Communist League's Action Platform...

[Paradox]

Even though we communists see the need for a farther reaching and comprehensive platform to address all the objective needs and desires of the working class, we also understand that it is necessary to prioritize certain demands that speak directly to the crisis facing working people in the U.S. today. While these demands do not necessarily require the overthrow of the capitalist order to be implemented, they do lay the basis for a system that is open and democratic enough to allow for greater struggles.
In order to reverse the reactionary corporatist tide, and to prepare the ground for an all-encompassing battle of democracy, communists demand the following immediate changes to the U.S. political system:

1. Abolition of the two-chamber federal legislature. In its place, we call for an expanded, single-chamber Congress, with half of the body elected on the basis of one Representative for every 100,000 people and the other half elected on the basis of proportional representation.

2. Abolition of the presidency, with its imperial war powers and unchecked executive authority. All executive Cabinet officers, including the chief executive of the United States, should be elected by and from the Congress.

3 Abolition of the appointed judiciary. Direct election of all federal judges and justices, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States. Panels of judges and justices to replace one-person decision-making. Extension of the jury system to all federal levels.

4. Elimination of all special privileges and immunities for elected officials. No salary of an elected official should exceed the average wage of a skilled worker. The right to recall an elected official at any time must be universal.

5. Public control of all elections through the creation of a non-partisan National Electoral Council, which shall be responsible for creating an electoral system that includes all parties in the process. Creation of “blind” electoral districts and the abolition of gerrymandering.

6. Universal suffrage (the right to vote) for all persons beginning at the age of 14.

7. Abolition of all laws that give corporations the same rights as citizens. Abolition of all laws that restrict the right of working people to participate directly, either individually or collectively, in the political process.

8. An end to the “state’s rights” federal system and for final union of the country. Standardization of all laws and regulations that affect citizens. Federalization of all civil liberties and civil rights legislation and enforcement.

Communist League Action Platform (http://www.communistleague.org/platform.html)

Can someone explain this? I'm assuming (and I know you're not supposed to assume things, but...) that these are to be implimented through participation in the system? Elections to be specific. And some of these I wonder the possibility of them actually occurring. I mean we're talking about the United States here. And I know these are only meant as steps to help reach our actual goal, but even as such, they seem unrealistic, to say the least. So can someone explain how these measures will be put into effect?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't think the C-L upholds that the workers republic they are calling for will be established through bourgeois elections.. but I'll let them speak for themselves.

[workersunity]

thats what is meant by our action before socialism is implemented, Those are our demands in capitalism, of what reforms we think capitalism needs, but we focus more on our socialist program than on the immediate needs, i believe thats what it is, Although Miles might be able to clear things up better

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:40 PM
Can someone explain this? I'm assuming (and I know you're not supposed to assume things, but...) that these are to be implimented through participation in the system? Elections to be specific. And some of these I wonder the possibility of them actually occurring. I mean we're talking about the United States here. And I know these are only meant as steps to help reach our actual goal, but even as such, they seem unrealistic, to say the least. So can someone explain how these measures will be put into effect?
The League's Platform of Action is a series of immediate demands formulated to advance the proletarian struggle to the point of a direct and open struggle for a workers' republic. Taken individually, these demands could be implemented under the existing system, just as any concrete demand can. But, taken as a whole, including the political, economic and social demands, the implementation of this Platform would not only undermine the very basis of capitalism (e.g., the abolition of the police and standing military), it would put the question, "What class rules?", front and center.

To be honest, I don't think these demands would ever be implemented by way of an election. Even if, by some miracle, the League (or some successor organization) were to win a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, the presidency and a majority in three-fourths of the state legislatures, the bourgeoisie would use its state to keep us from taking our seats. So, we see this Platform as coming into fruition through a revolutionary democratic struggle, culminating in an overthrow of the existing system.

Nevertheless, if the League were to have a member elected to Congress, or even a state legislature, we would raise this Platform and even submit legislation to enact it, knowing full well that it would either die in committee or on the floor. But the raising of these demands in that setting would provide us with a platform from which to organize and mobilize working people in defense of their own class interests.

But, as workersunity correctly said, we are at this time concentrating more on developing a communist perspective and program.

Miles

[bombeverything]

Nevertheless, if the League were to have a member elected to Congress, or even a state legislature, we would raise this Platform and even submit legislation to enact it, knowing full well that it would either die in committee or on the floor. But the raising of these demands in that setting would provide us with a platform from which to organize and mobilize working people in defense of their own class interests.

See this is where we disagree. The working people must defend their own class interests, which is impossible through existing structures. This will get us nowhere.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:14 AM

Nevertheless, if the League were to have a member elected to Congress, or even a state legislature, we would raise this Platform and even submit legislation to enact it, knowing full well that it would either die in committee or on the floor. But the raising of these demands in that setting would provide us with a platform from which to organize and mobilize working people in defense of their own class interests.

See this is where we disagree. The working people must defend their own class interests, which is impossible through existing structures. This will get us nowhere.
As was the case before, you're misunderstanding me. You know as well as I do that legislation such as this will never be enacted, even in a time of crisis. It is used as a way to expose the fact that capitalism cannot be reformed, not to actually reform it. By submitting it, and making it an issue, it gives communists another platform from which to organize in the streets.

The only way something like this could ever become law through "existing structures" is if capitalism is so weak that it could not fend off any kind of attack -- in which case, this platform itself would be outdated, and the workers' republic would be on the immediate agenda.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:14 AM

Nevertheless, if the League were to have a member elected to Congress, or even a state legislature, we would raise this Platform and even submit legislation to enact it, knowing full well that it would either die in committee or on the floor. But the raising of these demands in that setting would provide us with a platform from which to organize and mobilize working people in defense of their own class interests.

See this is where we disagree. The working people must defend their own class interests, which is impossible through existing structures. This will get us nowhere.
Through existing structures? I don't know about the CL, as I am with the US section of the CMI (Committee for a Marxist International), the Workers' International League (WIL), but history has shown that workers try to solve things in traditional workers' organizations and such. There is a big contradiction in the USA: we have a powerful working class, but we do not have such an organization (the Democrats are pretty much the mirror image of the Replublicans). I believe that in the future, the unions will be foreced to split from the Democrats after they seem them for who they really are, and then they will have their own party up for the ballot, and with a mass basis, it can get reforms and such accmoplished. We must try to win over as many workers as we can from such an organization as we can get the revolution moving forward. We should struggle for benefits for the workers within the capitalist system (more wages, shorter work weeks with no loss of pay, etc.), but at the same time, we will not sacrifice a single millimeter of our Marxist stance, i.e. try to turn around and appease the reaction.

To avoid traditional workers' organizations is to surround oneself with a concrete wall and not reach the workers. It is foolish sectarianism. Even Engels realizes this in his article Marx and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-1849). See it online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/03/13.htm

Let us see some key points of that article (bold is my personal emphasis):

Here Engels notes some key points from the Communist Manifesto:


It is the tactical part of the programme that concerns us here in the first instance. This part stated in general:

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

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

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

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

“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

Engels also states a bit more on the issue at hand:


The German bourgeoisie, which had only just begun to establish its large-scale industry, had neither the strength nor the courage to win for itself unconditional domination in the state, nor was there any compelling necessity for it to do so. The proletariat, undeveloped to an equal degree, having grown up in complete intellectual enslavement, being unorganised and still not even capable of independent organisation, possessed only a vague feeling of the profound conflict of interests between it and the bourgeoisie. Hence, although in point of fact the mortal enemy of the latter, it remained, on the other hand, its political appendage. Terrified not by what the German proletariat was, but by what it threatened to become and what the French proletariat already was, the bourgeoisie saw its sole salvation in some compromise, even the most cowardly, with the monarchy and nobility; as the proletariat was still unaware of its own historical role, the bulk of it had, at the start, to take on the role of the forward-pressing, extreme left wing of the bourgeoisie. The German workers had above all to win those rights which were indispensable to their independent organisation as a class party: freedom of the press, association and assembly — rights which the bourgeoisie, in the interest of its own rule ought to have fought for, but which it itself in its fear now began to dispute when it came to the workers. The few hundred separate League members vanished in the enormous mass that had been suddenly hurled into the movement. Thus, the German proletariat at first appeared on the political stage as the extreme democratic party.

In this way, when we founded a major newspaper in Germany, our banner was determined as a matter of course. It could only be that of democracy, but that of a democracy which everywhere emphasised in every point the specific proletarian character which it could not yet inscribe once for all on its banner. If we did not want to do that, if we did not want to take up the movement, adhere to its already existing, most advanced, actually proletarian side and to advance it further, then there was nothing left for us to do but to preach communism in a little provincial sheet and to found a tiny sect instead of a great party of action.

[workersunity]

and we all know that playing the capitalists at their own game wont achieve much, we must demand this or action will follow suite

[JC1]

I believe that in the future, the unions will be foreced to split from the Democrats after they seem them for who they really are, and then they will have their own party up for the ballot, and with a mass basis, it can get reforms and such accmoplished.

Buddy, Wake Up !

The last thing the world needs is another Social Democrat Party. Many, Many CP's in the West have reached the Masses without pretending to be social dems, (Just look at the PRC in Italy). Sides, the Labour Aristoicrats in the Unions tying the US Working Class to the dems have no interest in spliting.

Also, the Working Class in the US actualy may have a stronger tradition of Millitantism. I mean, the US Working Class has got all its major Reforms through Mass Mov't, rather then Ballot. Thats not to say we shouldnt work within the traditinol Org's or through the ballot.

[bombeverything]

As was the case before, you're misunderstanding me. You know as well as I do that legislation such as this will never be enacted, even in a time of crisis. It is used as a way to expose the fact that capitalism cannot be reformed, not to actually reform it. By submitting it, and making it an issue, it gives communists another platform from which to organize in the streets.

Sorry if this is the case. I just disagree that this method would be without its dangers. Even though socialist parties have no real power today, if their method actually began to work their power could only increase. Then what do we do?

Those with positions of power would retain some degree of power during the revolution and unless this power was completely smashed, this would mark the end of the revolution.

What I am trying to say is that I do not see the point of this method. By working within the system and participating in the political process these "communists" would actually be contributing to the domination of the capitalist class over the workers. How is trying to take advantage of the system revolutionary? As this is impossible, the only point seems to be seizing power.


The only way something like this could ever become law through "existing structures" is if capitalism is so weak that it could not fend off any kind of attack -- in which case, this platform itself would be outdated, and the workers' republic would be on the immediate agenda.

And those in government wouldn't have any power over the workers?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by bombeverything+Sep 15 2005, 02:57 AM--> (bombeverything @ Sep 15 2005, 02:57 AM)Sorry if this is the case. I just disagree that this method would be without its dangers. Even though socialist parties have no real power today, if their method actually began to work their power could only increase. Then what do we do?[/b]

There's no question that such work has dangers. But then, so does revolutionary work in general. And again, if these kind of measures were to pass, it would be an inherent sign of weakness in the ability of the bourgeoisie to rule. Personally, I would take it as a sign to step up revolutionary activity aimed at the overthrow of the entire system.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:57 AM
Those with positions of power would retain some degree of power during the revolution and unless this power was completely smashed, this would mark the end of the revolution.

That's why it needs to be smashed. I do not disagree with you here. But here we can see an advantage to having communists operating in the enemy camp (in a bourgeois parliament or Congress). Through coordinated tactics, communists in the parliament can distract, tie up and otherwise confuse the politicians, allowing those in the streets to complete their tasks with less interference from the political state. This could make the difference in some situations; if the dispatching of soldiers to break up a demonstration is delayed by even one hour, it can make the difference when it comes to something like the seizure of power.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:57 AM
What I am trying to say is that I do not see the point of this method. By working within the system and participating in the political process these "communists" would actually be contributing to the domination of the capitalist class over the workers. How is trying to take advantage of the system revolutionary? As this is impossible, the only point seems to be seizing power.

See above.


[email protected] 15 2005, 02:57 AM
And those in government wouldn't have any power over the workers?

I would think not. I favor the position that communists operating in the enemy camp like this would not: a) be on the national leadership bodies of the political movement, or b) be allowed to also hold any position in the bodies that would handle the practical matters during and after the overthrow of the capitalist state.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:15 AM

I believe that in the future, the unions will be foreced to split from the Democrats after they seem them for who they really are, and then they will have their own party up for the ballot, and with a mass basis, it can get reforms and such accmoplished.

Buddy, Wake Up !

The last thing the world needs is another Social Democrat Party. Many, Many CP's in the West have reached the Masses without pretending to be social dems, (Just look at the PRC in Italy). Sides, the Labour Aristoicrats in the Unions tying the US Working Class to the dems have no interest in spliting.

Also, the Working Class in the US actualy may have a stronger tradition of Millitantism. I mean, the US Working Class has got all its major Reforms through Mass Mov't, rather then Ballot. Thats not to say we shouldnt work within the traditinol Org's or through the ballot.
I think that you need to wake up and get over your sectarianism. A good deal of organizations, such as the CWI, have gotten nowhere by staying outside of traditional workers' organizations and such.

[JC1]

I think that you need to wake up and get over your sectarianism. A good deal of organizations, such as the CWI, have gotten nowhere by staying outside of traditional workers' organizations and such.



Theres not much to respond to becuase you just through a slur and an acetedotal evidence at me.

Sectarianism ? How am I putting the intrests of my orginization over the interests of the working class (indeed, that is what you are doing by Following Reformist leaders to boost youre numbers). The CMI refuses to adapt to new conditions, and thats the reason the Millitant Collapsed after the Poll Tax. The CWI is a result of CMI Policy; EG allowing False Cousince to infiltrate the minds of Advanced Workers by tailing the Reformists (This lead to Taffe's millitant reformism).

[bombeverything]

There's no question that such work has dangers. But then, so does revolutionary work in general. And again, if these kind of measures were to pass, it would be an inherent sign of weakness in the ability of the bourgeoisie to rule. Personally, I would take it as a sign to step up revolutionary activity aimed at the overthrow of the entire system.

But imposed legal authority is different, and would exist in your example. This would only make the job of destroying capitalism more difficult.


That's why it needs to be smashed. I do not disagree with you here. But here we can see an advantage to having communists operating in the enemy camp (in a bourgeois parliament or Congress). Through coordinated tactics, communists in the parliament can distract, tie up and otherwise confuse the politicians, allowing those in the streets to complete their tasks with less interference from the political state. This could make the difference in some situations; if the dispatching of soldiers to break up a demonstration is delayed by even one hour, it can make the difference when it comes to something like the seizure of power.

You are forgetting the corrupting nature of politics. Many begin with such ideas, but as they realise that they are too radical to be taken seriously, they tone down their stances. This always happens.


I think that you need to wake up and get over your sectarianism. A good deal of organizations, such as the CWI, have gotten nowhere by staying outside of traditional workers' organizations and such.

So we should all just agree with you?

[novemba]

6. Universal suffrage (the right to vote) for all persons beginning at the age of 14

hahaha. thats all i have to say. hahahaha.

[JC1]

But imposed legal authority is different, and would exist in your example. This would only make the job of destroying capitalism more difficult.

The act of a party being involved in parlimentarian work arnt gona cause the objective conditions in a reveloutionary situation to dissolve. Get over youre idealist self.


You are forgetting the corrupting nature of politics. Many begin with such ideas, but as they realise that they are too radical to be taken seriously, they tone down their stances. This always happens.


State some instances were a reveloutionary party working in parliment that didnt have major flaws before hand went rightwing.Sides', most party's have mechanisms to combat reformism and careerialism in the parlimentarian group's (Eg; My party when it has elected rep's have a portion of there paycheck go to the party till the rep makes the wage of a average worker ).

[bombeverything]

The act of a party being involved in parlimentarian work arnt gona cause the objective conditions in a reveloutionary situation to dissolve. Get over youre idealist self.

Nor will it assist the revolution in any way that is productive. If capitalism is to be abolished by revolution, why do you want to get into government?


State some instances were a reveloutionary party working in parliment that didnt have major flaws before hand went rightwing.Sides', most party's have mechanisms to combat reformism and careerialism in the parlimentarian group's (Eg; My party when it has elected rep's have a portion of there paycheck go to the party till the rep makes the wage of a average worker ).

I am talking about the influence of the other, more powerful political parties on the radicalism of socialist politicians. The nature of politics means that if a party wants to succeed, attitudes will have to change from simply a focus on education and propaganda to an actual focus on entering government. In order to get more votes they will then have to tone down their critique of capitalism.

Also, if objective conditions are such that revolution occurs, these parties will become obsolete. So what is the point of having them?

The trouble is not with misguided politics, but politics in general. The trouble is not with defects in the administration of the law, but that law itself is an instrument to subject and oppress the people.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by bombeverything+Sep 17 2005, 07:58 PM--> (bombeverything @ Sep 17 2005, 07:58 PM)But imposed legal authority is different, and would exist in your example. This would only make the job of destroying capitalism more difficult.[/b]

I see what you're saying, but I ask you to stop for a second, take a step back and look at the conditions under which any of this could (or would) be passed. This could only be passed under one of two conditions: 1) the bourgeoisie loses control of its "executive committee" to communists, or 2) the bourgeoisie passes it as a "Hail Mary" play to save itself. Under both of these conditions, the bourgeoisie's ability to rule will be so eroded and undermined that, to be honest, even passing these measures will not save it.

I think of Russia in 1917, when the bourgeois Provisional Government, seeing the power of the Soviets grow to the point where they could take power, decided to finally call the Constituent Assembly, as an attempt to cut off the movement at the knees. Did it work? No. In fact, what it did was initiate the final "shake out" of the parties and organizations participating in the Soviets themselves -- the split in the Social-Revolutionaries between Left and Right, the final exposure of the Mensheviks, the de facto pro-Soviet alliance between the anarchists, Bolsheviks and Left S-Rs, etc -- which made it possible for the October Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet workers' republic.


[email protected] 17 2005, 07:58 PM
You are forgetting the corrupting nature of politics. Many begin with such ideas, but as they realise that they are too radical to be taken seriously, they tone down their stances. This always happens.

I understand that, and I see exactly what you are saying. That is why, if you have people who were elected to a bourgeois legislative body, it is especially necessary to exercise political control over their activity and to rigorously enforce accountability. Again, yes, it is a risk, but it is a risk we also face in our street activity as well. How many people have you seen over the years follow the same path you wrote above -- "many begin with such ideas, but as they realise that they are too radical to be taken seriously, they tone down their stances" -- and yet they never entered the halls of power? In my years, I have seen a good many people I used to call comrade follow this path, and not one of them held any kind of position of power.

In many ways, the effects of pressure from the bourgeoisie are amplified in relation to those who come from non-proletarian class backgrounds. If they have not completely broken from their previous relations, the temptation and incentive to "return to the fold" is fundamentally greater than the pressure on proletarians to "sell out". Don't get me wrong, the pressure on proletarians to give up and walk away is there, but it is often of a different character. Usually, for working people, the pressure is the threat of economic destitution, not the enticement of power or comfortability.

Comrade, if you could ever prove to me that I am doing what you say, I'll help you load the gun you put to my head, OK? ;)

Miles

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Its true, political power always corrupts. When you elect people, you are just electing your dictators.

[Social Greenman]

Okay, I understand that the "action platform" are just reform demands in capitalism. I know that capitalist used reforms to save their asses in the past and possibly may do so again if they are threatened by a mass movement of angry workers who no longer can afford the basics necessities of life. Is this platform a method that ordinary workers can identify with since they are not very class conscious? I am trying to understand how this can bring about political unity among workers.

As to politics ;P Those who are not members of the Democratic or Republican Parties do not have a voice and are considered a party of one. They either have to side with one or the other. Then there is always the possibility of money and corruption. If a number of Leftists ran and were elected would not the bourgeoisie try to declare those who were elected as being illegal and the offices given to their people?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:23 AM


To be honest, I don't think these demands would ever be implemented by way of an election. Even if, by some miracle, the League (or some successor organization) were to win a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, the presidency and a majority in three-fourths of the state legislatures, the bourgeoisie would use its state to keep us from taking our seats.
You've mentioned to me before about forming a continental congress, this continental congress is formed through meeting the plan of action or other reforms. How does the League plan on getting this organization into power?

[MKS]

I disagree with some of the goals of the Communist League


1Universal suffrage (the right to vote) for all persons beginning at the age of 14

14 year olds should not be allowed to vote. They are too young to understand the gravity of the situation, especially here in the US. 18 years old is young enough for suffrage.

2..
Public control of all elections through the creation of a non-partisan National Electoral Council, which shall be responsible for creating an electoral system that includes all parties in the process. Creation of “blind” electoral districts and the abolition of gerrymandering

No electoral councils or systems, only direct referendums and elections by the people. An electoral council will create a centralized power structre.


3Abolition of the two-chamber federal legislature. In its place, we call for an expanded, single-chamber Congress, with half of the body elected on the basis of one Representative for every 100,000 people and the other half elected on the basis of proportional representation

No representative governments, these systems which are in place in the US and other nations create fixed oligarchies and "special intrest" groups.

4.
An end to the “state’s rights” federal system and for final union of the country. Standardization of all laws and regulations that affect citizens. Federalization of all civil liberties and civil rights legislation and enforcement

A strong federal government is exactly what creates oppurtunity for corruption and oppression of the masses.

These points prove that Communists work not towards a truly egalitarian society but work for the establishment of a new tyranny. Anarchists and any other serious leftist would see these goals as a warning against such groups as the Communist Action League and other groups of this nature.

[Social Greenman]

These are not goals but reform demands on the U.S. capitalist system. So, I am puzzled.

[JC1]

Okay, I understand that the "action platform" are just reform demands in capitalism. I know that capitalist used reforms to save their asses in the past and possibly may do so again if they are threatened by a mass movement of angry workers who no longer can afford the basics necessities of life. Is this platform a method that ordinary workers can identify with since they are not very class conscious? I am trying to understand how this can bring about political unity among workers.

Class Counsince worker's cant just come up to people and abstractly talk about "Reveloution" and "Socialism". They need to start by talking about Immediate demands. They need to connect these to the need for socialism.

Thats the method.


As to politics ;P Those who are not members of the Democratic or Republican Parties do not have a voice and are considered a party of one. They either have to side with one or the other. Then there is always the possibility of money and corruption. If a number of Leftists ran and were elected would not the bourgeoisie try to declare those who were elected as being illegal and the offices given to their people?

Reform and Ballot are not synonyms. Indeed, in the US, most Reform's won by the working masses have been by mass movement rather then electioneering.


I disagree with some of the goals of the Communist League


There not end goals. There Imiediate demands.



No electoral councils or systems, only direct referendums and elections by the people. An electoral council will create a centralized power structre.

This is not a Maximum program dealing with the structure of Socialism. This is a minimum program. Whats wrong with electoral reform ?


No representative governments, these systems which are in place in the US and other nations create fixed oligarchies and "special intrest" groups.

We all know this. But this demand call's for the most democratic dictatorshipgoise possible.


A strong federal government is exactly what creates oppurtunity for corruption and oppression of the masses.


Lets look at the demand.



An end to the “state’s rights” federal system and for final union of the country. Standardization of all laws and regulations that affect citizens. Federalization of all civil liberties and civil rights legislation and enforcement

This would clear up the law so that states couldnt attack right's and so the law is clear as to citizens rights. It makes sense to me.



These points prove that Communists work not towards a truly egalitarian society but work for the establishment of a new tyranny. Anarchists and any other serious leftist would see these goals as a warning against such groups as the Communist Action League and other groups of this nature

Stop the red baiting.

[MKS]

Whats wrong with electoral reform ?

The electoral process in the US and other nations takes the choice away from the people. Direct Democracy, votes by the people should be the only process for choosing the direction of a nation, state or community.



We all know this. But this demand call's for the most democratic dictatorshipgoise possible

The most democratic means of administration is giving the people the decision every time. There is nothing democratic about what the CL is calling for.


This would clear up the law so that states couldnt attack right's and so the law is clear as to citizens rights. It makes sense to me.

It will also give power to small group of people over a large group of people. Something we as Revolutionaries should stay away from. A strong federal government creates inequities and opportunity for corruption. State governments should be given more power, as only a means to dilute the bureaucracy and allow the people a greater voice.


These points prove that Communists work not towards a truly egalitarian society but work for the establishment of a new tyranny. Anarchists and any other serious leftist would see these goals as a warning against such groups as the Communist Action League and other groups of this nature



Stop the red baiting.

Its not red baiting it is criticism of a failed theory and idealogy, an idealogy that could (and has) create greater oppression.

[JC1]

The electoral process in the US and other nations takes the choice away from the people. Direct Democracy, votes by the people should be the only process for choosing the direction of a nation, state or community.

This isnt even feasible under capitalism. The Action Platform is a list of immediate demands.



The most democratic means of administration is giving the people the decision every time. There is nothing democratic about what the CL is calling for.

Read Above.


It will also give power to small group of people over a large group of people. Something we as Revolutionaries should stay away from. A strong federal government creates inequities and opportunity for corruption.

The only people who demand states right's are Christian Facist's and the guy's who fought segragation. Why ? Becuase its easier to attack right's at a domestic level then a national one.


State governments should be given more power, as only a means to dilute the bureaucracy and allow the people a greater voice.

How would that allow people a greater voice ? And how would buliding up local buracracy's and attacking legal streamlining dilute buracracy ?!?


Its not red baiting it is criticism of a failed theory and idealogy, an idealogy that could (and has) create greater oppression.

Have you read any of the CL's material !?! And what defines a failed ideaology, 'cuase in 150 year's Anarchism has amounted to a sum fauliure.

Remember the massacares of the Ukraine under mahkno ?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by MKS+Sep 19 2005, 07:54 PM--> (MKS @ Sep 19 2005, 07:54 PM)
1Universal suffrage (the right to vote) for all persons beginning at the age of 14

14 year olds should not be allowed to vote. They are too young to understand the gravity of the situation, especially here in the US. 18 years old is young enough for suffrage.[/b]

This is a reactionary position. If someone is old enough to work and be exploited under capitalism, then they are entitled to an equal say in the political life of a country. Besides, I know some 14-year-olds who have a better head on their shoulders than someone twice their age.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:54 PM

Public control of all elections through the creation of a non-partisan National Electoral Council, which shall be responsible for creating an electoral system that includes all parties in the process. Creation of “blind” electoral districts and the abolition of gerrymandering

No electoral councils or systems, only direct referendums and elections by the people. An electoral council will create a centralized power structre.

In other words, no accountability or oversight, just little, supposedly "decentralized" fiefdoms run by petty-bourgeois lords.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:54 PM

Abolition of the two-chamber federal legislature. In its place, we call for an expanded, single-chamber Congress, with half of the body elected on the basis of one Representative for every 100,000 people and the other half elected on the basis of proportional representation

No representative governments, these systems which are in place in the US and other nations create fixed oligarchies and "special intrest" groups.

So do unaccountable "anarchist" bureaucrats that control the "decentralized" decision-making process and manipulate their so-called "direct democracy" for their own benefit.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:54 PM

An end to the “state’s rights” federal system and for final union of the country. Standardization of all laws and regulations that affect citizens. Federalization of all civil liberties and civil rights legislation and enforcement

A strong federal government is exactly what creates oppurtunity for corruption and oppression of the masses.

"States rights" now, "states rights" forever, eh MKS? You sound like the League of the South here.


[email protected] 19 2005, 07:54 PM
These points prove that Communists work not towards a truly egalitarian society but work for the establishment of a new tyranny. Anarchists and any other serious leftist would see these goals as a warning against such groups as the Communist Action League and other groups of this nature.

Yes, we will work along with our class brothers and sisters, from the youngest to the oldest, to establish a system that is democratic, accountable and under workers' control. This is, as we can see, opposed by the liberals with bad fashion sense who have the nerve to call themselves "revolutionaries", "anarchists" and "serious leftists", but are really bureaucrats in training -- people who would keep some of the exploited from having a voice based on age, who would allow unaccountable petty-bourgeois "anarchist" bureaucrats to manipulate "direct democracy" for their own benefit, and people who hide their hatred for equality for all behind a "states rights" mantra.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by MKS+Sep 19 2005, 09:26 PM--> (MKS @ Sep 19 2005, 09:26 PM)The electoral process in the US and other nations takes the choice away from the people. Direct Democracy, votes by the people should be the only process for choosing the direction of a nation, state or community.[/b]

I don't see how real direct democracy of working people, and the lowering of the voting age, the abolition of the patrician Senate, popular oversight of elections and the standardization of civil rights protections, are counterposed.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:26 PM
The most democratic means of administration is giving the people the decision every time. There is nothing democratic about what the CL is calling for.

Again, how are they counterposed? Could you not have a structure where the Congress adopts decisions that are then ratified by local assemblies of working people?


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:26 PM
It will also give power to small group of people over a large group of people. Something we as Revolutionaries should stay away from. A strong federal government creates inequities and opportunity for corruption. State governments should be given more power, as only a means to dilute the bureaucracy and allow the people a greater voice.

As I am not a religious man, I cannot fathom this kind of leap of faith MKS makes here. As for your rallying for "states rights", you seem to forget that, instead of having that one big (and mythical) bureaucracy, you will instead foster the creation of 50 or more fiefdom bureaucracies, with layer after layer of bureaucratic officials overlapping each other. In other words, you're really no different than the bureaucratic socialists you like to rail against.


[email protected] 19 2005, 09:26 PM
Its not red baiting it is criticism of a failed theory and idealogy, an idealogy that could (and has) create greater oppression.

It's typical for these liberals with bad fashion sense to attack communists using radical-sounding phraseology, while really supporting a system that would make Stalin blush with shame.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 19 2005, 07:48 PM
You've mentioned to me before about forming a continental congress, this continental congress is formed through meeting the plan of action or other reforms. How does the League plan on getting this organization into power?
Actually, the Continental Congress would be called to implement something like the Platform of Action or higher. As to how it would get into power, it is my contention that it will not be through non-violent action at this point. It would be nice if the bourgeoisie would get the hint, but I expect their response will likely be to call out the military and police forces.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:20 PM

I think that you need to wake up and get over your sectarianism. A good deal of organizations, such as the CWI, have gotten nowhere by staying outside of traditional workers' organizations and such.



Theres not much to respond to becuase you just through a slur and an acetedotal evidence at me.

Sectarianism ? How am I putting the intrests of my orginization over the interests of the working class (indeed, that is what you are doing by Following Reformist leaders to boost youre numbers). The CMI refuses to adapt to new conditions, and thats the reason the Millitant Collapsed after the Poll Tax. The CWI is a result of CMI Policy; EG allowing False Cousince to infiltrate the minds of Advanced Workers by tailing the Reformists (This lead to Taffe's millitant reformism).
You are quite sectarian, indeed. Let's see what Lenin had to say on the matter:


We are waging a struggle against the "labour aristocracy" in the name of the masses of the workers and in order to win them over to our side; we are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self-evident truth. Yet it is this very absurdity that the German "Left" Communists perpetrate when, because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of the trade union top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that ... we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organisation! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render the bourgeoisie. Like all the opportunist, social-chauvinist, and Kautskyite trade union leaders, our Mensheviks are nothing but "agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement" (as we have always said the Mensheviks are), or "labour lieutenants of the capitalist class", to use the splendid and profoundly true expression of the followers of Daniel De Leon in America. To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats, or "workers who have become completely bourgeois" (cf. Engels’s letter to Marx in 1858 about the British workers [26]).

This ridiculous "theory" that Communists should not work in reactionary trade unions reveals with the utmost clarity the frivolous attitude of the "Left" Communists towards the question of influencing the "masses", and their misuse of clamour about the "masses". If you want to help the "masses" and win the sympathy and support of the "masses", you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the "leaders" (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found. You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations -- even the most reactionary—in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found. The trade unions and the workers’ co-operatives (the latter sometimes, at least) are the very organisations in which the masses are to be found. According to figures quoted in the Swedish paper Folkets Dagblad Politiken of March 10, 1920, the trade union membership in Great Britain increased from 5,500,000 at the end of 1917 to 6,600,000 at the end of 1918, an increase of 19 per cent. Towards the close of 1919, the membership was estimated at 7,500,000. I have not got the corresponding figures for France and Germany to hand, but absolutely incontestable and generally known facts testify to a rapid rise in the trade union membership in these countries too.

-V.I. Lenin, from Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

By refusing to participate in such traditional organizations, you are leaving workers behind to the reactionary influences of Bourgeois elements within such parties. History has also shown that refusal to participate in such organizations get one nowhere (why do you think that most of the communist and socialist parties are not even capable of advancing the revolution by one millimeter? So many of those parties refuse to participate in such traditional organizations.).

Ted Grant also addresses this in one of his interviews:

http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant...itant101004.htm (http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant-militant101004.htm)

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:16 AM
By refusing to participate in such traditional organizations, you are leaving workers behind to the reactionary influences of Bourgeois elements within such parties. History has also shown that refusal to participate in such organizations get one nowhere (why do you think that most of the communist and socialist parties are not even capable of advancing the revolution by one millimeter? So many of those parties refuse to participate in such traditional organizations.).
This is Lenin talking about unions, not a political party. Here, however, is something he says on working with a political party:


In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all very weak, and some of them very, very weak) into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party should propose the following "compromise" election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers’ votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks. (V.I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism in Great Britain", "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm). Italics in original; boldface mine)

Lenin seems to be pretty clear on the issue of how to deal with other political organizations. Entrism sui generis certainly does not fit into the method. Quite the opposite! For Lenin, the lack of maintaining (or having) complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity, a situation created when you bury yourself in a political organization like the Labour Party (due to the desire to not be expelled), "would be treachery". I couldn't have said it better myself.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 20 2005, 04:24 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 20 2005, 04:24 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 10:16 AM
By refusing to participate in such traditional organizations, you are leaving workers behind to the reactionary influences of Bourgeois elements within such parties. History has also shown that refusal to participate in such organizations get one nowhere (why do you think that most of the communist and socialist parties are not even capable of advancing the revolution by one millimeter? So many of those parties refuse to participate in such traditional organizations.).
This is Lenin talking about unions, not a political party. Here, however, is something he says on working with a political party:


In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all very weak, and some of them very, very weak) into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party should propose the following "compromise" election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers’ votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks. (V.I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism in Great Britain", "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm). Italics in original; boldface mine)

Lenin seems to be pretty clear on the issue of how to deal with other political organizations. Entrism sui generis certainly does not fit into the method. Quite the opposite! For Lenin, the lack of maintaining (or having) complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity, a situation created when you bury yourself in a political organization like the Labour Party (due to the desire to not be expelled), "would be treachery". I couldn't have said it better myself.

Miles [/b]
I was going to get to this part later, but I was lacking in time. I think that Lenin also had some 1920 letter advising British Communists to try to participate in the Labour Party. I will have to look for it.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:26 PM
I was going to get to this part later, but I was lacking in time. I think that Lenin also had some 1920 letter advising British Communists to try to participate in the Labour Party. I will have to look for it.
Here is what Lenin wrote in "Left-Wing" Communism about the question:


I cannot deal here with the second point of disagreement among the British Communists—the question of affiliation or non-affiliation to the Labour Party. I have too little material at my disposal on this question, which is highly complex because of the unique character of the British Labour Party, whose very structure is so unlike that of the political parties usual in the European continent. It is beyond doubt, however, first, that in this question, too, those who try to deduce the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat from principles such as: "The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution"—will inevitably fall into error. Such principles are merely a repetition of the mistake made by the French Blanquist Communards, who, in 1874, "repudiated" all compromises and all intermediate stages. Second, it is beyond doubt that, in this question too, as always, the task consists in learning to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict.

This, however, should be discussed, not in connection with British communism alone, but in connection with the general conclusions concerning the development of communism in all capitalist countries.

There is nothing in Lenin's "Letter to British Workers" of 1920, or his letter to Thomas Bell in 1921, or his note on "Labour Party Policy" of the same year, on the subject.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 20 2005, 04:35 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 20 2005, 04:35 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 12:26 PM
I was going to get to this part later, but I was lacking in time. I think that Lenin also had some 1920 letter advising British Communists to try to participate in the Labour Party. I will have to look for it.
Here is what Lenin wrote in "Left-Wing" Communism about the question:


I cannot deal here with the second point of disagreement among the British Communists—the question of affiliation or non-affiliation to the Labour Party. I have too little material at my disposal on this question, which is highly complex because of the unique character of the British Labour Party, whose very structure is so unlike that of the political parties usual in the European continent. It is beyond doubt, however, first, that in this question, too, those who try to deduce the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat from principles such as: "The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution"—will inevitably fall into error. Such principles are merely a repetition of the mistake made by the French Blanquist Communards, who, in 1874, "repudiated" all compromises and all intermediate stages. Second, it is beyond doubt that, in this question too, as always, the task consists in learning to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict.

This, however, should be discussed, not in connection with British communism alone, but in connection with the general conclusions concerning the development of communism in all capitalist countries.

There is nothing in Lenin's "Letter to British Workers" of 1920, or his letter to Thomas Bell in 1921, or his note on "Labour Party Policy" of the same year, on the subject.

Miles [/b]
I will keep looking (maybe I got the year wrong, or something like that).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I figure there's something I can clarify for the folk in this thread who are just like, "Hey, isn't this reformism?"
No - it's not, because the "reforms" in question will never be achieved through reformist means. The implimentation of the demands of the CL would necessarily jepordize capitalism in such a way that they could never be permitted. As such, they are more a platform for mobilization through demanding objective improvements which must necessarily lead to consciousness-building struggle with the capitalist establishment. Think of it as a more reasonably debatable cousin of demanding "Four hour work day! Three hours paid break!".

[MKS]

"States rights" now, "states rights" forever, eh MKS? You sound like the League of the South here

Every region of the nation (US) has at one time or another wanted to seceed from the Union in order to gain more control over thier states. New England tried during the War of 1812, and yes we all know the south tried as well. However the issue of State rights or a small federal government is something we as revolutionaries should take seriously. Right now in my state the national government is trying to take peoples homes away, even after the state government has stepped in to save the homes the national courts and government is allowing the evictions and siezure of property to begin. (the property is being seized by the government for a corporation) if the states were allowed to have final say in the matter those peoples homes would be saved.


This isnt even feasible under capitalism. The Action Platform is a list of immediate demands. (in regards to Direct Democracy)

Actually some European nations already practice Direct Democracy to some success. Switzerland is one example. They function under Capitalism and Direct Democracy why cant the US?

In order for Direct Democracy to be affective the federal government would have to be weakened signifigantly. Congressman would act more as reporters of the popular opinion voting not how he/she feels but only by the decision of the people. The congressman can also help to explain suggested legislation and why it owuld be good or bad for the people, but ultimately the people would be allowed to decide.


As I am not a religious man, I cannot fathom this kind of leap of faith MKS makes here. As for your rallying for "states rights", you seem to forget that, instead of having that one big (and mythical) bureaucracy, you will instead foster the creation of 50 or more fiefdom bureaucracies, with layer after layer of bureaucratic officials overlapping each other. In other words, you're really no different than the bureaucratic socialists you like to rail against.

You say Direct Deomcracy and smaller federal governments would fail and become corrupt just as I say the opposite, a larger government is more open to corruption and tyranny, again the best example is present day USA. The Federal government is the biggest its been since Lyndon Johnson was in office and look at what has been created.

Smaller legislators and councils would allow more people to affect thier lives. In other words citizens would only need to worry about their small "state", or community. Is their oppurtunity for corruption? I suppose there is in any scenario, however the people will have more knowledge of what is happening and why and if corruption occurs they can easily stop it if they want.


This is a reactionary position. If someone is old enough to work and be exploited under capitalism, then they are entitled to an equal say in the political life of a country. Besides, I know some 14-year-olds who have a better head on their shoulders than someone twice their age.

Who said 14 year old should be allowed to work? This is the real problem we should be focused on, not lowering the voting age to some ridiculous number. 14 year olds are not equpiied to make such decisions. Its alot easier to push a broom or thread a needle than it is to decide sensitive politcal, and social issues.

True Anarchism/Socialism will never occur if you are to push your "goals" on the people. The best example for what you are promoting is the USSR, one giant nation or Empire that oppressed and terroized the very people they were to liberate. Communist always think they have the right answer when all they have to do is opena history book and see why thier idealogy is flawed. Anarchy is the only way to creat true liberty. Communism has failed, lets put the final nail in its coffin and look to the future.

[JC1]

By refusing to participate in such traditional organizations, you are leaving workers behind to the reactionary influences of Bourgeois elements within such parties. History has also shown that refusal to participate in such organizations get one nowhere (why do you think that most of the communist and socialist parties are not even capable of advancing the revolution by one millimeter? So many of those parties refuse to participate in such traditional organizations.).


Like Miles said, the qoute was about union's. Also, the amount of
worker's "threatend" by bourgoise influence's in reformist parties are reformist are miniscule. For one, few people (And fewer working people) are even involved in these parties. And those that are in the party, generaly only participate in the annual membership meeting in there rideing, so there is little chance to propagate and struggle amongst them. And when we get to the minority of member's who are active, the few of the few that are workers ARE ALREADY INFLUENCED BY PETIT-BOURGOISE IDEA'S !

That, however, is not to reject rank-and-file work in social-dem party's and entryism as a tactic.


Every region of the nation (US) has at one time or another wanted to seceed from the Union in order to gain more control over thier states. New England tried during the War of 1812, and yes we all know the south tried as well. However the issue of State rights or a small federal government is something we as revolutionaries should take seriously.

They tried to suceed becuase they had class conflict issue's. After, the 2nd US Reveloutionary War, the only people who fought for states right's were petit-bourgoise southerner's resisting the Civil Right's Bill.


Right now in my state the national government is trying to take peoples homes away, even after the state government has stepped in to save the homes the national courts and government is allowing the evictions and siezure of property to begin. (the property is being seized by the government for a corporation) if the states were allowed to have final say in the matter those peoples homes would be saved.

Actualy, its municipality's that are pushing for eminant domain and have gotten the Supreme Court to agree with them.


Actually some European nations already practice Direct Democracy to some success. Switzerland is one example. They function under Capitalism and Direct Democracy why cant the US

Buddy, Capitalism is the Dictatorship of capital!


In order for Direct Democracy to be affective the federal government would have to be weakened signifigantly. Congressman would act more as reporters of the popular opinion voting not how he/she feels but only by the decision of the people. The congressman can also help to explain suggested legislation and why it owuld be good or bad for the people, but ultimately the people would be allowed to decide.

The basis of capitalist parliment/congress/whatever is corprate monopolization of election funds. Obviously, if this even was implemented, it would spark civil war.



You say Direct Deomcracy and smaller federal governments would fail and become corrupt just as I say the opposite, a larger government is more open to corruption and tyranny, again the best example is present day USA. The Federal government is the biggest its been since Lyndon Johnson was in office and look at what has been created.

Smaller legislators and councils would allow more people to affect thier lives. In other words citizens would only need to worry about their small "state", or community. Is their oppurtunity for corruption? I suppose there is in any scenario, however the people will have more knowledge of what is happening and why and if corruption occurs they can easily stop it if they want.


Did you even read what Miles wrote ? YOURE PROPOSING THE CREATION OF 50 + STATE FIEFDOM'S ! WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE NATINOL POPULACE !



Who said 14 year old should be allowed to work? This is the real problem we should be focused on, not lowering the voting age to some ridiculous number. 14 year olds are not equpiied to make such decisions. Its alot easier to push a broom or thread a needle than it is to decide sensitive politcal, and social issues.


No responce is needed for this Anti-Worker and Anti-Youth drivel.


True Anarchism/Socialism will never occur if you are to push your "goals" on the people.

Who is pushing anything ?


The best example for what you are promoting is the USSR, one giant nation or Empire that oppressed and terroized the very people they were to liberate.

Unsubstaniated claim's. Open a histrybook of Mahkno's Ukraine. You'll see a olden day darfur.


Communist always think they have the right answer when all they have to do is opena history book and see why thier idealogy is flawed.

See above.


Anarchy is the only way to creat true liberty. Communism has failed, lets put the final nail in its coffin and look to the future.

See above.

It bother's me that some one who oppose's the standardization of right's law and promotes the most thinly veiled reformism is a member of the Comie Club.

[MKS]

They tried to suceed becuase they had class conflict issue's. After, the 2nd US Reveloutionary War, the only people who fought for states right's were petit-bourgoise southerner's resisting the Civil Right's Bill.

The ideal is the same. Why should a congressman from Indiana or Ohio decide or get any part of a decision to what happens in Connecticut.



Actualy, its municipality's that are pushing for eminant domain and have gotten the Supreme Court to agree with them.

Actualy the govenor has just ordered a cease and desist on the eviction notices. The State government is acting now to uphold the rights of the citizens.


Did you even read what Miles wrote ? YOURE PROPOSING THE CREATION OF 50 + STATE FIEFDOM'S ! WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE NATINOL POPULACE !

The national populace are the citizens of the 50 states. Its not unheard of to have a small federal government. Switzerland is again a good example of a Confederation of States (Cantons).


No responce is needed for this Anti-Worker and Anti-Youth drivel.

I did state that no 14 shold be obligated to work under any circustances. I was and I didnt like it. However I still contend that a 14 year old should be allowed to vote for the simply reason of their lack of maturity. Youth is not some minority it is a passing phase.


It bother's me that some one who oppose's the standardization of right's law and promotes the most thinly veiled reformism is a member of the Comie Club.

Some laws sholdnt be standard for everybody, the national government should only be in place to uphold the basic rights and freedoms of the people. Certain laws such as; tariffs, school prayer, abortion, etc can and should be decided by the people of the state. If the majority of people in Kentucky want to leagalize school prayer than so be it, why would I a citizen of Connecticut care what people in Kentucky do? However if Kentucky started to pass laws like Jim Crow than there would be a reason for a higher power to step in. Obviously this isnt the case today, the Federal government is out of control. You already see the Liberals panicking that the congress and courts will overturn Roe V Wade and institute other Conservative measures or laws.

A large Federal Government can only work against the people. It cannot and never has acted in any way that would benefit the cause of liberty or the advancement of justice and social progression.

Communist seem to forget that not everyone thinks like them or acts like them. People are individuals and are entitled to their principles, practices and beliefs as long as they dont harm the general welfare of the people.

I am a member of the Commie Club, I do not support reformism, I do support the radical re-structring of the "Left" and the destruction of any form of tyranny whether it be called Imperialism, Capitalism, or Leninism-Communism (Communism iwht a capital "C").

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:20 PM
Comrade, if you could ever prove to me that I am doing what you say, I'll help you load the gun you put to my head, OK? ;)

:lol:

No, I am not saying you are doing anything like this, just that the method does have it's dangers. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here. I understand what you are saying as well, I just remain skeptical of this method for the reasons I have stated. But I do see your side of the argument.

[Social Greenman]

JC1 wrote:


Class Counsince worker's cant just come up to people and abstractly talk about "Reveloution" and "Socialism". They need to start by talking about Immediate demands. They need to connect these to the need for socialism.

Thats the method.

I believe I do understand what you are writing here. In other words, demands that are made on capitalism can be useful to raise the class counsciousness of the working class. This may prove difficult when it comes to the middle class worker who are now feeling the pinch of higher prices still but remain very comfortable with their Humvees and large homes. However, their numbers are declining as they fall into the lower classes through plant closings and/or relocations.


Reform and Ballot are not synonyms. Indeed, in the US, most Reform's won by the working masses have been by mass movement rather then electioneering.

That is true and that is why Roosevelt implemented those reforms to satisfy the working class. More reforms followed which made capitalism look like it had a human face. But these days reforms are being slashed and cut and people are just beginning to see the monster behind the human mask. Government is the political arm of the capitalist class and represent their interest though they have to represent our interest as well but to a much much lesser degree.

[JC1]

I believe I do understand what you are writing here. In other words, demands that are made on capitalism can be useful to raise the class counsciousness of the working class.

The demand in and of it's self dosen't raise counsciousness of the worker, it is when the class counsciouncess connect's a demand with the need for socialism. For example, when a Communist is involved in a wage struggle, he should point out to his fellow worker's the only time that wont have to deal with wage cut's is when they are under socialism.


This may prove difficult when it comes to the middle class worker who are now feeling the pinch of higher prices still but remain very comfortable with their Humvees and large homes.

The "Middle Class Worker" is a myth and an oxymoron. While there may be a layerof priviliged worker's, I have found the only place in North America where they exist in signifagant number's is Calgary, Alberta.



That is true and that is why Roosevelt implemented those reforms to satisfy the working class. More reforms followed which made capitalism look like it had a human face. But these days reforms are being slashed and cut and people are just beginning to see the monster behind the human mask. Government is the political arm of the capitalist class and represent their interest though they have to represent our interest as well but to a much much lesser degree.

This is true, there indeed is an offensive being led by Capital. At this point in time, you american's gotta orginize a Counter-Offensive around the democratic demand's of the CL and economic demands aswell.

[Social Greenman]

JC1 wrote:


The demand in and of it's self dosen't raise counsciousness of the worker, it is when the class counsciouncess connect's a demand with the need for socialism. For example, when a Communist is involved in a wage struggle, he should point out to his fellow worker's the only time that wont have to deal with wage cut's is when they are under socialism.

When I wrote "useful," I was refering to the demands as a tool to express socialist thought that will help to raise the worker's awareness to the class struggle.


The "Middle Class Worker" is a myth and an oxymoron. While there may be a layerof priviliged worker's, I have found the only place in North America where they exist in signifagant number's is Calgary, Alberta.

It's been a very long time since I have been in school. I do recall the charts and graphs that explained the differing classes in the U.S. I don't know about Canada. However, the years have gone by since then. Here is a one graph I came across:

http://www.lcurve.org/



This is true, there indeed is an offensive being led by Capital. At this point in time, you american's gotta orginize a Counter-Offensive around the democratic demand's of the CL and economic demands aswell.

This is why I am exploring what the Communist League is. I am still not up on Marx and other writers but I am making an effort to learn. On the other hand the CL are not Marxist Leninist from what I have read so far.

[Martin Blank]

The reactionary core of MKS' "radicalism" is beginning to show....


Originally posted by MKS+Sep 20 2005, 04:23 PM--> (MKS @ Sep 20 2005, 04:23 PM)Every region of the nation (US) has at one time or another wanted to seceed from the Union in order to gain more control over thier states. New England tried during the War of 1812, and yes we all know the south tried as well. However the issue of State rights or a small federal government is something we as revolutionaries should take seriously. Right now in my state the national government is trying to take peoples homes away, even after the state government has stepped in to save the homes the national courts and government is allowing the evictions and siezure of property to begin. (the property is being seized by the government for a corporation) if the states were allowed to have final say in the matter those peoples homes would be saved.[/b]

The generalizing you are making here leads to the implication that state governments would not invoke eminent domain themselves, if it benefitted them. The same can be said about local governments too. I remember where I grew up how dozens of families were thrown out of their houses to make way for the expansion of a parking lot for the the private hospital in town. The fact is that any capitalist government at any level can invoke eminent domain if they wish. Your problem seems to be with that law more than with who at any given time is implementing it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
Actually some European nations already practice Direct Democracy to some success. Switzerland is one example. They function under Capitalism and Direct Democracy why cant the US?

The "direct democracy" exercised in the cantons of Switzerland is a charade. If the cantons voted to place the banks under public ownership and workers' control, do you think it would be allowed to happen? No. The Swiss government would overturn the decisions and send in their military to keep the banks in the capitalists' hands.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
In order for Direct Democracy to be affective the federal government would have to be weakened signifigantly. Congressman would act more as reporters of the popular opinion voting not how he/she feels but only by the decision of the people. The congressman can also help to explain suggested legislation and why it owuld be good or bad for the people, but ultimately the people would be allowed to decide.

Again, as I said before, how is this counterposed? You conveniently ignored where I asked that -- twice!


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
You say Direct Deomcracy and smaller federal governments would fail and become corrupt just as I say the opposite, a larger government is more open to corruption and tyranny, again the best example is present day USA. The Federal government is the biggest its been since Lyndon Johnson was in office and look at what has been created.

You sound like one of those neo-cons on television here. The fact that you equate the standardizing of civil rights legislation with "big government" exposes the non-proletarian and thoroughly reactionary underpinnings of your beliefs. You can talk about "direct democracy" to your heart's content, but it is obviously just cover for your reactionary petty-bourgeois doctrine.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
Who said 14 year old should be allowed to work? This is the real problem we should be focused on, not lowering the voting age to some ridiculous number. 14 year olds are not equpiied to make such decisions. Its alot easier to push a broom or thread a needle than it is to decide sensitive politcal, and social issues.

And now we enter the home stretch of your reactionary politics. "Its alot easier to push a broom or thread a needle than it is to decide sensitive politcal, and social issues." I expect this kind of classist arrogance from bourgeois and petty-bourgeois liberals, conservatives and "libertarians", and it shows that all your screaming about "direct democracy" is exactly what I said it is: a cover for your reactionary politics. You are exposed as the fraud you are.


[email protected] 20 2005, 04:23 PM
True Anarchism/Socialism will never occur if you are to push your "goals" on the people. The best example for what you are promoting is the USSR, one giant nation or Empire that oppressed and terroized the very people they were to liberate. Communist always think they have the right answer when all they have to do is opena history book and see why thier idealogy is flawed. Anarchy is the only way to creat true liberty. Communism has failed, lets put the final nail in its coffin and look to the future.

You will have a promising future at the American Enterprise Institute.

Miles

[Social Greenman]

A friend of mine wrote this in regard to the "demands."


The program to adopt socialism consists of this: organize in preparation to seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves, and then, when sufficiently organized, seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves.

That's what I think socialists should announce publicly as their position.

Not "opposition" to reforms -- just persistent caution to point out that a socialist reconstruction has to be something separate, and not simply the accumulation of a large number of reforms.

Leftist literature usually leaves people with the impression that hundreds of reforms, accumulated into a total, makes socialism. I believe that's a false idea.

I believe, but not quite sure, that the IWW is teaching their union people how to run their own industries. However, I do understand the political aspect as well considering that the present form of government belongs to the bourgeoisie which control the armed forces. In other words, true elected socialists would seek to prevent any bloodshed during revolution and to help secure workers taking a hold of the means of production. It was good to know that the CL has no intentions of running these industries.

I do recall living in an era when capitalist reforms were the norm of the day. The only effect I recall in those days was that everyone had faith that the capitalist system was working. Of course, interest rates went double digit and inflation was a problem. Then came Reagan and his attack on the "Welfare State" and even to borrow the Libertarian concept that "Big Governnment is Bad."

Today we see the cuts and elimination of social programs and government remaining as big or bigger as it ever was. Because of these cuts people are starting to wake up to the nature of what capitalism is otherwise discussion boards such as this would not exist. I do know that American workers think along capitalist lines. Should we not teach these workers to think in socialist concepts.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social Greenman+Sep 21 2005, 06:25 AM--> (Social Greenman @ Sep 21 2005, 06:25 AM)A friend of mine wrote this in regard to the "demands."


The program to adopt socialism consists of this: organize in preparation to seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves, and then, when sufficiently organized, seize possession of the industries and manage them ourselves.

That's what I think socialists should announce publicly as their position.

Not "opposition" to reforms -- just persistent caution to point out that a socialist reconstruction has to be something separate, and not simply the accumulation of a large number of reforms.

Leftist literature usually leaves people with the impression that hundreds of reforms, accumulated into a total, makes socialism. I believe that's a false idea.[/b]

This is all very nice, and I can agree with it as far as it goes, but there is more to it. Yes, organize to seize control of the industries, and when it's possible, seize control. But then what? You can seize control of every factory and shop in the United States, and it will only be a temporary victory until you can get rid of the state that defends private property, and that will send soldiers and police (and fascists and scabs and thugs and...) against every single seized factory.

This was why Marx emphasized the point that the class struggle is a political struggle, because until you are able to fight, defeat and destroy the capitalist state, your efforts are, at best, temporary. And, speaking in terms of politics, the communist program consists of this: organize in preparation to overthrow and smash the capitalist state, and establish a workers' republic, where we govern ourselves, and then, when sufficiently organized, overthrow and smash the capitalist state, and establish a workers' republic, where we govern ourselves.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 21 2005, 06:25 AM
I believe, but not quite sure, that the IWW is teaching their union people how to run their own industries. However, I do understand the political aspect as well considering that the present form of government belongs to the bourgeoisie which control the armed forces. In other words, true elected socialists would seek to prevent any bloodshed during revolution and to help secure workers taking a hold of the means of production. It was good to know that the CL has no intentions of running these industries.

It would be madness to attempt to substitute ourselves for the class. It would be madness and it would be a betrayal of our brothers and sisters. Our role in the political struggle is win working people to the perspective of the need to establish the material conditions that will not only make it possible for workers to take control of the means of production, but will also give working people the ability to administer society as a whole.


Social [email protected] 21 2005, 06:25 AM
I do recall living in an era when capitalist reforms were the norm of the day. The only effect I recall in those days was that everyone had faith that the capitalist system was working. Of course, interest rates went double digit and inflation was a problem. Then came Reagan and his attack on the "Welfare State" and even to borrow the Libertarian concept that "Big Governnment is Bad."

Today we see the cuts and elimination of social programs and government remaining as big or bigger as it ever was. Because of these cuts people are starting to wake up to the nature of what capitalism is otherwise discussion boards such as this would not exist. I do know that American workers think along capitalist lines. Should we not teach these workers to think in socialist concepts.

Yes, we should. That is the point. Our platform is based on immediate demands based on objective conditions. As those conditions change, so must the platform. As working people more and more accept the need for social revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and its state, etc., those objective conditions will change: the bourgeoisie will fluctuate between throwing sops to workers and bringing out their armed enforcers; workers will organize themselves to not only defend what little they have, but will also fight for what they still need; the alignment of forces on each side will clarify and crystallize. As those conditions change, so must the platform. And so it will, if I have anything to say about it.

Miles

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:58 AM

I believe I do understand what you are writing here. In other words, demands that are made on capitalism can be useful to raise the class counsciousness of the working class.

The demand in and of it's self dosen't raise counsciousness of the worker, it is when the class counsciouncess connect's a demand with the need for socialism. For example, when a Communist is involved in a wage struggle, he should point out to his fellow worker's the only time that wont have to deal with wage cut's is when they are under socialism.
On the contrary, ideology is not enough - telling workers "Hey, this wouldn't happen under socialism!" isn't half as valuable as the actual experience of struggling within capitalism. Involving workers in the struggle for change that is incompatible with the capitalist system is what awakes the working class.

[MKS]

The generalizing you are making here leads to the implication that state governments would not invoke eminent domain themselves, if it benefitted them. The same can be said about local governments too. I remember where I grew up how dozens of families were thrown out of their houses to make way for the expansion of a parking lot for the the private hospital in town. The fact is that any capitalist government at any level can invoke eminent domain if they wish. Your problem seems to be with that law more than with who at any given time is implementing it.

My problem is with oversight and blatant cover ups that are almost aways executed by large federal governments. Why? Becuase the larger the government the smaller the peoples voice. Do you honestly think the people stand any chance against the corporations in lobbying for thier desired legislation? A smaller government allows greater participation and less oppurtunity for corruption because if the people can be an active part in passing legislation unlike they are today, than "leaders" would be almost unessecary, the mass of the people will act for the people.



The "direct democracy" exercised in the cantons of Switzerland is a charade. If the cantons voted to place the banks under public ownership and workers' control, do you think it would be allowed to happen? No. The Swiss government would overturn the decisions and send in their military to keep the banks in the capitalists' hands

It is not a charde, it is legitamte because the people usually are allowed a greater voice in many civil, social and legal matters. If the populace of people in Switzerland voted to make the Banks Public than the Swiss government would have no choice but to follow the will of the people. If they didnt there would be revolution, and isnt that what we are all about. So in my opinion Direct Democracy is a win, win situation, either the government listens to the will of the people or they are crushed by it.



You sound like one of those neo-cons on television here. The fact that you equate the standardizing of civil rights legislation with "big government" exposes the non-proletarian and thoroughly reactionary underpinnings of your beliefs. You can talk about "direct democracy" to your heart's content, but it is obviously just cover for your reactionary petty-bourgeois doctrine.

Look past the Civil Rights Issue, if you had read my past posts you would have seen that legislation passed by a state government that directly affects the well being of another or creates an injustice, or goes against the spirit of Liberty and Equality would have to be suppressed by a larger body or government. This is the only time a federal government should act against the states choice. The people of any state have a right to decide what laws, civil codes or social codes should in enacted.

The ill affects of big government can be seen today, with the huge deficits, the war no one wants to be in, and the tax cuts for the rich. (just to name a few). Big government perverts the basic ideals of personal freedoms and responsibilities.


And now we enter the home stretch of your reactionary politics. "Its alot easier to push a broom or thread a needle than it is to decide sensitive politcal, and social issues." I expect this kind of classist arrogance from bourgeois and petty-bourgeois liberals, conservatives and "libertarians", and it shows that all your screaming about "direct democracy" is exactly what I said it is: a cover for your reactionary politics. You are exposed as the fraud you are.


Oh give me a break. Age is not a class it is a phase of time. No age group should ever be seen as a class of society. Children (which are what 14 year olds are) should not be allowed to vote. Nor should they be allowed to work, they should be studying and enjoying their childhood. A 14 year old should never be expected to make decisions that could alter their world, that is what adults are for to guide children, to teach them and to keep them safe.

My opinions on this matter are not reactionary, they are solid opinions derived from logic and common sense.

Your Soviet Style of government is scary and should be treated not as a welcomed edition to Leftist politics but it should be destoryed as not to re-create the horrors of the Soviet Union anywhere else.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by MKS+Sep 21 2005, 06:19 PM--> (MKS @ Sep 21 2005, 06:19 PM)My problem is with oversight and blatant cover ups that are almost aways executed by large federal governments. Why? Becuase the larger the government the smaller the peoples voice.[/b]

I call Bullshit on this. The fact is that local governments have historically been the most corrupt institutions: Tammany Hall; Chicago; New Orleans; Miami; Dallas; etc. The federal corruption scandals that have broken out throughout the history of the U.S. -- Teapot Dome, XYZ, Watergate, etc. -- have never sunk to the depths that has defined local corruption for more than a century. I suggest you study a little U.S. history before making that kind of statement.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
Do you honestly think the people stand any chance against the corporations in lobbying for thier desired legislation?

They stand as much of a chance on a local level as they would on a federal level. Experience bears that out.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
A smaller government allows greater participation and less oppurtunity for corruption because if the people can be an active part in passing legislation unlike they are today, than "leaders" would be almost unessecary, the mass of the people will act for the people.

Libertarian nonsense repackaged in radical garb. First, active participation at any level creates less opportunity for corruption; it becomes a bulwark of accountability, which can exist at any level. Second, "smaller government" is not the same as greater popular participation -- in fact, some of the most corrupt governments have prided themselves on being "small", because it means less accountability and less oversight.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
It is not a charde, it is legitamte because the people usually are allowed a greater voice in many civil, social and legal matters. If the populace of people in Switzerland voted to make the Banks Public than the Swiss government would have no choice but to follow the will of the people. If they didnt there would be revolution, and isnt that what we are all about. So in my opinion Direct Democracy is a win, win situation, either the government listens to the will of the people or they are crushed by it.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this response. It's either one of the most naive statements, or one of the crassest deceptions, I've ever read.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
Look past the Civil Rights Issue, if you had read my past posts you would have seen that legislation passed by a state government that directly affects the well being of another or creates an injustice, or goes against the spirit of Liberty and Equality would have to be suppressed by a larger body or government. This is the only time a federal government should act against the states choice. The people of any state have a right to decide what laws, civil codes or social codes should in enacted.

You contradict yourself, and further expose your reactionary politics. On the one hand, you say that "legislation passed by a state government that directly affects the well being of another or creates an injustice, or goes against the spirit of Liberty and Equality would have to be suppressed by a larger body or government". And then, right after it, you say, "The people of any state have a right to decide what laws, civil codes or social codes should in enacted".

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Civil Rights legislation is both "civil code" and "social code", just as workers' rights legislation is both "civil" and "social". So, which is it? My guess is that you are more supportive of the latter, and could just as easily do without the former, based on your arguments so far. This is the same reactionary "states' rights" rhetoric we heard from Southern segregationists, just wrapped a little more tightly with paeans to "Jeffersonian democracy".


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
The ill affects of big government can be seen today, with the huge deficits, the war no one wants to be in, and the tax cuts for the rich. (just to name a few). Big government perverts the basic ideals of personal freedoms and responsibilities.

This could have been written by Grover Norquist, the neo-con guru, without changing a word.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
Oh give me a break. Age is not a class it is a phase of time. No age group should ever be seen as a class of society. Children (which are what 14 year olds are) should not be allowed to vote. Nor should they be allowed to work, they should be studying and enjoying their childhood. A 14 year old should never be expected to make decisions that could alter their world, that is what adults are for to guide children, to teach them and to keep them safe.

Reactionary ageist crap, with a bourgeois nuclear family bow on top.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
My opinions on this matter are not reactionary, they are solid opinions derived from logic and common sense.

Bourgeois logic, perhaps -- which is, after all, reactionary to the core.


[email protected] 21 2005, 06:19 PM
Your Soviet Style of government is scary and should be treated not as a welcomed edition to Leftist politics but it should be destoryed as not to re-create the horrors of the Soviet Union anywhere else.

Your "alternative", where "states' rights" over "civil" and "social codes" rules, and young people are treated like pets and/or property, has nothing to do with leftist politics at all.

Miles

[MKS]

I call Bullshit on this. The fact is that local governments have historically been the most corrupt institutions: Tammany Hall; Chicago; New Orleans; Miami; Dallas; etc. The federal corruption scandals that have broken out throughout the history of the U.S. -- Teapot Dome, XYZ, Watergate, etc. -- have never sunk to the depths that has defined local corruption for more than a century. I suggest you study a little U.S. history before making that kind of statement.

True. Corruption is just as prevelant in smaller governments as are in larger ones, however the corruption was always veiled by representative democracy, that is to say leaders acting "for the people", the masses were blind either be ignorance or conplacency. Direct Deomcracy enacted through smaller administrations and instutions of the people do allow for less corruption because the decision is made by the people, there is no "leader" or representative to go through.
Furthermore federal corruption has sunk to the depths of local corruption and is affects are far more reaching than local corruption. There was Watergate, Iran Contra, Several Attempts to assasinate world leaders (Fidel, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X etc), als the current Haliburton corruption, the War fought for oil, special intrest groups and corporations, the list goes on and on how the American people are screwed every day by their Federal Government. Not only are Americans affected by the corruption but other nations have been oppressed (sometimes invaded) by the Federal Government of the USA.



"smaller government" is not the same as greater popular participation -- in fact, some of the most corrupt governments have prided themselves on being "small", because it means less accountability and less oversight.

True. But a large government or administration would act against the people in a Direct Democracy situation, purely because of logisitics and efficency problems.

What I am against is Representative Democracy, any form of government that creates positions of power and decision making over the people. A large federal government does just that. It creates a huge machine that all but ignores the opinion of the masses.


You contradict yourself, and further expose your reactionary politics. On the one hand, you say that "legislation passed by a state government that directly affects the well being of another or creates an injustice, or goes against the spirit of Liberty and Equality would have to be suppressed by a larger body or government". And then, right after it, you say, "The people of any state have a right to decide what laws, civil codes or social codes should in enacted".

you left out the middle part of that statement where I said that protecting liberty and justice should be one of the only roles of a federal government. Other than that scenario the people of the state should be allowed to decide on civil, social and econmic codes. There is no contradiction in my statement only in your perception of my statement which is blatanly misquoted.


These two statements are mutually exclusive. Civil Rights legislation is both "civil code" and "social code", just as workers' rights legislation is both "civil" and "social". So, which is it? My guess is that you are more supportive of the latter, and could just as easily do without the former, based on your arguments so far. This is the same reactionary "states' rights" rhetoric we heard from Southern segregationists, just wrapped a little more tightly with paeans to "Jeffersonian democracy".

Civil Rights legislation is not civil code, it is social code. Civil code is pretatining to property rights, building codes, etc. However workers rights should be decided by the workers not by any government. Lets say the Federal government sets the minimum wage to $8.00/hr, and declares that the minimum wage for all states is to be that high, no higher or lower. But the cost of living is higher in Connecticut than it is in Tennessee. Shouldnt the people in each state be allowed to vote for the proper wage? Shouldnt their decision trump any Centralized governments?
Large Federal government could very well defeat Roe v Wade in the next few years giving the states the right to decide on the legalization of Abortion. Is it wrong if the people of one state make abortion illegal and another keep it legal. If the choice does not affect the freedom of another than why should the Federal government be allowed to ignore the will of the people of that state?

Also I am getting a little tired of you calling me a segregationist, if you knew me you would know such a claim is not only baseless but upsurd. You should really try to stop throwing race into the mix, i have already addressed the issue twice and you have twiced ignored the attempts. State rigth issues have been addressed many times, by many different states and for many different reasons. The most recent would be on the issue of Gay Marriage. If you had your way and the federal government was allowed to decide, Gay marriage would be illegal, depsite some states already making it legal or trying to make it legal.
States rights are important because it is easier for a state government to know and act on the opinion of the people of that state, than it is for a federal government to.


The ill affects of big government can be seen today, with the huge deficits, the war no one wants to be in, and the tax cuts for the rich. (just to name a few). Big government perverts the basic ideals of personal freedoms and responsibilities.



This could have been written by Grover Norquist, the neo-con guru, without changing a word.

You could debate the points I made on the issue instead of stating the similarities between my statement and a conservative's statements. If Norquist made this comment or a similar one, than I agree with him. And I guess you are in favour of tax cuts for the rich, the War in Iraq, Corporations running the national economy, the growing poverty rate, etc etc. All actions taken by a stronger and larger Federal Government.


Your "alternative", where "states' rights" over "civil" and "social codes" rules, and young people are treated like pets and/or property, has nothing to do with leftist politics at all.


I explained my viewpoint on the importance of smaller government, Direct Democracy and the protection of Civil Rights being one of the only duties of a federal government. And I thought I explained my viewpoint on the issue of age, working, and voting, but I guess I wasnt clear.

Young people have enough to deal with, they are innocent, vulnerable, and should be seen not as a labour force or a polling demographic, or a class of society, they should be seen and treated as they are; young and full of promise and hope. I started working when I was 14, and i was miserable. In 4 years a 14 year is an 18 year old and then he/she can vote all they want, but why not give them the rest of thier already chaotic childhood to stay out of it, to enjoy thier time as innocents? Answer these questions seriously, dont answer as some rebellious youth who thinks they are a part of some oppressed minority, because youth is fleeting and not permanent, adulthood is.
I do not wish to make young people pets or protperty, I simply want the world to stop destroying childhood, pushing adulthood onto young people is horrible and should never be tolerated, whether in the US, Europe or any other part of the world.

Some Communists and Most Anarchists would agree that smaller non-hirearchical Direct Democracies are better at protecting rights and liberties than large governments.

[workersunity]

you seem to be equating the voting age at 14 with making it mandatory to vote at 14, yes alot of 14 yr olds may not want to vote, but i have come across plenty of vibrant young revolutionaries who actually knew what they were talking about, many of them younger than 14, if they want a say in the government, they have as much right as a 45 yr banker

[Social Greenman]

I have taken this off the DeLeonism.org website since we are talking about this subject.

Mike wrote:


Quote:

4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated.


It's very odd that they should express a goal that was already achieved many decades ago. Perhaps they don't even know that society has long ago solved the problem of inadequate production. We now have so much automation that every human being could have no more than a ten hour workweek and enjoy more luxury than one of today's millionaires. Nothing more is needed except to adopt a democratic economic system.



Quote:

3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property


Dangerously unclear. The "abolition of private property" is only a negatively phrased statement, indicating what we are not to have -- that the industries are not to be private property. What are we to have in its place? This negative phrase is oddly placed in the predicate of the remark whose subject is "the institution of democratic workers' control of production." Having said what workers' control will not be, how should we say what it will be?

It needs to be said explicitly:

* that the workers, under capitalism, preparing for socialism, have to organize whatever councils, assemblies, committees, etc. that they will need in order to manage themselves;

* that this has to be done specifically at the workplaces; it cannot be a political party task; the closest thing we have today that resembles this kind of necessary organization is labor union organization;

* that the assumption of management responsibilities by this society-wide network of workers' workplace-based assemblies or committees is precisely what we mean by all such phrases as "socialist revolution," "establishing socialism," etc.

Quote:
10. The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat


Quote:
In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks:


Quote:
those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor.


They think that, during a transitional state, after the workers' have seized power, that this is when the petty bourgeoisie will gradually fade away?!??!

This is completely wrong.

The sole purpose of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is to enforce the democratic mandate for socialism in the manner that legal mandates are today enforced. If the deposed capitalists or their lackeys resort to counter-revolutionary violence, then the state power, not yet dissolved, and still in the hands of the workers' political party, can apprehend and jail those violent individuals. The "dictatorship of the proletriat" doesn't have to remain in existence any longer than the duration needed to do just that task, which probably means mere weeks, if not mere days. It's incorrect to visualize it as an ongoing historical period of any substantial length, such as a duration in which the petty bourgeouis will gradually fade away, the means of production will grow, or anything else of that sort.

Their Leninist influence is showing through.

Quote:
Later, the Bolsheviks implemented a concept they thought was similar to the “labor-hour” method of compensation: payment according to “labor-content.” However, this method was little more than a different form of the wages system used in capitalist economies — indeed, it was the same system using different terminology.


But the reason that the Bolshevik's system was a wage system wasn't that labor was time-measured.

It was a wage system because, due to the absense of democracy, workers were hired-hands used by the administrative class at the head of industy, as under capitalism. It was a wage system because the workers were outsiders who were brought in by employers, when it was necessary (unavoidable) for those employers to bring some outsiders in, as under capitalism.

When the system becomes so throughly democratic that it can be truthfully said that the workers are full partners in ownership of their own shops, then the character of their compensation will change also. It may be time-measured, but it won't be the doles of exploitation.

Dave wrote:


Some intellegence finally having seep through the bone matter -

Imperialism is not necessarily a development of capitalism - The Roman state, the Soviet state and the US all have used "imperialism".

Also "super" exploitation is not at all scientifically accurate term to use when referring to historically excluded minority groups.

It is quite possible that higer paid non-minority workers may be exploited at a higher rate IF WE LOOK AT PRODUCTIVITY USING HIGHER DEVELOPED TOOLS OF PRODUCTION.

Degradation is not the same as exploitation.

If there is any socialist industrial unionism behind any of this I don't see it .

Oh well.

Mike wrote:


I don't know whether this remark applies to the group we're looking at, but I recall that the Trotskyist groups which describe the USSR as a "deformed workers' state" have always rejected the suggestion that the USSR was "imperialist." I recall some of them seeing the cover of the SLP's pamphlet "Stalinist Imperialism", and they objected to the phrase.

I will be off line since I will be moving.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social Greenman+Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM--> (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)Mike wrote:


Quote:

4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated.


It's very odd that they should express a goal that was already achieved many decades ago. Perhaps they don't even know that society has long ago solved the problem of inadequate production. We now have so much automation that every human being could have no more than a ten hour workweek and enjoy more luxury than one of today's millionaires. Nothing more is needed except to adopt a democratic economic system.[/b]

Does he really believe that productive forces have developed to such a point that the material basis can be eliminated on a global scale? Or, is he just talking about the United States?


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property

Dangerously unclear. The "abolition of private property" is only a negatively phrased statement, indicating what we are not to have -- that the industries are not to be private property. What are we to have in its place? This negative phrase is oddly placed in the predicate of the remark whose subject is "the institution of democratic workers' control of production." Having said what workers' control will not be, how should we say what it will be?

Academic parsing. I'd call it sophistry, but that would be too kind.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM

It needs to be said explicitly:

* that the workers, under capitalism, preparing for socialism, have to organize whatever councils, assemblies, committees, etc. that they will need in order to manage themselves;

* that this has to be done specifically at the workplaces; it cannot be a political party task; the closest thing we have today that resembles this kind of necessary organization is labor union organization;

* that the assumption of management responsibilities by this society-wide network of workers' workplace-based assemblies or committees is precisely what we mean by all such phrases as "socialist revolution," "establishing socialism," etc.

First, let me offer this passage from League Bulletin No. 3, "Unite for Liberation! Unite for a Workers' Republic!" (League Bulletins are considered programmatic statements, and are where we express our strategic and tactical orientation.)


In place of the overthrown capitalist system, communists fight for the establishment of a workers’ republic. A workers’ republic, based on common ownership and working people’s control of capital, would usher in new social relationships, new ideas and new institutions that represent and reinforce the interests of the working and oppressed majority of humanity. Based on assemblies of workers elected in workplaces and neighborhoods, a workers’ republic would be the first society worthy of being called “democratic.” But this democracy — the democracy of the exploited and oppressed majority, proletarian democracy — would not be confined to just the political arena. Common ownership of capital means nothing unless those who use those instruments of production democratically decide how to use them. Similarly, the changes in economic and political relationships would usher in a democratization of human culture and development, and the creation of the first truly human history, not just the “history” written by the current rulers.

I sense a real syndicalist bent in this comrade's comments. His comment about how organizing workers' councils, assemblies, etc., "has to be done specifically at the workplaces" and "cannot be a political party task" denies, in word and deed, the central tenet of the Marxian communist viewpoint: the class struggle is a political struggle. Yes, workplace committees must be organized; we have said as such, and we advocate them now -- as a necessary task, not a propaganda point.

But economic organization alone is not enough. I said this in one of my last postings in this thread. Economic organization must be accompanied by political organization. And I am not talking about a party in this instance, but councils and assemblies of working people that can overthrow the capitalist state and replace it with a workers' republic. Without the political struggle, the economic struggle will fail and fall under the boot of military and police repression.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:
10. The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat

Quote:
In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks:

Quote:
those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor.

They think that, during a transitional state, after the workers' have seized power, that this is when the petty bourgeoisie will gradually fade away?!??!

This is completely wrong.

The sole purpose of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is to enforce the democratic mandate for socialism in the manner that legal mandates are today enforced. If the deposed capitalists or their lackeys resort to counter-revolutionary violence, then the state power, not yet dissolved, and still in the hands of the workers' political party, can apprehend and jail those violent individuals. The "dictatorship of the proletriat" doesn't have to remain in existence any longer than the duration needed to do just that task, which probably means mere weeks, if not mere days. It's incorrect to visualize it as an ongoing historical period of any substantial length, such as a duration in which the petty bourgeouis will gradually fade away, the means of production will grow, or anything else of that sort.

Their Leninist influence is showing through.

Actually, my reading of Marx is showing through.


... And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (K. Marx, letter to Joseph Weydermeyer, March 5, 1852 -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...52_03_05-ab.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm). Italics in original; boldface mine.)

I think Marx is very clear here: The transition from capitalism to communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitutes the transition from a class society to a classless society -- that this period's historic task is the elimination of the material basis for classes, since that is how "the transition to the abolition of classes" takes place. The comrade may think it "incorrect" to ascribe such a task to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he is entitled to do so. But then, he also should not be calling himself a Marxist or communist.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM

Dave wrote:


Imperialism is not necessarily a development of capitalism - The Roman state, the Soviet state and the US all have used "imperialism".

Imperialism is more than mere belligerence against one's neighbors. There is a scientific definition. This is one area where the League can be rightly accused of taking something from Lenin. We make no apologies for it. His definition was much more in line with Marx's understanding of the development of capitalism toward monopoly, as expressed in Capital, than were the many other self-described socialists and communists of his day -- and since! -- which were mainly ahistorical and impressionistic nonsense.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM


Also "super" exploitation is not at all scientifically accurate term to use when referring to historically excluded minority groups.

It is quite possible that higer paid non-minority workers may be exploited at a higher rate IF WE LOOK AT PRODUCTIVITY USING HIGHER DEVELOPED TOOLS OF PRODUCTION.

Degradation is not the same as exploitation.

Degradation is not the same as exploitation, it is true. But we are not simply talking about degradation here. Superexploitation refers to the fact that some working people are additionally exploited -- either more intensively or extensively -- based on their race or nationality, gender, age, etc. Having looked at the statistics that are used to determine rates of exploitation, we can see this. And it is not only among "historically excluded minority groups" with a "workhouse of nationalities" like the U.S., but also on an international scale between peoples of the Great Power countries and the Global South.

And, I must say, it is rather parochial to refer to the majority of people in this country and the world as "minority groups" or "minorities", or anything like that. Women, who suffer greatly from superexploitation and oppression, are the planet's majority. When you add to that majority those who are racially or nationally oppressed, those who are oppressed due to their age, their sexuality, etc., you have a very large supermajority of superexploited and oppressed people.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM


If there is any socialist industrial unionism behind any of this I don't see it.

Oh well.

We don't use the term "Socialist Industrial Unionism", but we do support the general structure and functions that make up the SIU theory. Where we differ from the DeLeonists is that we disagree that it should merely be an economic body -- or, similarly, simply graft onto itself "a political character". But then, seeing the comments and misunderstanding this comrade has of Marx and communism, I am not surprised that he has these theoretical limitations.


Social [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 PM

Mike wrote:


I don't know whether this remark applies to the group we're looking at, but I recall that the Trotskyist groups which describe the USSR as a "deformed workers' state" have always rejected the suggestion that the USSR was "imperialist." I recall some of them seeing the cover of the SLP's pamphlet "Stalinist Imperialism", and they objected to the phrase.

It does not apply. I would suggest the comrades read the article from Workers' Republic No. 2, "On the Lessons of the USSR Experience", since it seems that most -- if not all -- comrades of the League agree with its analysis and general political conclusions. They may find something useful in it.

Miles

[Social Greenman]

Miles: Thank you kindly for your answers. Like I said not too long ago...I will read and study the League's literature. I understand the power of politics being at one time employed in local government and seeing a lot of things put in motion on the local level. But on the morrow we are moving to a new home. I will have to be off line for awhile but I will be back.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 26 2005, 06:39 PM
Miles: Thank you kindly for your answers. Like I said not too long ago...I will read and study the League's literature. I understand the power of politics being at one time employed in local government and seeing a lot of things put in motion on the local level. But on the morrow we are moving to a new home. I will have to be off line for awhile but I will be back.
I look forward to hearing from you when you return.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Sep 20 2005, 04:24 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Sep 20 2005, 04:24 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 10:16 AM
By refusing to participate in such traditional organizations, you are leaving workers behind to the reactionary influences of Bourgeois elements within such parties. History has also shown that refusal to participate in such organizations get one nowhere (why do you think that most of the communist and socialist parties are not even capable of advancing the revolution by one millimeter? So many of those parties refuse to participate in such traditional organizations.).
This is Lenin talking about unions, not a political party. Here, however, is something he says on working with a political party:


In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all very weak, and some of them very, very weak) into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party should propose the following "compromise" election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers’ votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks. (V.I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism in Great Britain", "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm). Italics in original; boldface mine)

Lenin seems to be pretty clear on the issue of how to deal with other political organizations. Entrism sui generis certainly does not fit into the method. Quite the opposite! For Lenin, the lack of maintaining (or having) complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity, a situation created when you bury yourself in a political organization like the Labour Party (due to the desire to not be expelled), "would be treachery". I couldn't have said it better myself.

Miles [/b]
He seems to state that it would be teachery if they did not retain complete freedom of agitation and such. I have not found the letter yet (I have not been able to do much thanks to college!), but I feel that Lenin had stated that pretty well in that quote, and my previous citation of Ted Grant also helps out.

[Social Greenman]

Hello! I am back. Still unpacking and doing some repairs on the house.

Miles reponse:


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
Mike wrote:

QUOTE
Quote:

4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated.


It's very odd that they should express a goal that was already achieved many decades ago. Perhaps they don't even know that society has long ago solved the problem of inadequate production. We now have so much automation that every human being could have no more than a ten hour workweek and enjoy more luxury than one of today's millionaires. Nothing more is needed except to adopt a democratic economic system.


Does he really believe that productive forces have developed to such a point that the material basis can be eliminated on a global scale? Or, is he just talking about the United States?

Yes he was talking about the U.S. and Europe.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
Quote:

3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property

Dangerously unclear. The "abolition of private property" is only a negatively phrased statement, indicating what we are not to have -- that the industries are not to be private property. What are we to have in its place? This negative phrase is oddly placed in the predicate of the remark whose subject is "the institution of democratic workers' control of production." Having said what workers' control will not be, how should we say what it will be?


Academic parsing. I'd call it sophistry, but that would be too kind.

I am not sure what Mike was trying to say here. I do know that the abolition of private property is not the same as the personal property of a home owner. The private property of the bourgeoisie is definately the places of production. In these places the workers institute control of production through democratic elections of management so to speak.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
It needs to be said explicitly:

* that the workers, under capitalism, preparing for socialism, have to organize whatever councils, assemblies, committees, etc. that they will need in order to manage themselves;

* that this has to be done specifically at the workplaces; it cannot be a political party task; the closest thing we have today that resembles this kind of necessary organization is labor union organization;

* that the assumption of management responsibilities by this society-wide network of workers' workplace-based assemblies or committees is precisely what we mean by all such phrases as "socialist revolution," "establishing socialism," etc.


First, let me offer this passage from League Bulletin No. 3, "Unite for Liberation! Unite for a Workers' Republic!" (League Bulletins are considered programmatic statements, and are where we express our strategic and tactical orientation.)


I agree with a worker's republic. I cannot see how politics can not play a role. It is through politics that the capitalist class rules and it will take politics to overthrow that rule. However, we must be very careful not to become bosses like the capitalist class.


QUOTE
In place of the overthrown capitalist system, communists fight for the establishment of a workers’ republic. A workers’ republic, based on common ownership and working people’s control of capital, would usher in new social relationships, new ideas and new institutions that represent and reinforce the interests of the working and oppressed majority of humanity. Based on assemblies of workers elected in workplaces and neighborhoods, a workers’ republic would be the first society worthy of being called “democratic.” But this democracy — the democracy of the exploited and oppressed majority, proletarian democracy — would not be confined to just the political arena. Common ownership of capital means nothing unless those who use those instruments of production democratically decide how to use them. Similarly, the changes in economic and political relationships would usher in a democratization of human culture and development, and the creation of the first truly human history, not just the “history” written by the current rulers.


I sense a real syndicalist bent in this comrade's comments. His comment about how organizing workers' councils, assemblies, etc., "has to be done specifically at the workplaces" and "cannot be a political party task" denies, in word and deed, the central tenet of the Marxian communist viewpoint: the class struggle is a political struggle. Yes, workplace committees must be organized; we have said as such, and we advocate them now -- as a necessary task, not a propaganda point.

But economic organization alone is not enough. I said this in one of my last postings in this thread. Economic organization must be accompanied by political organization. And I am not talking about a party in this instance, but councils and assemblies of working people that can overthrow the capitalist state and replace it with a workers' republic. Without the political struggle, the economic struggle will fail and fall under the boot of military and police repression.

I agree that it is both economic and political struggle. Mike is a DeLeonist to the core and I do appreciate his knowledge.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
Quote:
10. The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat

Quote:
In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks:

Quote:
those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor.

They think that, during a transitional state, after the workers' have seized power, that this is when the petty bourgeoisie will gradually fade away?!??!

This is completely wrong.

The sole purpose of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is to enforce the democratic mandate for socialism in the manner that legal mandates are today enforced. If the deposed capitalists or their lackeys resort to counter-revolutionary violence, then the state power, not yet dissolved, and still in the hands of the workers' political party, can apprehend and jail those violent individuals. The "dictatorship of the proletriat" doesn't have to remain in existence any longer than the duration needed to do just that task, which probably means mere weeks, if not mere days. It's incorrect to visualize it as an ongoing historical period of any substantial length, such as a duration in which the petty bourgeouis will gradually fade away, the means of production will grow, or anything else of that sort.

Their Leninist influence is showing through.


Actually, my reading of Marx is showing through.

And my lack of knowing shows.


QUOTE
... And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (K. Marx, letter to Joseph Weydermeyer, March 5, 1852 -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...52_03_05-ab.htm. Italics in original; boldface mine.)


I think Marx is very clear here: The transition from capitalism to communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitutes the transition from a class society to a classless society -- that this period's historic task is the elimination of the material basis for classes, since that is how "the transition to the abolition of classes" takes place. The comrade may think it "incorrect" to ascribe such a task to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he is entitled to do so. But then, he also should not be calling himself a Marxist or communist.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be a common sense approach to a new society. I think it would be more than a abolition of classes since it would put people and the enviroment first.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
Dave wrote:

QUOTE
Imperialism is not necessarily a development of capitalism - The Roman state, the Soviet state and the US all have used "imperialism".


Imperialism is more than mere belligerence against one's neighbors. There is a scientific definition. This is one area where the League can be rightly accused of taking something from Lenin. We make no apologies for it. His definition was much more in line with Marx's understanding of the development of capitalism toward monopoly, as expressed in Capital, than were the many other self-described socialists and communists of his day -- and since! -- which were mainly ahistorical and impressionistic nonsense.

I'll take your word about it.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)

QUOTE
Also "super" exploitation is not at all scientifically accurate term to use when referring to historically excluded minority groups.

It is quite possible that higer paid non-minority workers may be exploited at a higher rate IF WE LOOK AT PRODUCTIVITY USING HIGHER DEVELOPED TOOLS OF PRODUCTION.

Degradation is not the same as exploitation.


Degradation is not the same as exploitation, it is true. But we are not simply talking about degradation here. Superexploitation refers to the fact that some working people are additionally exploited -- either more intensively or extensively -- based on their race or nationality, gender, age, etc. Having looked at the statistics that are used to determine rates of exploitation, we can see this. And it is not only among "historically excluded minority groups" with a "workhouse of nationalities" like the U.S., but also on an international scale between peoples of the Great Power countries and the Global South.

And, I must say, it is rather parochial to refer to the majority of people in this country and the world as "minority groups" or "minorities", or anything like that. Women, who suffer greatly from superexploitation and oppression, are the planet's majority. When you add to that majority those who are racially or nationally oppressed, those who are oppressed due to their age, their sexuality, etc., you have a very large supermajority of superexploited and oppressed people.

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
If there is any socialist industrial unionism behind any of this I don't see it.

Oh well.


We don't use the term "Socialist Industrial Unionism", but we do support the general structure and functions that make up the SIU theory. Where we differ from the DeLeonists is that we disagree that it should merely be an economic body -- or, similarly, simply graft onto itself "a political character". But then, seeing the comments and misunderstanding this comrade has of Marx and communism, I am not surprised that he has these theoretical limitations.

Dave is also DeLeonist to the core. If it was not for these two men I would not have come this far in learning. The SIU theory did strike a chord with me but I do know that there is more to politics than what both of them think.


QUOTE (Social Greenman @ Sep 23 2005, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
Mike wrote:

QUOTE
I don't know whether this remark applies to the group we're looking at, but I recall that the Trotskyist groups which describe the USSR as a "deformed workers' state" have always rejected the suggestion that the USSR was "imperialist." I recall some of them seeing the cover of the SLP's pamphlet "Stalinist Imperialism", and they objected to the phrase.


It does not apply. I would suggest the comrades read the article from Workers' Republic No. 2, "On the Lessons of the USSR Experience", since it seems that most -- if not all -- comrades of the League agree with its analysis and general political conclusions. They may find something useful in it.

I have to shrug my shoulders over this.

John

[Social Greenman]

Now this question I must ask. How does the demand on the capitalist system further worker's conception of class struggle? I mean the Liberals have been doing this for years. In fact, the Liberals saved capitalism under Roosevelt. I recall during the 1970's most people thought that capitalism was working for them. In other words, very few workers would say that they were exploited since they had better health insurance (near 100 percent coverage I had back then with a small deductable), overtime pay, vacation and holiday pay. I know unions played a part in this. It's ironic that wages are no different now than they were back then except for certain types of employment.

Reagan showed up in the early Eighties unifying conservatives against Liberal policies and launched the decade of greed. During the early Eighties homelessness became an issue when factories closed left and right. After all these years workers continue to believe in the capitalist system even though jobs continue to be lost and replaced with low wage jobs.

Now, here is another thing I find odd. DeLeonist believe that demands should be made in the workplace for better benefits but not to make them politically for everyone. Demands at the workplace has not raised workers consciousness but instead has raised what they consider as rights under capitalism. The right to better pay, health care, vacations, etc. I believe these are good in of themselves but workers still have no clue to the abolition of private property (means of production) or that workers can take complete control over industries and service sector jobs. In other words, creating a more humane society free from exploitation and suffering.

Since everything have gotten economically bad I believe a few people have awakened to character of capitalism which I am included. This is good on one hand but bad on the other since people are suffering. I have played with Democratic Socialist thought (to make capitalism more responsible to people in general) since the late Eighties. It took a long time for me to get to this point.

Please excuse the excessive writing.

John

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social Greenman+Oct 8 2005, 10:30 AM--> (Social Greenman @ Oct 8 2005, 10:30 AM)Now this question I must ask. How does the demand on the capitalist system further worker's conception of class struggle? I mean the Liberals have been doing this for years. In fact, the Liberals saved capitalism under Roosevelt. I recall during the 1970's most people thought that capitalism was working for them. In other words, very few workers would say that they were exploited since they had better health insurance (near 100 percent coverage I had back then with a small deductable), overtime pay, vacation and holiday pay. I know unions played a part in this. It's ironic that wages are no different now than they were back then except for certain types of employment.[/b]

This is actually a good question. Reforms, in and of themselves, do not further a worker's understanding of the class struggle. On the contrary, reforms alone do more to hold back and retard that understanding. This is why the old method of raising "minimum" demands that have no connection to broader issues and broader struggles never worked.

Generally speaking, communists do not advocate partial or piecemeal "reform" demands, even though we will support and defend working people's movements that do -- always with the goal of winning them to a revolutionary perspective. When communists raise demands that are short of what are traditionally called "maximum" demands (i.e., calling for workers' councils or assemblies, workers' control of production, etc.), first, they are done as part of a series of concrete but inseparable demands, and, second, they are arranged and formulated in such a way as winning the first requires fighting for the second, third, fourth, etc., with each step forward both educating workers about the capitalists, their petty-bourgeois "professionals" and managers, their "labor lieutenants" and "socialist sergeants", etc., and leading them to conclude that these demands, limited though they are, cannot be secured, expanded or, sometimes, even implemented, unless they matters into their own hands and take political power.

Here's a good example. Let's take three basic economic demands: raising the minimum wage; unemployment paid at 100 percent of a workers' wage; and, price controls. Each of these demands, taken individually, could be implemented by a capitalist government relatively painlessly. In fact, at one time or another, they have been implemented in the U.S. But when they are taken individually, they can be turned into weapons of the capitalist class: a raise in the minimum wage will be used as an excuse to intensify productivity and implement mass layoffs; full unemployment insurance can spark massive inflation and a spike in prices; price controls can depress wages and be used to pit the workers in different parts of the same industry against each other in a race to the bottom.

Do you see the connection here between the three demands? Implementing one of them alone can be dangerous for workers, but fighting for all three to be implemented changes the dynamic. The momentum shifts away from the capitalists and to the working class.

But now we take it a step farther. Suppose a mass workers' movement was able to win all three of these demands. The bourgeoisie, never one for a measured response in these instances, would immediately begin to take measures to undermine and attack these provisions. They would plead poverty. They would initiate lockouts and shutdowns. They may even go so far as to attempt "regime change" on their own terms. Now the battle is joined, so to speak. It is no longer something that is limited to "bread-and-butter" issues. Now, in order to defend those three relatively paltry demands, greater steps are needed.

In response to pleading poverty, a demand for financial transparency ("opening the books") and independent auditing by workers themselves would have to be raised -- since we know that we cannot trust the capitalists' "independent auditors", like Arthur Andersen (Enron's auditors). And if these corporations really are in trouble financially, then the truth has to be said: the capitalists mismanaged this company into the ground. Immediately, the question of taking over the corporation under workers' control is raised in a practical form. (When Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc., went under in the last few years, this call would have been the appropriate demand for communists to raise.)

In response to lockouts and shutdowns, demands for public seizure of assets (including "capital flight taxes") would be combined with the call for financial transparency. Through strike action (particularly plant occupations and sit-down strikes), workers themselves can enforce both the public seizure demand and the opening of the books. These kinds of actions may also draw in the large banks and other financial institutions, which bankroll these companies and capitalists. They may try to sidestep the workers and seize the assets themselves, in order to "save" them. In such a situation, demands for the seizure of all banks under workers' control becomes a necessary immediate demand.

Attempts at "regime change", to either a greater (coup d'etat) or lesser (intimidation via thugs, scabs and fascists) degree, also raise new immediate demands: armed workers' self-defense; workplace committees; neighborhood and community workers' councils and assemblies; disbanding of police forces (first and foremost, those demonstrating loyalty to the capitalists), replaced by volunteer militia accountable to the councils and assemblies; etc.

Now, where are we? How did we get here? Each step is documented above. Every time the capitalists took a step, the workers countered with an immediate step of their own. It almost plays out like a game of chess, with move and countermove, each one more immediate and necessary than the last, until you find yourself at the cusp of social change and revolution. It all started with three simple economic demands -- reforms of the existing system. But, because they were in series, and not isolated, and pointed to even higher demands, they became the first steps on a longer path that leads to the opening of the door to the workers' republic.

This is the difference between those "minimum" reforms instituted by the liberals and social-democrats, such as during the New Deal, and the kinds of immediate demands raised by communists. When the liberals, etc., raise reform demands, they are self-contained packages leading nowhere. They are improvements within the exploitative system, or even improvements to the process of exploitation itself. When communists raise immediate demands, even those that seem to be reforms, they cannot be separated from their social context, and each one is linked to the next.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 8 2005, 10:30 AM
Now, here is another thing I find odd. DeLeonists believe that demands should be made in the workplace for better benefits but not to make them politically for everyone. Demands at the workplace has not raised workers consciousness but instead has raised what they consider as rights under capitalism. The right to better pay, health care, vacations, etc. I believe these are good in of themselves but workers still have no clue to the abolition of private property (means of production) or that workers can take complete control over industries and service sector jobs. In other words, creating a more humane society free from exploitation and suffering.

This has always been the achilles heel of DeLeonism: its rejection of waging a revolutionary political struggle; its capitulation to economism. In fact, the SLP (and its predecessor, the Workingmen's Party) has always had to wrestle with this internal contradiction. I mean, I have no problem fighting for better pay and benefits on the job. But that only makes the exploitative system a little more tolerable, in the immediate sense. It does not change the fact that I am still exploited. Now, I know the DeLeonists do advocate raising revolutionary demands in the workplace, but they seem to forget that little thing out there called the state, which is what really keeps the exploitative process intact.


Social [email protected] 8 2005, 10:30 AM
Please excuse the excessive writing.

You don't have to apologize at all. This is how education happens -- extensive discussion and clarification of issues.

Miles

[Social Greenman]

Thank you Miles for your response:

In other words, unlike Liberals we make demands accross the capitalist spectrum. Now I understand what you are saying here. The demands are not reforms of capitalism, the demands are for the workers benefit and not the capitalist through the political process. Rich capitalist Liberals would implement some reforms knowing that those reforms make capitalism a bit more tolerable for working people. Those capitalist, like those on the Right, have done us a favor by attacking those reforms and cutting their funding which has cause an awakening with some workers. We need to awaken the rest. However, I do see the Right being careful not to cut and reduce funding too much otherwise most workers would realise what the capitalist are doing. On the other hand, Socialist, Communinst, Anarchist, etc., are divided over sectarian concepts and dogma. We all have to agree to lay down those differences and unite under general agreed principles and methods to overthrow capitalism and usher in socialism.


This has always been the achilles heel of DeLeonism: its rejection of waging a revolutionary political struggle; its capitulation to economism. In fact, the SLP (and its predecessor, the Workingmen's Party) has always had to wrestle with this internal contradiction. I mean, I have no problem fighting for better pay and benefits on the job. But that only makes the exploitative system a little more tolerable, in the immediate sense. It does not change the fact that I am still exploited. Now, I know the DeLeonists do advocate raising revolutionary demands in the workplace, but they seem to forget that little thing out there called the state, which is what really keeps the exploitative process intact.

I agree with you that DeLeonism has avoided political struggle and even avoided creating a Socialist Industrial Union. The only thing political they would like to see is representatives of the SIU elected into office to dismantle the state. But we know there is no SIU and therefore no electable representatives. I do like the syndicalist side of DeLeon but I do understand the power of the state and how it keeps capitalist interest first and foremost over workers interest. The average man and woman are represented but to a far lesser degree but enough to keep most workers from rising up against the government.

John

[Led Zeppelin]

Miles, what is the Communist League's opinion of Leninism, "Stalinism", Maoism and Trotskyism?

[Social Greenman]

Oh, another thing...I know that it is almost impossible to have socialist , et al, to get elected. Those that do are a party of one. We see that both Republican and Democrats control both house and senate and the lone representative has no voice and limited to what he or she can do. He/she would have to side with either Republicans or Democrats (though we are seeing a move to a one party system namely Republican). What's it going to take to get our men and women elected into Congress and the Senate to create a "Third Wing" and make those demands?

John

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social Greenman+Oct 9 2005, 11:00 AM--> (Social Greenman @ Oct 9 2005, 11:00 AM)Thank you Miles for your response:[/b]

You're more than welcome. I enjoyed writing it, actually.


Originally posted by Social [email protected] 9 2005, 11:00 AM
In other words, unlike Liberals we make demands accross the capitalist spectrum. Now I understand what you are saying here. The demands are not reforms of capitalism, the demands are for the workers benefit and not the capitalist through the political process. Rich capitalist Liberals would implement some reforms knowing that those reforms make capitalism a bit more tolerable for working people. Those capitalist, like those on the Right, have done us a favor by attacking those reforms and cutting their funding which has cause an awakening with some workers. We need to awaken the rest. However, I do see the Right being careful not to cut and reduce funding too much otherwise most workers would realise what the capitalist are doing.

For the most part, I agree with you. But bear this in mind: There are times when the dynamics of capitalism itself, primarily the need to maximize profits, will force them to "overplay their hand", and go even farther than they wish. At the moment, we are seeing that in the situation with the automobile parts supplier, Delphi, demanding a 63 percent pay cut from its UAW employees. As outrageous as that is (made even more so by the fact that it looks like the UAW officialdom is going to go along with it!), it is actually a relatively minor act compared to what they can do. There are times when the capitalists find themselves dragged kicking and screaming into situations that are meant to "save" them (a variant on "overplaying the hand"), such as fascism.


Social [email protected] 9 2005, 11:00 AM
On the other hand, Socialist, Communinst, Anarchist, etc., are divided over sectarian concepts and dogma. We all have to agree to lay down those differences and unite under general agreed principles and methods to overthrow capitalism and usher in socialism.

Well, yes. For our part, this is one of the reasons we helped to initiate the International Working People's Association. Any working person, whether they are an individual or part of an organization, who agrees with the seven points of unity is welcome to join. That kind of openness only fosters the discussions and debates necessary to "unite under general agreed principles and methods".

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 9 2005, 11:17 AM
Oh, another thing...I know that it is almost impossible to have socialist, et al, to get elected. Those that do are a party of one. We see that both Republican and Democrats control both house and senate and the lone representative has no voice and limited to what he or she can do. He/she would have to side with either Republicans or Democrats (though we are seeing a move to a one party system namely Republican). What's it going to take to get our men and women elected into Congress and the Senate to create a "Third Wing" and make those demands?
Bourgeois elections are a fickle thing. On the one hand, you are generally correct to say that it is almost impossible for a socialist or communist to get elected, under the current setup. On the other hand, there are those moments when you get a confluence of events that make it possible for such a candidate to sweep into office on a wave of mass upheaval.

I am going through what I think is one of these moments right now. I just watched a comrade in the Detroit Working People's Association, an open and self-described "revolutionary socialist/communist" running on a platform of worker/community control, win the endorsements of every school workers' union in the city. They're floored. I'm floored. I've never seen anything like this in my life. If historical trends are any guide, this comrade will be elected.

But then, this is a local, non-partisan race. Then again, this is in Detroit, which is thoroughly dominated by the Democratic Party machine.

It seem, though, you are thinking more of Congress or state legislatures, in which case you are right to point out that the two-party caucus structure presents a problem.

For those not familiar, if an independent is elected to either the U.S. Congress or a state legislature, they have to join one of the two existing caucuses, Republican or Democratic, or else they may not be seated in committees, may not be able to submit bills to committees, etc. The only way a new caucus can be established is if 5 percent of the body (in the U.S. House, for example, that's 22 members) decides to form a caucus. However, if you are alone, or there are only a few of you, you really have no choice -- unless you want to not bother with committees and submitting bills, and just stick with floor debates.

This structure presents a trap for independent elected representatives. On the one hand, rejecting adherence to a caucus means that independent representatives have their opportunities for educational and agitational activity reduced to little more than what they would be able to do if they weren't an elected official. On the other hand, that initial compromise does present a slippery slope; over time, such a representative may find him or herself co-opted and virtually indistinguishable from any other member of the caucus (this is the fate that befell Bernie Sanders). On the third hand (WTF?), the caucuses don't have much of any real discipline anyway, so joining a caucus doesn't necessarily demand surrendering your principles. On the fourth hand (!!!), if an independent votes too much against the rest of the caucus, they can be expelled, and they are back to Square One.

In short, what it would take to create a "third wing" or "independent caucus" in the U.S. Congress would be the simultaneous election of 22 Representatives that can agree enough to justify the formation of an independent caucus -- not just be "maverick" Democrats or Republicans, that is, but actual independents. Short of that, it's the four hands above for them.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 9 2005, 11:03 AM
Miles, what is the Communist League's opinion of Leninism, "Stalinism", Maoism and Trotskyism?
Formally speaking, the League does not have an "opinion" on them, other than that there are things that each of those self-described 20th century communists wrote that are still valuable in the 21st century. But, to get to the nub of the question, we are not Leninist*, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, etc.

What unites League members is their agreement with the Basic Principles and programmatic statements, and acceptance of the Rules of the League. That's all. If there is a comrade who sees those principles, statements and rules as being in line with one or another doctrine, they are welcome to hold those views and be a League member, as far as I am concerned. I may not agree with them on that point, but that's something we can discuss over a beer ... after the real work is done for the day.

Miles

* Though we are not Leninist, I would say that Lenin has a significant influence. I generally recommend to comrades three particular pieces by Lenin that I think have greatly influenced the viewpoint of the League: Imperialism; The State and Revolution; and, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy.

[workersunity]

glad you didnt say "left communism: an infantile disorder

[Social Greenman]

Here is another question: How we can be sure that socialism won't lose its democracy to bureaucracy? Will all government proceedings be put on public record with no secret meetings behind closed doors?

[Guest1]

Mass participation is the only weapon against the bureaucracy. The rights of immediate recall, etc... And the kind of democratic, active participation we are seeing in Venezuela today, where workers have flooded onto the stage of history and are demanding a "revolution within the revolution". In otherwords, attacking the bureaucrats at every stage and pushing their power at the expense of the bureaucrats across the country.

After reading the 3 pages of this debate, I think I'm gonna go make a few nomination threads in the CC :)

While you guys don't have the full amount of posts required, I'm hoping the vote will go your way anyways, as you seem to be intelligent, sober (in terms of debate, not drugs :P), and active.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2005, 06:58 AM
Here is another question: How we can be sure that socialism won't lose its democracy to bureaucracy? Will all government proceedings be put on public record with no secret meetings behind closed doors?
CyM answered this in general, and I agree with him. It takes the participation of a critically-thinking and self-acting working class to ensure that bureaucracy does not take hold. Abolition of privileges (i.e., no salary higher than that of the average worker, no perks or special "expense accounts", etc.) and the right of recall are key. So is mandatory rotation of those acting in these positions. An open meetings policy (which can also include televised meetings), and comprehensive public recording of meetings, are also important. Not only is it necessary to have "no secret meetings", it is also necessary to have no secret deals or treaties.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 13 2005, 03:56 AM
Mass participation is the only weapon against the bureaucracy. The rights of immediate recall, etc... And the kind of democratic, active participation we are seeing in Venezuela today, where workers have flooded onto the stage of history and are demanding a "revolution within the revolution". In otherwords, attacking the bureaucrats at every stage and pushing their power at the expense of the bureaucrats across the country.

After reading the 3 pages of this debate, I think I'm gonna go make a few nomination threads in the CC :)

While you guys don't have the full amount of posts required, I'm hoping the vote will go your way anyways, as you seem to be intelligent, sober (in terms of debate, not drugs :P), and active.
This is true. Lenin himself stated a good deal of these things, and his death prvented him from really getting involved in a final struggle against bureaucratic parasites growing on the isolated and backward USSR.

[Social Greenman]

Quote Axel1917

This is true. Lenin himself stated a good deal of these things, and his death prvented him from really getting involved in a final struggle against bureaucratic parasites growing on the isolated and backward USSR.

But it is also true that Lenin created the foundations of that bureaucracy, i.e., democratic centralism which all decision reached by the party itself was forced on the proletariet and peasents who had no voice unless, of course, they were party members which many were not. I know Lenin's writings have their worth (like many other writers of socialist and anarchist thought) but I personally reject the concept of a vanguard. To me the vanguard is like following the "chain of command" similar to that of the military or another example would be the "leadership principle" which is practiced by corporations. Either way a person is either fired or locked up in a military stockade for not following orders. In the USSR it was the fireing squad or the gulag for not carrying out the will of the party. I wish you Leninist would stop pointing fingers at certain historical characters as being revisionist and realise that the very foundations has to be reconstructed that allows for the voices of the workers, disabled and elderly to be heard.

John

[Guest1]

Actually, Lenin's democratic centralism was a method of inner party discipline, it was not meant to be applied to society at large.

It basically comes down to democratic decisions are made, then everyone must implement them, whether they agreed or not. A regular party structure generally, though modern parties in the form we see them today were actually non-existant until Russia's and Germany's Communist parties established memberships, subscriptions and a cohesive party for the first time.

I have my issues with some things, but D.C. gets a bad rap. There are actually quite a few checks and balances in place, including a forum for official opposition factions to have access to the party's resources to debate and present their ideas.

It wasn't till the bureaucrats destroyed the party's tight-nit membership that they were able to trample all these balances and the opposition. From a disciplined group with new members being brought into the fold carefully, it went to a group allowing careerists to join in droves, all of whom of course had no revolutionary education and were strictly loyal to power and the man who put them there. Pretty soon, the revolutionaries were outnumbered by yes-men, and the purges began.

This of course did not happen in a day. This was a process that built up sometimes gradually, sometimes in leaps, and was rooted in concrete conditions within Russia at the time, including the shifting class dynamics.

A disciplined organization can keep its character, have a cohesion of ideas and principles, and detect and eject careerists much better than a group were no one can keep track of who's coming in, and no emphasis on political education is involved in that membership.

[Social Greenman]

CyM quote:

I have my issues with some things, but D.C. gets a bad rap. There are actually quite a few checks and balances in place, including a forum for official opposition factions to have access to the party's resources to debate and present their ideas.

It wasn't till the bureaucrats destroyed the party's tight-nit membership that they were able to trample all these balances and the opposition. From a disciplined group with new members being brought into the fold carefully, it went to a group allowing careerists to join in droves, all of whom of course had no revolutionary education and were strictly loyal to power and the man who put them there. Pretty soon, the revolutionaries were outnumbered by yes-men, and the purges began.

This of course did not happen in a day. This was a process that built up sometimes gradually, sometimes in leaps, and was rooted in concrete conditions within Russia at the time, including the shifting class dynamics.

A disciplined organization can keep its character, have a cohesion of ideas and principles, and detect and eject careerists much better than a group were no one can keep track of who's coming in, and no emphasis on political education is involved in that membership.

Thanks for the education CyM. I did not know that so thanks for going into better detail. I am still learning and will continue my entire life.

I found an old book today at an antique shop: New Russia's Primer...The Story of the Five Year Plans by M. Ilin, translated from the Russian by George S. Counts and Nucia P. Lodge in 1931. What it says here that the book was written for use in schools and was design for children from twelve to fourteen years of age.
On page 44 it say, quote" They say that an American miner produces five times as much coal as ours. Is this because the American miner works harder? No, certainly not. The matter is easily explained: the machine aids the American miner. In many of our mines the work still follows aniquated methods--with his own strength the miner strikes the coal with a pick. In America the pick is almost forgotten. There the miner operates a machine which chops out the coal."

I have not read the book yet but have come across some very honest things which I did not expect due to my own prejudices (those that are picked up from school and the media). It was intersting to see that the writer knew that the USSR had plenty of raw material to extract and use.

John