution? She's not even doing that in her campaign. And if you say she is, I would just like to see some proof.

[Per Levy]

The goal of the election campaign wasn't to destroy capitalism but to spread the message of socialism, advance and support the struggles of workers and to challenge bourgeois hegemony in order to set the groundwork to eventually destroy capitalism. The CWI know that election campaigns won't bring about the end of capitalism and that a revolution is the only thing that would end the class system and the domination of capital. In terms of how well the tactic worked, well I'm certain Seattle and Minneapolis will now have a large network of, if not dedicated socialists, sympathetic working class people with a bit more confidence to challenge capitalism.

is that the reason why the sawant campaign doesnt talk about socialism and capitalism? how is sawant challengin the bourgeois hegemony? her entire campaign is in the sphere of bourgeois politics, it challenges nothing except fostering the idea that socialism is at best something like social democracy.

[reb]

There is a gross display of pseudo-marxism going on in here in the guise of social-democracy. If people seriously think that you have to "spread the message of socialism" by participating in bourgeois political structures, then they are odds with the proletariat. We are not mormons who go around preaching the good word.

[Alan OldStudent]

This thread illustrates a lot of why so many would-be revolutionary groups in the USA are so marginalized. There is entirely too much holier-than-thou sanctimoniousness in the American left. So often, the USA left are a circular firing squad.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide2.gif

Aang writes:

The voters that are voting for her aren't largely socialists, they're liberals and social democrats who support a more progressive capitalism. In fact, most of them probably are just former democrats who have been dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.
So bloody what??!?

People are moving away from the Democratic Party, They are in motion. In fact, a large segment of the American people are in motion and becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system and Democratic Party, even if they're not yet socialists. A socialist understanding is not some kind of divine revelation infused into people's souls in a sudden blinding light.

Ask yourself how you became a revolutionary. Were you born that way, or did you go through a period of experiences, a process of questioning and analysis?

Why not welcome it when large numbers of people also go through experiences and begin a process of questioning and analysis as did you? Not everyone moves in the same direction at the same pace as did you. If everybody's consciousness moved in lockstep with yours, there would be no need for revolutionary parties or propaganda, would there?

People come into a socialist understanding because of their experiences and by socialist educational campaigns. Above all, the Sawant and Moore campaigns are educating working-class liberals and working-class Democrats about the need for independent working-class politics. I live quite close to Sawant's district (the port city of Tacoma, Washington,definitely a working-class town ), and let me tell you, their anticapitalist, anti-Democratic party, pro-working-class political propaganda gets a sympathetic ear here in Tacoma. One of SA's big schticks has always been for a working-class and independent party.

One thing is guaranteed: When the revolution comes, not everyone on our side of the barricades is going to be a Marxist. Lots of them won't give two figs about the theory of permanent revolution versus socialism in one country. But they'll be heartily sick and tired of the rule of the capitalists. They will hate the way capitalism is destroying the planet earth, waging imperialist wars that wreak world-wide violence and misery. They will resent and hate the way capitalism profits from unemployment, sexism, racism, and the rest of it. The corporations' obscenely bloated profits will enrage the masses to a revolutionary fury as they more clearly understand capitalism's ultimate responsibility for throwing old folks out of their homes and sick people out of hospital beds . The masses' confidence in the state's ability to govern will collapse as they see the state as the agent of capitalism, and as they understand that the capitalist system profits from failing to provide for humanity's basic needs.

At one point, this likely will lead to a revolutionary crisis. Will that crisis result in a workers' democracy? Or will it lead to a long tragic and ultimately futile civil war and a fascist triumph? The ultimate fate of humanity is not foreordained, comrades. In a real sense, it depends on us socialists. More specifically, it will rest on the present generation of young radicals who are presently so divided by sectarian bickering and ultraleftist posturing. We old folks are yesterday, and you are tomorrow. I hope you can learn to avoid the sectarianism and ultraleftism of my generation.

In other words, will revolutionary socialists be able to help the masses to channel this revolutionary fervor into an effective way to bring about a decent society and an end to the mortal threat capitalism poses to our human family?

The masses will trust revolutionary Marxists if, and only if, we revolutionary Marxists show ourselves to be the most effective and tireless campaigners in the struggle for fairness, economic and social justice. We must be among the most effective campaigners for human decency, against the tiny corporate plutocracy. And then, comrades, if you think making the revolution is hard, wait until we're responsible for helping the masses run the new world. We're going to make lots of mistakes on the way, but perhaps we can lessen the impact of those inevitable mistakes if we learn to listen to each other and dare to learn from each other. No one will want to listen to us if we aren't willing to listen to others.

Comrades, In case you haven't noticed, revolutionary socialists don't always agree on everything, and there isn't some kind of rigid black-or-white litmus test for who is or isn't a true revolutionary. Not every true and effective revolutionary is going to see eye to eye with any one of us, and understanding of revolutionary socialism is not the one true faith handed down by a savior sitting on high. Revolutionary theory comes from discussion of and analysis of our hard work and experience, and it comes from listening to each other, learning from each other as well as learning from our past successes and failures.


First of all, the petty bourgeoisie's interests are against socialism. Only the working class has an interest in abolishing classes. Hence, its revolutionary capabilities. Another big duh! The capitalist crisis hits so-called petty bourgeoisie pretty hard. The petty bourgeoisie have been the staunchest supporters of capitalist morality, capitalist ideology, even more so than the capitalists themselves. Most of the big capitalists don't hold onto fundamentalist Christian morality, capitalist moral pronouncements about the value of hard work and sacrifice. Many enjoy rather decadent lives, drugs, alcohol, and a really vulgar attachment to gew-gaws like gold toilet seats, expensive cars, and so on. Romney was a shining example of that with his yachts, parking-lot elevators for his cars in his mansions.. The bourgeoisie just cynically tout bourgeois morality opportunistically. On the other hand, it really is the petty bourgeoisie who buy into all those culture issues, hook line and sinker. It is they who work long hours in their businesses. One of my favorite restaurants in this neighborhood is owned by a Vietnamese immigrant who came here without a nickel and works 14 hours a day 7 days a week for his modest business. Such petty bourgeoisie buy into the illusion that they, too can become capitalists, and that is the basis for their support of the system and reactionary values.

But then a crisis like the present one hits, and a section of them start breaking away. At first, it might be the lower rungs. But after a while, others will also come around, especially as capitalism seems less and less viable for the future. They undergo a radicalization too. A large element become revolutionaries. One big example of a petty bourgeois individual who became a revolutionary was Engels. A fascist counterrevolution will get its shock-troops from demoralized the petty bourgeoisie and the underclass. We must do what we can to win those layers over to the side of socialism.
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif



Yes well, most people are in fact not Socialists, just as much as not everyone who voted for Obama was a Democrat. The fact that some of Sawants voters arent Socialist's doesent negate her being a Socialist by any means. People are fed up with capitalism in it's current form, and this is a trend that should be embraced The trend should not be embraced.
Oy vey!

Why in hell not? Just because those voters, who are moving in a leftward direction, who are questioning capitalism, have not yet achieved the theoretical insights of the LRP-COFI? Why is it revolutionary to spit in the face of those moving in our direction?

Jolly Red Giant makes a very interesting point:

So far the Democrats have succeeded in having over 8,000 votes from working class districts in Seattle disqualified and Socialist Alternative are mounting a major campaign of door-to-door knocking to complete voter verification forms for these 8,000 votes in order that they can be re-admitted and counted. This is a major undertaking involving large numbers of volunteers and significant financial costs.

It is also likely that when the now expected victory of Socialist Alternative is announced the Democrats will embark on a major legal campaign in an effort to overturn the election result. Socialist Alternative is launching a major fundraising appeal to meet the cost of fending off the legal challange.

What really bothers so many of Sawant's sectarian critics is fear she may actually win! Then they have to explain to the working class of the Puget Sound area why someone who fights in mass struggle against evictions, against the coal trains, and for workers breaking from the Demopublican-Republicrat political duopoly, against US intervention in Syria and Iran, for Palestinian rights, for international working-class solidarity, for rent control, and an increase in the minimum wage is not acting in the interests of the working class. If Sawant wins, the sectarians and ultralefts will become even more irrelevant in the consciousness of working people, and they'll have plenty of egg in their face.

Sectarians are often overly fond of revolutionary posturing. They want to show how much more revolutionary and militant they are than anyone else. As long as they can be lonely heroes standing up high above Jerusalem on the holy hilltop, far more enlightened than their opponents and the ignorant masses in the valley below, they're quite happy. It makes them feel unique, special, great, hugely more intelligent than average, maybe even a bit smug. But when the masses start moving in their direction, they escalate their rhetoric and start running away to the left. That's not revolutionary leadership, comrades. That can lead to elitism.

I've seen lots of this phenomenon over the past 50-plus years that I've been involved in socialist politics. I saw it in the anti-war movement in the 1960s and the anti Jim Crow and pro civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. I've seen it in other places too.

Yes, I have my differences with Kshama Sawant, Ty Moore, and Socialist Alternative. Although I'm a revolutionary Marxist, I don't consider myself a Leninist or a Trotskyist. But Sawant and SA are conducting a campaign every revolutionary socialist should support and every revolutionary tendency should learn from. We must learn to abandon the fear that we're going to get liberal and reformist cooties and fleas when small business people, ex-democrats, liberals, even (heaven forefend) moderates, as well as other non-socialists move to the left. Running electoral campaigns in capitalist elections can be a valuable tool in the arsenal of any revolutionary tendency if it is used to help break people from the illusion that capitalist elections can change society, and if it is used to help build mass opposition movements. I support Sawant's campaign precisely for those reasons.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates

[GiantMonkeyMan]

is that the reason why the sawant campaign doesnt talk about socialism and capitalism? how is sawant challengin the bourgeois hegemony? her entire campaign is in the sphere of bourgeois politics, it challenges nothing except fostering the idea that socialism is at best something like social democracy.


There is a gross display of pseudo-marxism going on in here in the guise of social-democracy. If people seriously think that you have to "spread the message of socialism" by participating in bourgeois political structures, then they are odds with the proletariat. We are not mormons who go around preaching the good word.
Reducing the SA's actions in Seattle and Minneapolis to simply participating in bourgeois politics is disingenuous at best and bitter lies at worst.

[Per Levy]

People are moving away from the Democratic Party, They are in motion. In fact, a large segment of the American people are in motion and becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system and Democratic Party, even if they're not yet socialists. A socialist understanding is not some kind of divine revelation infused into people's souls in a sudden blinding light.

wich is exactly what the ultra-lefts are criticizing in this thread, that this campaign somehow magically will bring socialism into the heads of the voters. it wont. yet you do support this notion and criticize it at the same time.


People come into a socialist understanding because of their experiences and by socialist educational campaigns. Above all, the Sawant and Moore campaigns are educating working-class liberals and working-class Democrats about the need for independent working-class politics.

yeah workers need to be educated by "socialist educational campaigns" because we're that dumb. i also find it funny that you criticized stuff like that above and now say that you support it, contradiction much?

"A socialist understanding is not some kind of divine revelation infused into people's souls in a sudden blinding light." but a "socialist educational campaigns" brings the change at a rapid speed.

also we're all workers, we come to our positions after long and many years and not because we decided to be "ultra-left sectarian today because its cool" or something.


One thing is guaranteed: When the revolution comes, not everyone on our side of the barricades is going to be a Marxist. Lots of them won't give two figs about the theory of permanent revolution versus socialism in one country.

and? i dont give a shit about these things either, so what?


But they'll be heartily sick and tired of the rule of the capitalists. They will hate the way capitalism is destroying the planet earth, waging imperialist wars that wreak world-wide violence and misery. They will resent and hate the way capitalism profits from unemployment, sexism, racism, and the rest of it. The corporations' obscenely bloated profits will enrage the masses to a revolutionary fury as they more clearly understand capitalism's ultimate responsibility for throwing old folks out of their homes and sick people out of hospital beds . The masses' confidence in the state's ability to govern will collapse as they see the state as the agent of capitalism, and as they understand that the capitalist system profits from failing to provide for humanity's basic needs.

you know where i live a lot of people think all that and dont like it but they are demoralized, sold out by so called socialistic parties, by trade-union bureaucrats, they were fostered in beliving in the lectoral system. and you come and tell me that because a social-democratic party runs a liberal campaign that never threatens or challenges bourgeois hegemony, somehow the working class will become more active now?


At one point, this likely will lead to a revolutionary crisis. Will that crisis result in a workers' democracy? Or will it lead to a long tragic and ultimately futile civil war and a fascist triumph? The ultimate fate of humanity is not foreordained, comrades. In a real sense, it depends on us socialists. More specifically, it will rest on the present generation of young radicals who are presently so divided by sectarian bickering and ultraleftist posturing. We old folks are yesterday, and you are tomorrow. I hope you can learn to avoid the sectarianism and ultraleftism of my generation.

let me tell you a bit about myself, im not even 30 and im a ultra-leftists and you know what i cant stand? old people who think that they being old makes them somehow wise, the politics and tactics you support have all failed and are still failing yet you still cling to them in a desperate hope that they will work one day. once you've have teached the working masses about your great non ultra-leftists politics of course.


The masses will trust revolutionary Marxists if, and only if, we revolutionary Marxists show ourselves to be the most effective and tireless campaigners in the struggle for fairness, economic and social justice. We must be among the most effective campaigners for human decency, against the tiny corporate plutocracy. And then, comrades, if you think making the revolution is hard, wait until we're responsible for helping the masses run the new world. We're going to make lots of mistakes on the way, but perhaps we can lessen the impact of those inevitable mistakes if we learn to listen to each other and dare to learn from each other. No one will want to listen to us if we aren't willing to listen to others.

what has this to do with the fucking sawant campaign? this is esoteric nonsense. also the last thing i as a worker would want is that a "revolutionary marxist" come to me and preach to me about the good word.


Comrades, In case you haven't noticed, revolutionary socialists don't always agree on everything, and there isn't some kind of rigid black-or-white litmus test for who is or isn't a true revolutionary.

if you run a social-democratic campaign i will call you a socal-democrat, is that easy.


Not every true and effective revolutionary is going to see eye to eye with any one of us, and understanding of revolutionary socialism is not the one true faith handed down by a savior sitting on high.

wich again is funny since you support the notion that "revolutionary marxists" should preach the good word to the unwashed masses on the other hand you criticize the ultra-lefts for stuff ultra-leftists dont do, we dont go around preach out politics like its the one true faith.


Revolutionary theory comes from discussion of and analysis of our hard work and experience, and it comes from listening to each other, learning from each other as well as learning from our past successes and failures.

because ultra-leftists havnt done all these things and havent gone through all that, right? we just decided it be cool to be ultra-left one day. it didnt took us years of learning, reading, expierencing to come to the views we hold today.


Such petty bourgeoisie buy into the illusion that they, too can become capitalists, and that is the basis for their support of the system and reactionary values.

you do realize that the petit bourgeoisie are capitalists, right? they are just that small capitalists who often exploit themselfs as well as their workers.


But then a crisis like the present one hits, and a section of them start breaking away. At first, it might be the lower rungs. But after a while, others will also come around, especially as capitalism seems less and less viable for the future. They undergo a radicalization too. A large element become revolutionaries. One big example of a petty bourgeois individual who became a revolutionary was Engels. A fascist counterrevolution will get its shock-troops from demoralized the petty bourgeoisie and the underclass. We must do what we can to win those layers over to the side of socialism.

and how are "we" supposed to do that? shall we tell them that they can keep their buisnesses, their shops? that they can go on exploiting their workers? how do you want to win them over when the goal is to eliminate private proberty?.


What really bothers so many of Sawant's sectarian critics is fear she may actually win! Then they have to explain to the working class of the Puget Sound area why someone who fights in mass struggle against evictions, against the coal trains, and for workers breaking from the Demopublican-Republicrat political duopoly, against US intervention in Syria and Iran, for Palestinian rights, for international working-class solidarity, for rent control, and an increase in the minimum wage is not acting in the interests of the working class. If Sawant wins, the sectarians and ultralefts will become even more irrelevant in the consciousness of working people, and they'll have plenty of egg in their face.

of course, if sawant is winning socialism is on the horizon. you know sawant wont stop any of what you just brought up, she will be just another wheel in the bourgeois machinery, she'll be part of it and wont be able to change anything in it. personally i dont care if she wins or not, i just dont like the notions thrown around that this would somehow bring "socialist change" wake the working masses, and everything will be super awsome. if that is what you think you'll be deeply disapointed.


Sectarians are often overly fond of revolutionary posturing.

the way you are doing it in your overly long post here?


They want to show how much more revolutionary and militant they are than anyone else.

i dont and never did, im just a unimportent worker and nothing else.


As long as they can be lonely heroes standing up high above Jerusalem on the holy hilltop, far more enlightened than their opponents and the ignorant masses in the valley below, they're quite happy.

says the guy who wants "revolutionary marxists" to preach the good word the ignorant masses.


It makes them feel unique, special, great, hugely more intelligent than average, maybe even a bit smug. But when the masses start moving in their direction, they escalate their rhetoric and start running away to the left. That's not revolutionary leadership, comrades. That can lead to elitism.

im not very intelligent, id say im normal in my mental capabilities, im also not special because of my politics and if would feel that way work and my aching body would teach me otherwise. also if we're so ultra-left how can we run even more to the left? and dont talk to me about smugness, your entire post is filled from top to bottom with smugness and "im older therefore wiser than you" attitude.


Yes, I have my differences with Kshama Sawant, Ty Moore, and Socialist Alternative. Although I'm a revolutionary Marxist, I don't consider myself a Leninist or a Trotskyist. But Sawant and SA are conducting a campaign every revolutionary socialist should support and every revolutionary tendency should learn from.

what is there to learn from a social-democratic campaign? i've seen many of those in my short life so whats is so special about this one?


Running electoral campaigns in capitalist elections can be a valuable tool in the arsenal of any revolutionary tendency if it is used to help break people from the illusion that capitalist elections can change society

and we do that by fostering the idea that change come through the ballot box, vote for sawant and get a bit nicer capitalism, yay.


and if it is used to help build mass opposition movements. I support Sawant's campaign precisely for those reasons.

than you support a cause that wont bring what you hope it will bring.

[Alan OldStudent]

I don't know how much stock comrade Per Levy puts in the works of Lenin, but early in the last century, Vladamir wrote a book called "Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder." In the chapter named "Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliamenst (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm)," Lenin answers that question this way:


It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German "Left" Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:


"... All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected"...
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. "Reversion" to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of "reversion"? Is this not an empty phrase?

Parliamentarianism has become "historically obsolete". That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be "historically obsolete" many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is "historically obsolete" from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.


Is parliamentarianism "politically obsolete"? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the "Lefts" would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a most searching analysis, and the "Lefts" do not even know how to approach the matter.

The same can be said of the modern-day ultralefts.

The question for the modern-day Per Levys is this: What are you going to say to the working class if Sawant wins? Are you going to tell them they're a bunch of shmendricks?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Remus Bleys]

The question for the modern-day Per Levys is this: What are you going to say to the working class if Sawant wins? Are you going to tell them they're a bunch of shmendricks?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates
Im not going to say anything at all.
The working class themselves will find out what a piece of shit she is.

[Alan OldStudent]

When I asked what words of wisdom the ultralefts will have for Seattle's working class if Sawant wins this election, Comrade Remus Bleys says this:


Im not going to say anything at all.
The working class themselves will find out what a piece of shit she is.
The wit, brilliance, and quality of insight into Sawant's campaign is inversely proportional to this post's brevity.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[reb]

Alan, could you perhaps take your head out of your ass and try to put two and two together sometime? Countries have had even more radical people in charge of the state with more radical proposals, look at them now. Or should I say, where are they now? How do they work within the capitalist, or if you are of that particular religious group, a socialist state? I don't have to reduce myself to simple sloganeering and completely bat-shit insane mixed messages to just to try to support some halfway social-democrat. Nor do I have to refer to Lenin's terrible outdated political polemic trying to defend his own social-democratic deformations. I can say outright that, no, this will not do anything. And I can point at historical proofs. I can refer to the works of Marx. I can make my own logical arguments instead of trying to pretend that we are living in the 1920s.

[Per Levy]

I don't know how much stock comrade Per Levy puts in the works of Lenin, but early in the last century, Vladamir wrote a book called "Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder." In the chapter named "Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliamenst (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm)," Lenin answers that question this way:


The same can be said of the modern-day ultralefts.

mmh if you throw lenin at me8even though you're not a leninist as you stated) i think 2 things, first you appeal to athority doenst work on me, and second if you quote from that text you might want to read the answer a left-com wrote to lenin:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

and there the chapter parlamentarism.


The question for the modern-day Per Levys is this: What are you going to say to the working class if Sawant wins? Are you going to tell them they're a bunch of shmendricks?

oh someone is being smug again, wasnt that a critique you threw at people like me? anyway, i love how you didnt bother answering any point i made and just quote lenin in an appeal to athority and ask a question wich you allready aksed again.


The wit, brilliance, and quality of insight into Sawant's campaign is inversely proportional to this post's brevity.

alan, seriously could you be any more arrogant and smug, you know the stuff you criticzed just 2 posts ago? and you ageism shows as well alan, yeah you're so wise because you're so old, whatever.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know how much stock comrade Per Levy puts in the works of Lenin, but early in the last century, Vladamir wrote a book called "Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder." In the chapter named "Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliamenst (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm)," Lenin answers that question this way:


"Let us consult scripture!"

[Alan OldStudent]

"Let us consult scripture!"
Rather than quote scripture, let's look at Lenin's attempt to rationally analyze what role revolutionaries may have in participating in capitalist electoral politics. Then, let's see where and to what extent we agree or disagree with Lenin.

What rational arguments do you have for or against Lenin's position regarding revolutionaries participating in capitalist elections? What rational arguments do you have for or against my position? While Comrade Per Levy's accusation that I'm just an alter kocker may be unanswerable, what about the logic of what I have presented in this thread?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm not particularly interested in debating parliamentarism and whether I feel it's useful or not (although a look at my organization should probably give a good idea about my feelings). Needless to say I don't feel that Ms Sawant's campaign makes one bit of difference, not only in terms of revolutionary concerns but even in terms of reformist concerns.

I just find it funny that the same old shit gets trotted out thread-after-thread depending on thread...if it's about parliamentarism there will always be someone bleating about the ultra-lefts and how they need to educate themselves about their "infantile disorder", if it's a thread about violence someone will always post that piece by Trotsky about terrorism, etc. It's all just so tiresome. I mean do you really think that someone with almost 1,000 posts on this site isn't already familiar with that work?

[Alan OldStudent]

I'm not particularly interested in debating parliamentarism and whether I feel it's useful or not
Well, –scuuuuse the {bleep} out of me!
**************


I just find it funny that the same old shit gets trotted out thread-after-thread depending on thread...
I'm pleased I'm so amusing to you.
**************


if it's about parliamentarism there will always be someone bleating about the ultra-lefts and how they need to educate themselves about their "infantile disorder"
You mean, as opposed to being grown up revolutionary? Like this from your signature?

We made a hole in the corrugated iron and jumped down inside-ten of us in all, I'd say. Kihachi handed each of us a bundle of dynamite, fuses, cans of kerosene and so on, then splashed kerosene over the floor and led a fuse from it outside.

"He set light to the fuse, we cleared out, then a great flame shot up and there was an almighty explosion. After that it was like a hurricane hit the place. We overturned trollies and blocked the road, cut power lines and telephone cables. We set fire to anything we could. I'll grant you that at least what you describe as revolutionary action in you signature line is way more entertaining than some old geezer like me kvetching about ultraleftism all the time.
**************


It's all just so tiresome.
Oh, sorry! Goddam Sam! I thought for a careless moment that I was entertaining you. Here I'm just boring you!
**************


I mean do you really think that someone with almost 1,000 posts on this site isn't already familiar with that work? That's what you mean? Hell, I had no idea you were so well educated in the classics!

You know, you might consider that on one or two occasions since the 1950s, I've heard that balderdash before about how using capitalist elections as a podium to bring socialist ideas to workers is counterrevolutionary.

What I find tiring are ultralefts and sectarians who have no idea how to communicate to workers, people who think that to "set fire to everything we could" is somehow more revolutionary than using the electoral process to expose the hypocrisy of capitalist democracy.

Your approach has one big advantage. It is much more swashbuckling, way more fun and romantic, and it produces immediate gratification. On the other hand, the approach that SAlts and Sawant take can be hard work and rather tedious at times. Their approach requires attention to detail, following up, keeping lists, being responsible. How utterly boring that can be.

By the way, you said you posted nearly 1000 posts. The notice on the website by your name says "Posts: 7,078." What's with that?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates

[Os Cangaceiros]

You know, you might consider that on one or two occasions since the 1950s, I've heard that balderdash before about how using capitalist elections as a podium to bring socialist ideas to workers is counterrevolutionary.

Yeah, I've heard PSL members prattle on about their electoral strategies, which they themselves admit are purely symbolic, attempting to propagandize to the workers and spread their ideas. What I have yet to see is any actual evidence that it works as a tactic, esp. since in decades past the far left has had a much bigger megaphone in this country and didn't accomplish much of anything.


You mean, as opposed to being grown up revolutionary? Like this from your signature?

I'll grant you that at least what you describe as revolutionary action in you signature line is way more entertaining than some old geezer like me kvetching about ultraleftism all the time.

...

What I find tiring are ultralefts and sectarians who have no idea how to communicate to workers, people who think that to "set fire to everything we could" is somehow more revolutionary than using the electoral process to expose the hypocrisy of capitalist democracy.

Your approach has one big advantage. It is much more swashbuckling, way more fun and romantic, and it produces immediate gratification. On the other hand, the approach that SAlts and Sawant take can be hard work and rather tedious at times. Their approach requires attention to detail, following up, keeping lists, being responsible. How utterly boring that can be.

The quote in my signature was an account from the book "Confessions of a Yakuza", in which a Japanese miner recounted a strike/riot involving hundreds of miners and which eventually had to be suppressed by the Japanese military. Not even in the same league as a marginal political campaign for a marginal political position.


By the way, you said you posted nearly 1000 posts. The notice on the website by your name says "Posts: 7,078." What's with that?

I was referring to Per Levy.

[Petrol Bomb]

You mean, as opposed to being grown up revolutionary? Like this from your signature?
I'll grant you that at least what you describe as revolutionary action in you signature line is way more entertaining than some old geezer like me kvetching about ultraleftism all the time.
**************


Why do you attack Os Cangaceiros' signature? How is that even relevant to the discussion? It seems to me that you are merely avoiding engaging in real discussion, as is the case here.

Example:



Oh, sorry! Goddam Sam! I thought for a careless moment that I was entertaining you. Here I'm just boring you!
**************




You know, you might consider that on one or two occasions since the 1950s, I've heard that balderdash before about how using capitalist elections as a podium to bring socialist ideas to workers is counterrevolutionary.

What I find tiring are ultralefts and sectarians who have no idea how to communicate to workers, people who think that to "set fire to everything we could" is somehow more revolutionary than using the electoral process to expose the hypocrisy of capitalist democracy.

Your approach has one big advantage. It is much more swashbuckling, way more fun and romantic, and it produces immediate gratification. On the other hand, the approach that SAlts and Sawant take can be hard work and rather tedious at times. Their approach requires attention to detail, following up, keeping lists, being responsible. How utterly boring that can be.


Yes, because those who say they do not see SA and Sawant's approach as effective are merely hiding the fact that they just find it utterly "boring," and "tedious," and that they are romantics would much rather do what you describe as "swashbuckling," implying that they have no actual reasoning for being opposed to it :rolleyes:. You are being silly, avoiding addressing people's points and simply attacking people. It is insufferable.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Sawant ruffling a few feathers -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/11/11/why-is-seattle-socialist-kshama-sawant-allowed-to-teach-economics/

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think one could question whether or not Sawant's campaign is an effective educational vehicle. I'm not in Seattle, and not entirely aware of the picture on the ground, but it seems to me that using elections as a platform is a very different thing then actually aiming to take a seat. In fact, I would almost be tempted to say they're mutually exclusive, or that, in this case, electioneering seems to have taken precedence over building autonomous working class power. I would happily look at evidence to the contrary if anyone cares to present it.

To clarify, I don't mean this insincerely - for sake of pushing the discussion forward, I'd be interested in seeing examples of popular education or direct action coming out of Sawant's campaign, assuming that there are some.

[Lily Briscoe]

Part of Lenin's argument in that pamphlet was that taking the position that parliamentary participation was "obsolete" was wrong because the vast majority of the working class didn't see that it was "obsolete", and therefore 'parliament' was an arena of struggle, a means of speaking to workers. I don't agree with his argument, but even if I did, it has no application today in the US anyway, at a time and place where I think the majority of the working class does consider voting to be pointless.

For example Lenin says this:


Parliamentarianism is of course "politically obsolete" to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the "Lefts" do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).

Kshama Sawant isn't telling the class the truth, she is pandering to illusions (which aren't even particularly widespread within the class) in the ability to improve working class living conditions through getting the right people elected.

The idea that Lenin's pamphlet supports the pro-Sawant crowd's arguments is absurd, but not quite as absurd as thinking it has any applicability to the situation that exists in Seattle today anyway.

[blake 3:17]

Sawant leads Conlin by 41 votes in Seattle City Council race


The race for Seattle City Council Position 2 took a new turn Tuesday after new election numbers show socialist Ksharma Sawant leading incumbent Richard Conlin by a mere 41 votes.
The new bach of numbers released just after 4 p.m. Tuesday show Sawant with 79,751 votes compared to Conlin's 79,710 votes.
Sawant initially trailed incumbent Conlin by more than 6,000 votes; it then narrowed to about 1,200 votes. As the latest numbers from King County Elections turned the tide, Sawant rallied her supporters.
"This is a strong confirmation of the systematic trend that we've seen since after election night," said Sawant. "Election night we got 46.3 percent of the vote. Since then, and every ballot counts, it keeps going up."
Sawant says she's loyal to the working people in Seattle, not corporate interests. Her platform calls for a $15 minimum wage, affordable housing and a tax on citizens making more than a million dollars a year.
"We've already shaken things up by running this campaign in such a spectacular way," said Sawant. "When we first ran our campaign for state House last year, people in the establishment were ignoring us, but we got 29 percent of the vote last year. And now we are about to take the seat on City Council."
A recount is triggered if the final margin is less than .5% and 2,000 votes. If the final count is done now, it would qualify for a recount. But if current post-election night trends continue, Sawant could win by more than 2,000 votes. Then it will be up to Conlin to decide whether he wants to spend his own money to recount the ballots.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Sawant-leading-Conlin-by-41-votes-in-Seattle-City-Council-race-231661611.html

[blake 3:17]

I think one could question whether or not Sawant's campaign is an effective educational vehicle. I'm not in Seattle, and not entirely aware of the picture on the ground, but it seems to me that using elections as a platform is a very different thing then actually aiming to take a seat. In fact, I would almost be tempted to say they're mutually exclusive, or that, in this case, electioneering seems to have taken precedence over building autonomous working class power. I would happily look at evidence to the contrary if anyone cares to present it.

To clarify, I don't mean this insincerely - for sake of pushing the discussion forward, I'd be interested in seeing examples of popular education or direct action coming out of Sawant's campaign, assuming that there are some.

I think it's friggin great. It's only a council seat, but the fact that there's been so much attention paid to it, and that she was running against a leftish Democrat actually makes it a mini-referendum on socialism. It's also a left fracture from the dominant Democratic Party union team: http://www.votesawant.org/endorsements

Her powers are going to be very limited & this is a protest vote but in the right direction. Let's see what she does.

[DaringMehring]

Congratulations to Sawant and all the comrades who have been working so hard on this!!

If I was in Seattle, I would be with you, pounding the pavement.

As an unaffiliated Trotskyist, I have always had criticisms of the CWI/IMT trend while also supporting.. it will be important to use the elected position the right way.. but what we see here, is really quite shocking.

So this will not bring socialism... neither will some random anarchist direct action.. does that mean you oppose it when anarchists take direct action? Hell no. When they go up against The Man, you have to support. Even someone who thinks Sawant is "just a social-democrat," should realize, what is a better world for socialist possibility, one where no "social-democrat" can campaign in any serious way, or one in which they sometimes get elected? Just as it is a better world for socialism, in which anarchists take direct actions and don't get smashed by the cops.

Good job Sawant campaign! Onward!

[Popular Front of Judea]

Looks like leftists are going to have to deal with what they are least comfortable dealing with: winning.


One week after 16-year Seattle City Council incumbent Richard Conlin claimed an election night victory with a seemingly invincible 7.5 percent margin, his socialist challenger, Kshama Sawant, stunningly grabbed the lead. When The Stranger went to press Tuesday night, Sawant was narrowly leading Conlin by 41 votes, 49.91 percent to 49.88 percent.

Conlin's 6,136-vote election night cushion had been dwindling all week as late ballots trended hard in Sawant's favor: Sawant won 49.9 percent of the batch of ballots counted on Wednesday, 54.2 percent of Thursday's batch, and 56.5 percent of Friday's. The Tuesday, November 12, batch continued the trend, going 57.4 percent in Sawant's favor.

With about 12 percent of the ballots still left to count, the margin is too narrow to call the race. But I'm calling it anyway: Sawant wins!

To understand my confidence, you need to understand the way ballots are counted in our all-vote-by-mail elections. Ballots are processed over a six-week period, from the day ballots are mailed, which is three weeks before Election Day, until certification three weeks after. Ballots are generally processed in the order in which they arrive, but with two-thirds of voters procrastinating until the last minute, King County Elections (KCE) eventually falls far behind.

That's why KCE's election night results generally consist of only those ballots that had arrived by the previous Friday, plus a portion of those that arrived Monday. Later batches reflect results from later arriving ballots. So if an election breaks hard for one candidate in the final days, we should see that trend in the later tallies.

And that's exactly what happened in the Conlin-Sawant race, where late voters proved more liberal and discontented with the status quo than their early-voting counterparts.

Part of that has to do with demographics; younger voters tend to vote late and more lefty. Part of it has to do with hard work; Sawant's impressive grassroots campaign had a couple hundred volunteers calling voters and knocking on doors to get out her vote, while Conlin had little ground game at all. And part of it has to do with momentum; voter preferences shift over time, and her surprisingly strong campaign clearly moved support in Sawant's favor.

But whatever the reasons, voters simply broke hard for Sawant, and there's no reason to expect the remaining ballots to break hard the other way.

Yes, a disproportionate chunk of the uncounted ballots are those that need further processing due to damage or voter error (wrong color pen, stray marks, failure to fill in circles). But these are predominantly late ballots, too. And about 2 percent of ballots were challenged due to missing or mismatched signatures; as these are "cured," they get pulled into the tally in no particular order.

But in both cases, these ballots are likely to lean toward Sawant, who drew support from younger, poorer, immigrant, and first-time voters—all groups that tend to have a little more difficulty filling out ballots. (It's the same reason Democrats tend to pick up votes in recounts.) And of the two candidates, only Sawant has recruited hundreds of volunteers to do "ballot rehabilitation."

KCE notifies voters with challenged ballots to fill out and return a signed affidavit so their ballots can be counted. But only about half of challenged voters normally comply. That would leave about 1 percent of voters—nearly 2,200 in Seattle this election—with ballots that will not be counted.

Campaigns can request lists of challenged voters from KCE, but only Sawant has the people power (about 200 volunteers, the campaign tells me) to knock on doors, ask if they voted for Sawant, and then collect the signed affidavit necessary to count the vote. The Sawant campaign says it collected 150 affidavits after three days of canvassing. The Conlin campaign merely sent out an e-mail asking supporters to check to see if their ballots had been counted.

That's already a 150-vote advantage for Sawant in results to come. And while subsequent batches may not trend as hard toward Sawant as her initial post-election surge, there is no reason to expect the final count to swing back in Conlin's favor.

But even a narrow loss would prove a stunning turnaround for Sawant and a shocking disruption to Seattle's staid political establishment. Between Conlin's apparent defeat at the hands of a socialist and the landslide win for district elections, "the world has been turned upside down on the second floor," one city hall insider told me. District elections will put all nine council members up for reelection in two years, while potentially pitting three pairs of incumbents against each other. And facing the prospect of a rematch against Sawant in District 3, which includes the lefty neighborhoods of Capitol Hill and the Central District, Conlin, then the presumptive winner, announced a day after the election that he would not seek another term.

Now it looks like his retirement could begin two years early. The election will be certified November 25.

Kshama Sawant Pushes Ahead of Conlin | The Stranger (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/kshama-sawant-pushes-ahead-of-conlin/Content?oid=18201682)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Huh. Well, we'll see I guess.
This is the sort of situation where it would be lovely to be proved wrong.

[Alan OldStudent]

Looks like leftists are going to have to deal with what they are least comfortable dealing with: winning.
Kshama Sawant Pushes Ahead of Conlin | The Stranger


Yeah! A mell of a hess! No? A real conundrum! Imagine socialists not being so isolated from the political mainstream in Seattle!

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide.gif

Really, what this whole debate comes down to is this: Is it ever legitimate for revolutionaries to run in elections?



Those who say "No" claim it fools the workers and implies that the electoral system can be made to make basic and fundamental change.
Those who say "Yes" feel participating in elections provides revolutionaries a platform to organize mass action around specific demands.

It's important to understand that mass political pressure can win grudging concessions from the ruling class, although of course, the ruling classes try to whittle them away as soon as they can. We should help people get addicted to struggling against the capitalists.

When I was young, in many parts of the United States, there were poll taxes and literacy tests required to vote. These were used to disenfranchise blacks. There was also a series of laws that enforced racial segregation (the infamous Jim Crow laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)). American leftists, along with others, fought a long hard, and ultimately successful, battle against these reactionary laws.

Moreover, in the first part of the 20th century, American women did not have the constitutional right to vote. it was not until 1920 that an Amendment to the United States constitution was passed, giving women the right to vote, after a long and militant campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States).

So how about it? Do those comrades who oppose Sawant's campaign support those historic reforms? What about minimum wage laws? What about child labor laws?

Do Sawant's opponents think those struggles which gained women and African-Americans the right to vote were meaningless exercise? Would they shrug their shoulders in apathy if a real push to reinstate poll taxes and ban women from voting gained political traction?
*******************
*******************

Of course, we understand that currently, in many ways, the rights of women and minorities to vote again are under attack, albeit under a different guise. So what are we to do? Do we express indifference and say we have no dog in that fight because these attacks are really nothing more than a fight between Democrats and Republicans, a falling out among scoundrels? Do we abstain because the right to vote doesn't lead to socialism?

We have a revolutionary duty to defend democratic rights, such as suffrage, that come out of the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th, and 20th centuries. There's great value in organizing people to take political action by means of mass action and outside the capitalist party framework.

For example, Sawant's election campaign enabled her and her supporters to participate in a protest against home evictions. She actually did this, and this resulted in her arrest (http://www.thestand.org/2013/08/sheriff-evicts-seattle-ironworker-safe-protesters-arrested/). I'm sure her participation had a positive effect on the community organization which organized this protest.

When the local ruling class tries to steal this election from Sawant, there will be an opportunity to organize many to oppose suppression of votes. Are you who oppose Sawant's campaign going to demand votes for her be counted? That's going to be a big struggle because the comfy liberal establishment in Seattle have their jockstraps in a twist, and they don't want an open socialist who will upset their applecart in their council.

If she takes her seat, she can use her office as a bully pulpit to organize mass action against the coal trains (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stop-the-coal-trains/Content?oid=15701054), for rent control, and many other issues. Sure! Such reforms won't bring socialism in and of themselves, but they'll train masses of people in the value of mass independent action. Mass action happens to be among our most effective weapons.

That's why revolutionaries have traditionally supported trade unions, which bargain for a compromise between the bosses and the workers.


Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

As far as I know Sawant never reached out to any Bourgeois elements. To say that a campaign is of no real worth simply because a couple of small businesses like some of the demands (if that's even the case) is at best an excaggeration and at worst total nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I wish the page didn't exist but I think some people are reading a little too much into things. Also, I think some comerades' expectations are a little high. Yes, Sawant could have made a bunch more radical left-wing demands but in doing so she would have lost a lot of credibility. Believe it or not, a lot of people who support her have no idea what marxism is and we can't expect them to.

[Alan OldStudent]

A few minutes ago, the local news said she is now 402 votes ahead. That means she's on the way to avoiding an automatic recount. The significance of that is that if her opponent wants a recount, he'll have to pay for it.

This is a historic victory for socialism in the American northwest.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[blake 3:17]

right on

Sawant said her unusual success is a product of the same populist outrage that fueled the nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement.

“If you look at what’s happening all over, in the post-recession world, the big banks were bailed out and working people were sold out,” said Sawant, who participated locally in Occupy Seattle.

“Everybody’s sensing the rumblings of the future. We’re stepping into an era of social change, and this is the beginning.”

Conlin, who was considered a staunch liberal when he first joined the council in 1998 and had never won less than 60 percent of the general election vote since, has a less ambitious theory.

He argued that asking voters for a fifth term is always a stretch.

“I think I started off with that kind of handicap,” he said, adding that “relentless negative campaigning” by Sawant’s cheering squad at The Stranger also hurt him.

But he acknowledged voters are frustrated with the economy and income inequality. “She obviously tapped into that,” he said.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022222902_sawantconlinxml.html

[RedHal]

ok I'll be happy if she wins, but let's not delude ourselves in thinking that she is campaigning on a genuine socialist platform. I've listened to many of her talks and debates on youtube, and it's nothing more than dem soc talk.

But if you read comments that are supportive of her campaign, you see that the vast majority of her supporters think that she is campaigning on what the Scandinavian countries used to have, some even think she's another Bernie Sanders....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/13/socialist-candidate-leadiing-in-seattle-city-council-race/

But I'll give her credit, when she talks to other Marxists or fellow travelers, she is much more radical. She will even defend aspects of the USSR and Cuba and not cowardly write it off as "that was not socialism" like some trots.

[Five Year Plan]

ok I'll be happy if she wins, but let's not delude ourselves in thinking that she is campaigning on a genuine socialist platform. I've listened to many of her talks and debates on youtube, and it's nothing more than dem soc talk.

But if you read comments that are supportive of her campaign, you see that the vast majority of her supporters think that she is campaigning on what the Scandinavian countries used to have, some even think she's another Bernie Sanders....

Maybe they think that because her platform is indistinguishable from Bernie's. Are you happy when Bernie Sanders wins his elections?

[Rugged Collectivist]

But I'll give her credit, when she talks to other Marxists or fellow travelers, she is much more radical. She will even defend aspects of the USSR and Cuba and not cowardly write it off as "that was not socialism" like some trots.

If anything this makes me respect her even less.

[TheIrrationalist]

Even though I'm not the least bit interested in her politics, her victory might serve as symbolic victory. 'The baddies, 'merica hating USSR loving anti-freedom socialists elected into city council?' Wouldn't that have a symbolic value?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Maybe they think that because her platform is indistinguishable from Bernie's. Are you happy when Bernie Sanders wins his elections?

I am. I assume his constituents -- who continue returning him to office -- are happy.

[Alexios]

Even though I'm not the least bit interested in her politics, her victory might serve as symbolic victory. 'The baddies, 'merica hating USSR loving anti-freedom socialists elected into city council?' Wouldn't that have a symbolic value?

Not really. Europe and Latin America have tons of "socialists" in public office but they're no closer to communism than the US is.


I am. I assume his constituents -- who continue returning him to office -- are happy.

Bernie Sanders is openly pro-capitalist. He doesn't even try to hide it.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I can only imagine what a RevDaft maximalist would do in the middle of a 100 year flood on the Mississippi flood plain: "Comrades can't you see sandbagging is merely a reformist measure and is objectively pro-flood!"

[Popular Front of Judea]

Socialist candidate takes lead in City Council race in left-leaning Seattle as count continues | Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/seattle-on-the-verge-of-electing-socialist-candidate-for-the-first-time-in-modern-history/2013/11/13/cf8ac8a6-4c82-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html)

[Five Year Plan]

I can only imagine what a RevDaft maximalist would do in the middle of a 100 year flood on the Mississippi flood plain: "Comrades can't you see sandbagging is merely a reformist measure and is objectively pro-flood!"

It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that your criticism is a strawman. Revolutionaries don't counterpose reform to revolution as a dichotomous choice. They fight for reforms from an openly revolutionary perspective, something that seems foreign to both you and Sawant.

[Alexios]

I can only imagine what a RevDaft maximalist would do in the middle of a 100 year flood on the Mississippi flood plain: "Comrades can't you see sandbagging is merely a reformist measure and is objectively pro-flood!"

Do you live under a rock? Sanders is not "objectively" pro-capitalist, he's openly pro-capitalist.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/the-capitalists-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/a-different-kind-of-capitalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I5rcnAWaC64

[Popular Front of Judea]

It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that your criticism is a strawman. Revolutionaries don't counterpose reform to revolution as a dichotomous choice. They fight for reforms from an openly revolutionary perspective, something that seems foreign to both you and Sawant.

No it is not at all foreign to me or I doubt to Sawant. It is a city council race for fuck's sake. There is no revolutionary position on bike lanes. As for fighting for "reforms from an openly revolutionary perspective" Sawant's record speaks for itself. She has gone as far as putting her job on the line.

Oh and before you try to make any more sectarian points for what ever sectlet you are a member of keep in mind I am not a member of SAlt or the CWI. I am simply a struggling working class person who is trying to somehow live in this bourgeois town. Try stepping down from your soapbox and look around sometime.

[#FF0000]

Not really. Europe and Latin America have tons of "socialists" in public office but they're no closer to communism than the US is.

Yeah but those "socialists" are lame eurocommunists at best most of the time, yeah? Are any of them actually revolutionary socialist parties?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Do you live under a rock? Sanders is not "objectively" pro-capitalist, he's openly pro-capitalist.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/the-capitalists-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/a-different-kind-of-capitalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I5rcnAWaC64

Ooh outside links! Damning evidence. Googled that all by yourself did ya?

The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage
By: Nick Hanauer

A different kind of capitalism
By: Gayle Hanson

You tube video: Senator Sanders and Michael Moore

Out of the socialist sandbox with you Bernie Sanders!

[Lily Briscoe]

Even though I'm not the least bit interested in her politics, her victory might serve as symbolic victory. 'The baddies, 'merica hating USSR loving anti-freedom socialists elected into city council?' Wouldn't that have a symbolic value?

I'm not really seeing how more people associating "socialism" with watered down left-populist sloganeering that would be very much at home on the left wing of the Democratic Party, amounts to any kind of victory, "symbolic" or otherwise. But I guess the relevant question would be, "a victory for who?" Maybe it is a victory for the CWI in terms of publicity, and perhaps they will get some student recruits out of it.


Also, I think some comerades' expectations are a little high. Yes, Sawant could have made a bunch more radical left-wing demands but in doing so she would have lost a lot of credibility. Believe it or not, a lot of people who support her have no idea what marxism is and we can't expect them to.
While I don't think artificially putting forward "radical demands" would have been any more preferable, I think the bit about "credibility" really gets to the crux of the discussion here. By being politically principled and honest to the working class, Sawant would have lost electoral viability. The conclusion, then, seems to be that 'electoral viability' trumps principled revolutionary politics and, more importantly, trumps being honest to the class--that these things are necessary sacrifices when the prize is winning an election. What's even more pathetic about this conclusion is that we are talking about electoral viability with regard to a position as mindbogglingly petty as 'city council member'. If people are willing to abandon any pretensions to revolutionary working class politics over something as tiny and inconsequential as a city council election, it isn't very hard to imagine which side they'll be on when things start seriously getting real (which I'm beginning to think isn't terribly far off).

[Alexios]

Yeah but those "socialists" are lame eurocommunists at best most of the time, yeah? Are any of them actually revolutionary socialist parties?

That's my point. "Socialism" just translates to social-democracy in most of the contemporary world, so a "socialist" politician in some Seattle district isn't going to make waves.


Ooh outside links! Damning evidence. Googled that all by yourself did ya?

The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage
By: Nick Hanauer

A different kind of capitalism
By: Gayle Hanson

You tube video: Senator Sanders and Michael Moore

Out of the socialist sandbox with you Bernie Sanders!

Jesus fucking Christ. Okay, believe what you want, but calling for the reform of capitalism into 'better' capitalism is still supporting the capitalist mode of production entirely. Have you seriously never heard of social democracy?

[Per Levy]

No it is not at all foreign to me or I doubt to Sawant. It is a city council race for fuck's sake. There is no revolutionary position on bike lanes. As for fighting for "reforms from an openly revolutionary perspective" Sawant's record speaks for itself. She has gone as far as putting her job on the line.

well than tell that the people who think that her victory is a "great victory for socialism" that it will bring us "closer to socialist change" and any other illusions some people on here have on this.


Oh and before you try to make any more sectarian points for what ever sectlet you are a member of keep in mind I am not a member of SAlt or the CWI. I am simply a struggling working class person who is trying to somehow live in this bourgeois town. Try stepping down from your soapbox and look around sometime.

just so, most people on here are struggling workers and probally not alligned with a party, so thats kind a moot point.

[#FF0000]

That's my point. "Socialism" just translates to social-democracy in most of the contemporary world, so a "socialist" politician in some Seattle district isn't going to make waves.

Yeah. So, do you think this would be a bigger deal if Sawant was even more forward with her politics? Like, "yo i'm a revolutionary socialist/marxist/trotskyist/communist" instead of just "socialist"?

I mean, to be honest, I think the people in Seattle have an idea of what they're voting for. She hasn't hidden her politics at all. People know she's from Socialist Alternative and people can easily look'em up.

I dunno. I really don't know how to feel about the campaign.

[Five Year Plan]

No it is not at all foreign to me or I doubt to Sawant. It is a city council race for fuck's sake. There is no revolutionary position on bike lanes. As for fighting for "reforms from an openly revolutionary perspective" Sawant's record speaks for itself. She has gone as far as putting her job on the line.

Oh and before you try to make any more sectarian points for what ever sectlet you are a member of keep in mind I am not a member of SAlt or the CWI. I am simply a struggling working class person who is trying to somehow live in this bourgeois town. Try stepping down from your soapbox and look around sometime.

It must be foreign to you if you don't see the air-tight link between the absence of bike lanes, the interests of oil and automobile producers in thwarting mass transit and other non-automotive modes of transportation, and the essential nature of capitalist production placing profit considerations over the needs of the environment and over the working class, who are the least likely to be able to afford automobiles. The bike lane issue a small, albeit poignant, example of how the needs of the working class and the environment require the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. But where do you see Sawant talking about this? You don't. Presumably because, like you, these links either haven't occurred to her or is she is so afraid of speaking the truth to the workers that she buries the ostensibly revolutionary program of her organization.

You call my points sectarian, yet I am not criticizing Sawant on the basis of her membership in any particular group. I am criticizing her for hiding the most important of all principles of independent working-class politics: the need for workers to unite for the purpose of overthrowing, not mending, capitalism. This is a principled political criticism, but I guess if you can't respond to it, why not just keep building strawmen and attacking people mindlessly for being sectarian?

The disturbing aspect of this campaign is that elective office is being talked about as a good in its own right, but nobody is able to mention anything that Sawant would do differently than a progressive Democrat. Revolutionaries use electoral politics as a "soap box," as you say, and not as the avenue to office holding, as if holding elective office is a means through which to build revolutionary movements. It's not. Ironically, some of her supporters make a good point: Sawant isn't going to launch a revolution (or even a movement, really) from the Seattle city council. She will be constrained by the intense limitations and pressures that accompany bourgeois officeholding. This is why revolutionaries view electoral campaigns as a means of propagandizing for revolution and condemning bourgeois politics and bourgeois parties as an effective avenue for change. Their electoral defeat IS the teachable moment. If the purpose were to get as many people elected to pass "pro-worker" reforms, then the Democrats would be the way to go. Fortunately, revolutionaries have the class line by which to judge parties and participation in political systems.

[Per Levy]

Yeah. So, do you think this would be a bigger deal if Sawant was even more forward with her politics? Like, "yo i'm a revolutionary socialist/marxist/trotskyist/communist" instead of just "socialist"?

I mean, to be honest, I think the people in Seattle have an idea of what they're voting for. She hasn't hidden her politics at all. People know she's from Socialist Alternative and people can easily look'em up.

I dunno. I really don't know how to feel about the campaign.

i see where you're coming from and im not faulting anyone who votes for her, i just doubt that her victory will bring anything her supporters hope it will bring. and if she cant keep her election promises she'll be gone in the next election anyway. and the other thing for me is just that electoral tactics were done to death for almost 100 years and we still done live in a better world.

[argeiphontes]

It must be foreign to you if you don't see the air-tight link between the absence of bike lanes, the interests of oil and automobile producers in thwarting mass transit and other non-automotive modes of transportation, and the essential nature of capitalist production placing profit considerations over the needs of the environment and over the working class, who are the least likely to be able to afford automobiles. The bike lane issue a small, albeit poignant, example of how the needs of the working class and the environment require the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. But where do you see Sawant talking about this? You don't. Presumably because, like you, these links either haven't occurred to her or is she is so afraid of speaking the truth to the workers that she buries the ostensibly revolutionary program of her organization.

Bike lanes are reformist at best, but mostly for social democrats. Bike advocates in Chicago managed to get them put in on downtown streets, even, right under the very nose of capital. They're just a subsidy for kulak bike couriers who are willing to pay $1000 for a bike with no brakes and only one gear.

[Five Year Plan]

i see where you're coming from and im not faulting anyone who votes for her, i just doubt that her victory will bring anything her supporters hope it will bring. and if she cant keep her election promises she'll be gone in the next election anyway. and the other thing for me is just that electoral tactics were done to death for almost 100 years and we still done live in a better world.

The error is the idea that reforms come from the bourgeois political system, so that if you can infiltrate it with a "socialist" candidate, you can more effectively extract reforms from "them." If this looks familiar, it's because it's the same logic that drives people into the arms of the Democrats. ("One of these parties will win, and one of them will push for more pro-worker measures!") In reality, reforms come from shaking the system and its representatives up by struggling and organizing at the grassroots level as forthrightly and clearly as possible for reforms geared toward revolution. Reforms don't come from within the city council. If they did, voters would have been advised to choose a candidate from a party with an existing power base and electoral infrastructure in place, like the Democrats.

Pro-worker reforms come from without the bourgeois political system, and any appearances to the contrary (like the passage of progressive legislation) are alienated expressions of the demands and actions workers are already undertaking outside of it. That outside struggle is hamstrung when you have people with such strong illusions in changing things by winning city council seats that they keep silent about the very messages that will make the grassroots fight for reforms the most effective.

What we see in the Sawant campaign is a widespread failure to draw these elementary class lines.

[Five Year Plan]

Bike lanes are reformist at best, but mostly for social democrats. Bike advocates in Chicago managed to get them put in on downtown streets, even, right under the very nose of capital. They're just a subsidy for kulak bike couriers who are willing to pay $1000 for a bike with no brakes and only one gear.

You are confusing a concrete reform with the ideology of reformism in a way that actually (painfully) validates the dichotomy the Judea guy was strawmanning against earlier, where if you support reforms of any kind, you are a reformist. Bike lanes are a reform. Whether they are "reformist" is the extent to which those reforms come attached, in the minds of people supporting them, to an understanding of the system of exploitation those reforms are chipping at.

[#FF0000]

i see where you're coming from and im not faulting anyone who votes for her, i just doubt that her victory will bring anything her supporters hope it will bring. and if she cant keep her election promises she'll be gone in the next election anyway. and the other thing for me is just that electoral tactics were done to death for almost 100 years and we still done live in a better world.

I don't think so. I mean, the parties that go up for election are explicitly reformist, and not even in the old "gradualist" sense of bringing around "evolutionary socialism". Meanwhile "revolutionary" leftist groups and parties just sort of take pride in their total uselessness and I don't know if that's a good idea. Like, hey, it's cool to be active in the streets and all that, but what's it mean and how do we move forward from there? All it seems to get us are weird cult-parties like every leninist party full stop, little anarchist scenes or left-communist/autonomist/insurrectionist reading groups for well-off grad students.

Even if any of these groups did capture the imagination of the working class, how are they going to assert themselves politically if they don't get involved in the political process?

I don't know how to answer this.

[argeiphontes]

You are confusing a concrete reform with the ideology of reformism in a way that actually (painfully) validates the dichotomy the Judea guy was strawmanning against earlier, where if you support reforms of any kind, you are a reformist. Bike lanes are a reform. Whether they are "reformist" is the extent to which those reforms come attached, in the minds of people supporting them, to an understanding of the system of exploitation those reforms are chipping at.

I was just kidding around. But (not being an impossibilist or left communist) I think that these sorts of contradictions and reformist actions can help with class consciousness and pointing people to a systemic critique. That is, they don't have to be consciously revolutionary to have this effect. It's not that hard to realize that capitalism has no solutions, even if people start out looking for solutions within the system at first. Besides, there's something to be said for improving the lives of people who are alive and suffering right now, rather than just push for unrealistic changes. Why not do both? Just because somebody wants a $15 minimum wage doesn't mean they're going to ruin the working class for revolution. If anything, helping the working class materially frees them to give the middle finger to capitalism all the more. Somebody who's barely hanging on is just going to try to hang on to the bird in the hand that much harder.

edit: I agree of course that supporting reforms doesn't make anyone a reformist, and wouldn't accuse anybody of that. As Pannekoek wrote, the Revolution is a series of reforms. ;)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I mean, to be honest, I think the people in Seattle have an idea of what they're voting for. She hasn't hidden her politics at all. People know she's from Socialist Alternative and people can easily look'em up.

I dunno. I really don't know how to feel about the campaign.

Of course the election of Ksama Sawant would be a positive thing for communist politics. There was once a time when the USSR represented one of the finest societies on earth and what seemed to be the only viable alternative to capitalism during its time, and yet Anti-Revisionists still opposed it. Back then opposition could be a mark of principle, a statement that nothing but class war and communism will suffice and that Communists go go beyond the creature comforts of political relevance and acceptance in the political mainstream. Now that ole Russia is long dead it's a matter of necessity, how can one defend a society which clearly collapsed by its own failures and present that society as an alternative to capitalism? Would we even have the Boshlevics if they were merely a Communist party in Russia alone in the wilderness of European politics instead of being the result of a minority of Communists taking a stand against opportunism in the Second International? I hope she wins, because if she does than opposition to her and her ilk will become that much more meaningful.

[DaringMehring]

Sawant is the winner. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/14/sawant-wins-city-council-seat/

What is she doing going to a Democratic fundraiser?? It is impossible that opportunism could start so soon. Is it bc her newspaper buddy is there?

We (socialists & the working class) to use this seat to challenge capitalism by unmasking it, to be a tribunal of the people... not to be a radical Democrat. I hope she is aggressive and unapologetic! I hope the other Councillors hate her and yet secretly respect her, by the end..

[Popular Front of Judea]

Sawant is the winner. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/14/sawant-wins-city-council-seat/

What is she doing going to a Democratic fundraiser?? It is impossible that opportunism could start so soon. Is it bc her newspaper buddy is there?

We (socialists & the working class) to use this seat to challenge capitalism by unmasking it, to be a tribunal of the people... not to be a radical Democrat. I hope she is aggressive and unapologetic! I hope the other Councillors hate her and yet secretly respect her, by the end..

Sawant has just passed the automatic recount threshold. It is looking good ... but its not over. New totals will be dropping every weekday at 4 30 pm (PST) right up to November 29. You can check the current total at http://kshamabot.com/

[Crux]

Sawant is the winner. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/14/sawant-wins-city-council-seat/

What is she doing going to a Democratic fundraiser?? It is impossible that opportunism could start so soon. Is it bc her newspaper buddy is there?

We (socialists & the working class) to use this seat to challenge capitalism by unmasking it, to be a tribunal of the people... not to be a radical Democrat. I hope she is aggressive and unapologetic! I hope the other Councillors hate her and yet secretly respect her, by the end..
Indeed. You should read what else Joel Connelly has written about the campaign and you might realize he is not the most reliable source. Here's the deal, Sawant was invited to a post-election analysis thing, probably by Holden, indicated she would come, an e-mail was sent out listing her as attending I assume but by that point she had already withdrawn once we realized it was also a Democratic Party fundraiser, something we had not been informed of. She has not and will not participate in Democratic Party fundraisers (or in this case an event directly connected to one), Connelly knows this but again read what he's written before and you'll see why he might reach for anything to smear the campaign. Incidentally he strongly backed Conlin.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It's over. Sawant's opponent has conceded. Oh yeah. Let the partying in the street commence.

https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/401517331634855937