Revolutionary Perspectives for USA 2003-2004 - For the US re [Archive]

redstar2000

22nd July 2003, 14:00

Only a mass party of labor, based on the trade unions and armed with a program of socialist demands can fight back in the interests of the hundreds of millions of workers in the US. Only with such a party can the process of falling wages, dropping living standards, and shrinking rights be halted. The Democrats will never be capable of this. We must start now in our work to break the labor movement from the Democrats, and to break millions of workers' illusions in the Democrats (who they support for lack of an alternative). Given a genuine alterative, millions would rejoin the ranks of voting Americans. This will not be an easy task - but there is no other alternative. The Democrats are our real enemies at this point in time; they have had their chance to work in the interests of working people and have betrayed us time and time again. They have always been, and always will be, a party of big business. We, the working class, the vast majority of American society, must build a party that will fight in our interests - a working class party of and for working class. Armed with a socialist program, such a party would play an important role in the revolutionary transformation of society.

The condemnation of the corporate Democratic Party is quite correct.

The call for a new "mass labor party"--even with a "socialist program"--is a call to recreate the German Social Democracy of the pre-World War I era.

It didn't work then; it won't work now.

The flaw is in the underlying assumption that capitalist elections are meaningful in terms of political power. They are not.

From the standpoint of the working class, bourgeois elections have never been and will never be "democratic"...you will never have a chance to really "vote for socialism". You may vote here and there for people who will say they are for socialism and even be sincere about that; what you will never get is an elected socialist party that will actually introduce socialism. (You may, if you are lucky, get "capitalism with a human face" as in Scandinavia...and that's really all a lot of "socialists" actually want.)

The only real alternative to voting in bourgeois elections is active resistance to capitalist hegemony in the streets and in the workplaces. An example that Kamo should especially appreciate is the recent wildcat strike at Heathrow Airport...that's how you fight the bastards...not by voting.

Leave reformism to the reformists.

:cool:

il Commy

22nd July 2003, 15:14

"The flaw is in the underlying assumption that capitalist elections are meaningful in terms of political power. They are not."

You are wrong. Until workers don't have an alternative institution to the bourgeois parliament, they must participate it.

You are correct by saying that the captalist elections are not democratic and that socialism can not be built without a revolution which will destroy the bourgeois parliament. But we communists can not ignore the needs of the workers - and one of the tools of fighting for workers rights is the parliament.

Elections are a battleground for the class struggle just as much as petitions, demonstration and strikes are. There are many ways a communist party can help workers struggles through it's parliament faction.

For example: if a strike is taking place the mass media controlled by capitalists usually starts vicious propaganda against it, ignoring the left-wing opinions. A communist parliament faction can use the stage of the parliament to voice support for the strike and even invite the strike leaders to speech.
If the goverments propose anti-workers decisions, the communist MPs can disturb the capitalist hegemony of the parliament and expose to the millions of workers how the ruling class harms them.
And finally, there are social laws which can improve the conditions of workers which can be passed in a capitalist parliament. For example here in Israel the HADASH (the democratic front for peace & equality) MPs passed alot of social laws: free education from the age of 3 (instead of 5), protection on the founders of a workers' committee, equality of women in extra expenses to wage (I'm not sure I said it correctly) etc.

For conclusion, a bourgeois parliament is not the communist main battlegrond, but it is certainly an important one.

Kez

22nd July 2003, 16:51

il commy is bang on

lenin sed we should be flexible in organisationsal issues, ie it doesnt matter how you spread the propaganda as long as you do

As for the BA issue, its a very good thing, with any luck they will use this anger to boot out the right wing in the unions

Kez

22nd July 2003, 16:55

RedStar, it dont mean we want another SDP, for parliamentary reasons only, look how in russia there was the RSDLP which then became a mass organisation, from which the cadres were trained as marxists and from which we had the bolsheviks and the mensheviks, from which point we had the russian revolution

please dont be so arrogant in your posts

Marxist in Nebraska

22nd July 2003, 17:44

I agree with Comrades TavareeshKamo and il Commy. Parliamentary involvement gives the radical left a great soapbox to speak from. Comrade redstar2000, you should not be so quick to cut down any possible advantage the left may get. It is a fair point that we cannot appease ourselves by only working politically within the capitalist framework. We must continue direct actions against capitalism, but it is possible to do this while getting leftists elected to our parliaments and congresses.

Kez

22nd July 2003, 18:31

of coure we should work outside the bourgeoise tools, but to say outright we shuhdnt use it is very stupid and shows how ppl only work thru a small framework. Ironic coming from someone who claims leninists are stuck in history and rigid in their work, when in fact lenin was so flexible in organisational matters...

redstar2000

22nd July 2003, 22:38

Until workers don't have an alternative institution to the bourgeois parliament, they must participate it.

Oh?

But we communists can not ignore the needs of the workers - and one of the tools of fighting for workers rights is the parliament.

Indeed?

There are many ways a communist party can help workers struggles through it's parliament faction.

I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

A communist parliament faction can use the stage of the parliament to voice support for the strike and even invite the strike leaders to speak.

This is silly...but revealing. To refer to bourgeois parliaments as a "stage" is actually pretty close to the truth...it is for show, not for real.

If the goverments propose anti-workers decisions, the communist MPs can disturb the capitalist hegemony of the parliament and expose to the millions of workers how the ruling class harms them.

That's something that can be done from outside parliament and with far more credibility. How do you look to people when you denounce bourgeois "democracy" while you are actually drawing a salary from participating in it? You look like a faker, that's what.

And finally, there are social laws which can improve the conditions of workers which can be passed in a capitalist parliament. For example here in Israel the HADASH (the democratic front for peace & equality) MPs passed alot of social laws: free education from the age of 3 (instead of 5), protection on the founders of a workers' committee, equality of women in extra expenses to wage (I'm not sure I said it correctly) etc.

As I noted in my original post in this thread, you can get (temporary) reforms in a bourgeois parliament...if that's all you want. Do you want to tell people essentially that communism really means making capitalism somewhat more humane?

And, of course, most reforms in capitalism over the last century (reforms that are now being eliminated one by one) were not passed by communist or socialist majorities in parliament; they were approved by capitalist parties in order to remove the "heat" generated by an active working class outside of parliament altogether.

Insofar as "reforms" take place in capitalism, they happen not because of who happens to be in parliament at the time but because the working class is "in the streets"...that has such a sobering effect on the ruling class that they hasten to try to bring the workers "back into the system" through reforms.

If you want a particular "reform" under capitalism, forget about parliament. Get enough people into the streets and parliament will take care of itself.

Parliamentary involvement gives the radical left a great soapbox to speak from.

No it doesn't. In fact, the idea that any half-way sensible worker would even listen to a congressman, much less take him seriously, is a joke. Even a-political people in the United States have nothing but contempt for the Washington DC circus. You want to be a part of that? You think that will help?

. We must continue direct actions against capitalism, but it is possible to do this while getting leftists elected to our parliaments and congresses.

Sure we could, but why bother? The resources utilized for such electoral efforts would be far better utilized in promoting direct resistance to the daily practices of capitalism.

Beyond this, participation in bourgeois elections "sends a message" to people whether we intend it or not...and that message is that the bourgeois electoral process is "legitimate".

We "know" that it's not, of course...and we even tell people that; but deeds speak louder than words, and our acts of participation speak louder than our theory.

We can say that bourgeois "democracy" is a sham all we want; but if we take it seriously enough to participate in it, we are showing people by example that we think it's "real" and "meaningful". The result, after a while, is that people will conclude that we are just like the rest of the corrupt bastards--long on promises, short on delivery.

...look how in russia there was the RSDLP which then became a mass organisation, from which the cadres were trained as marxists and from which we had the bolsheviks and the mensheviks, from which point we had the russian revolution.

That's a muddle; but if you're suggesting that Bolshevik participation in the Czarist Duma "led" to the revolution, that's just wrong. The real strength of the Bolsheviks (and the Mensheviks) came from industrial struggles in Petrograd and Moscow (and a couple of other places)...aside from a few historians, does anyone even remember what the Bolshevik deputies to the Duma did? Or care?

But whether you appeal to Lenin or Martov or Kautsky, it really doesn't matter. Back before World War I, there was considerable optimism in all socialist currents about the use of bourgeois parliaments to "advance the struggle" in one way or another.

That was then, this is now. We've seen nearly a century of attempts to "use" the bourgeois state machinery to our advantage...and it's never amounted to a puddle of warm spit.

By all means try some more, if that's your wish. But you are just wasting your time and energy.

:cool:

communist cow

25th July 2003, 06:17

an intresting read it was, although i don't feel the democrats are so "evil". Sure the democrat party sucks, but the republican sucks alot more. A socialist party has a very small chance in this two party goverment. register socialist, register green, register what ever, because the more of us there are , the more they will have to support our agenda.

Kez

25th July 2003, 13:56

we wudnt be legitimizing it at all, you could say in parliament what a sham it is, and your money could go to the party your in.

the most important thing the bolshevisk did in parliament was to speak, and to use it as a stage for propaganda. To act ie to reform wud be waste of time as you say, because it is simply temporary, and as we enter a boom period these reforms will be shifted backwards.

however, if there is a possibilty of bettering our chances, we should use parliament.

redstar2000

25th July 2003, 15:23

Sure the democrat party sucks, but the republican sucks alot more.

Well, no, they suck about the same, actually.

however, if there is a possibilty of bettering our chances, we should use parliament.

There isn't...and can't be.

:cool:

Kez

25th July 2003, 16:02

how very open minded

if an MP calls for unionising in all factories or pushes for a bill so as to make it illegal for factories to ban unions. this betters our chances does it not Redstar? proving your closeminded attitude to be wrong :P

redstar2000

25th July 2003, 23:15

how very open minded

I'm not "open minded" with regard to nonsense...and never claimed to be.

if an MP calls for unionising in all factories or pushes for a bill so as to make it illegal for factories to ban unions. this betters our chances does it not Redstar? proving your closeminded attitude to be wrong

No, it makes no difference at all. The bill will not pass and even if it did, it would not be enforced. Even the speech introducing the bill will be ignored by the bourgeois media...it's obviously not "newsworthy" since it will "go" nowhere.

If you wish to "prove" me wrong, you must do better than that, Kamo.

:cool:

Gregorio Allemagna

26th July 2003, 02:16

As a German Ex-pat, I see the "American Political Parties" as Coca Cola/Pepsi Cola. I remain uncertain whether sudden violent revolution is required or a revolution thru the process. One is fright with pitfalls, the other is doomed from the onset.

It is, however refreshing to see such idas being discussed in a "civil" manner in the US!

I know this is neither the time nor place, but I need some assitance. I am trying to find information on RAMON MERACADER Trotsky's assassin.

Hasta la Siempre Libre Comrads

elijahcraig

26th July 2003, 03:40

Sure the democrat party sucks, but the republican sucks alot more.

Well, no, they suck about the same, actually.

Well, the democrats are at least pro-choice, that is one thing that is better.

MikeyBoy

26th July 2003, 04:42

Well, the democrats are at least pro-choice, that is one thing that is better.

The funny thing is that if a woman wanted to kill her child she could do so no matter what the law says...A red light can't stop a speeding car if you get my drift. Individual issues like this are trivial, the totalitarian machine lingers on. I thought it was really clever how that document pointed out that Bush is only the temporary enemy, and his ousting would be followed by the Democrats, who are just another political front of the bourgeois.

elijahcraig

26th July 2003, 05:25

I agree, I was kidding when I pointed that out. The two parties are both useless and bourgeois.

Kez

26th July 2003, 11:17

christ, Redstar, your more a dogmatic idiot then i first realised

redstar2000

26th July 2003, 12:09

christ, Redstar, your more a dogmatic idiot then i first realised

Yeah, shame on me! :biggrin:

Now explain something to me. You're a bright guy who goes to university, right? How is it that your posts always look like you typed them with your elbows?

And how is it that you don't seem to really comprehend your own political positions, much less mine? Your replies seem to degenerate into abuse--"you idiot"--faster than anyone's on the board (not counting the cappies, of course). Other Trotskyists and even Stalinists can argue with me--vehemently--and not resort to personal abuse.

Only the reformists here...and you, seem to "lose it" in matters of political controversy.

Why is that?

:cool:

MikeyBoy

26th July 2003, 20:16

I agree, I was kidding when I pointed that out.

Ah, ok then.

Kez

26th July 2003, 22:38

y? i put it down to complete frustration of being on here for so long and having to deeal with tits like your goodself.

I wouldnt be so arsed if what you wrote wasnt bollox, but when i read the same bullshit i get frustrated eg:

No, it makes no difference at all. The bill will not pass and even if it did, it would not be enforced. Even the speech introducing the bill will be ignored by the bourgeois media...it's obviously not "newsworthy" since it will "go" nowhere.

If you wish to "prove" me wrong, you must do better than that, Kamo.

i was refring to the UK as we were talkin in general terms, and your plain WRONG! what i write has been done, not some bullshit made up in a bitter mind such as yourself's

antieverything

27th July 2003, 05:04

I guess what Redstar is saying is that politics don't change society, mass popular movements change politics...if this is what he means then I can only assume that he is a mor...misguided individual.

What he fails to understand is that mass movements change politics by 1)influencing the political discourse in a society and 2)mobilizing voter blocs which elect progressive (or regressive) candidates. You don't stop a war by burning things. You stop a war by burning things AND voting for anti-war candidates!

antieverything

27th July 2003, 05:11

...or you can just burn things and let those in the society who DO vote elect a guy running on a "law and order" platform.

Interestingly enough, when I made the assertion that people like him didn't care about human suffering because the worse things got, the sooner the revolution came, he rebuked me...but here he seems to be saying exactly that!

redstar2000

27th July 2003, 14:46

What he fails to understand is that mass movements change politics by 1)influencing the political discourse in a society and 2)mobilizing voter blocs which elect progressive (or regressive) candidates. You don't stop a war by burning things. You stop a war by burning things AND voting for anti-war candidates!

That "sounds" almost plausible...but it's not true. Would you like to argue that Richard Nixon was an "anti-war" or "progressive" political figure? Yet, he did end the war in Vietnam...a combination of defeat on the battlefield and rising resistance in the United States left him no choice. To continue the war risked revolution at home.

The greater the resistance to occupation within Iraq and within the United States, the more likely it will be that U.S. forces will have to be withdrawn and the more unlikely the next imperial advanture will become...regardless of who is getting a blow-job in the Oval Office.

To assert that labels like "progressive" or "reactionary" have any meaning in contemporary bourgeois politics is simply naive. They are all reactionary bastards, regardless of their rhetoric. They will do something "progressive" only when faced with massive pressure that is altogether outside of their well-controlled "channels" for "conflict management".

Interestingly enough, when I made the assertion that people like him didn't care about human suffering because the worse things got, the sooner the revolution came, he rebuked me...but here he seems to be saying exactly that!

"Human suffering" is built-in to the capitalist system, no matter which capitalist bastard is in office. Its source is wage-slavery. Things will "get worse" because that's how capitalism works.

If people vote for a "law-and-order" candidate, elect him, and suffer even more...you want to blame that on me? I told them to resist and you want to blame me for the fact that, at this particular point in time, they prefered to submit?

That's just plain horseshit!

And it leads to a strategy of beggary...pleading with the bourgeoisie to "not be so mean" while doing nothing to "scare" them into being even "meaner". There was a 19th century Catholic pope that tried that approach...and people still laugh when they read his "bull".

Of course, some still take it seriously.

:cool:

Severian

28th July 2003, 18:46

'Scuse me, Redstar, but haven't you said that the working class in the United States is hopeless anyway? What possible revolutionary perspective could you have, without confidence in the ability of the working class to make a revolution?

Basically your super-revolutionary-sounding rhetoric is just an excuse for avoiding involvement in anything. Ultraleftism is just the flip side of the coin from reformism.

il Commy

28th July 2003, 21:42

Redstar, our revolutionary goals should not distance us away from the needs of the workers. We must fight for social reform whenever we can before the revolution. And a workers party in the parliament can very well help proletars, though not save them entirely from the captalist slavery system.

An example? Of course. I'll take one not from the workers' rights territory but from the racism territory (for abit of variation).

In Israel, as you must know, faternity and co-existance between arabs and jews doesn't exactly flourish. If there was no 8 anti-zionist MP's (including 3 communists) in the Knesset the facist party Librety would be on the Knesset, and the National Unity and the Likud would have more MP's. This would mean one thing: the transfer of the arab population, an ethnical cleansing.

You may say, "This is the gate for the revolution!". Well, didn't work at the Balkans. Just alot of pain and blood for saving the private propperty.

il Commy

28th July 2003, 21:54

Do you want the workers to simply ignore the elections? Do you want them not to use even the smallest power the capitalists gave them? Do you want them to simply give the power to the right-wing conservatives and facsits instead of easing their lifes by voting a workers' party?

That is simply ignoring the needs of the working class.

antieverything

28th July 2003, 23:23

Redstar seems to deny that reform can improve conditions without changing the system even while giving examples to the contrary (capitalism with a human face). Sure, democracy probably won't change the system by itself but that doesn't mean that ignoring it isn't counter-productive.

Redstar says that any existance of capitalism always makes things worse for workers...but this perception only stands up if one looks at history as something only existing in the last 30 years! There can be no denying that democratic movements can make things better for working people. In fact, there is no better way to trigger class conciousness than working-class solidarity in a political movement. A political movement without political action is half-lame. It can only have half the effectiveness it otherwise could. The anti-war movement would be meaningless if only those who supported the war voted.

When reform happens because of the threat of revolution (such as was the case in the 30s) this is an example of exactly what I am talking about--popular movements changing a society's political discourse...when it shifts left, so must politics.

Iepilei

28th July 2003, 23:24

elections are meaningless when the puppet-masters are still pulling the strings, kids. your parties and your agendas would be nothing more than suggestion boxes for the allied capitalists to laugh at. you would only have small reforms passed at times, which would never transition into any form of 'true' or marxist socialism

considering it an option is naive at best.

the most powerful force is shutting down the nation on it's smallest scale, which, ironically would be it's largest movement.

antieverything

29th July 2003, 00:36

...way to disregard everything any of us have said, Iepilei!

redstar2000

29th July 2003, 01:17

'Scuse me, Redstar, but haven't you said that the working class in the United States is hopeless anyway?

I'll be "nice" and assume that question is based on a misunderstanding.

I have consistently advised young American communists to emigrate to western Europe...because I think that part of the world will be the first to experience a modern proletarian revolution. If you want to be part of a major historical event, that's the best place to be, in my view.

The American working class is the most reactionary working class in the world right now and will remain so as long as the Empire is successful. No one knows how long that will be.

If, for reasons of personal attachment, lack of resources to emigrate, etc., you find yourself "stuck" in the United States, then you seek out those parts of the working class that benefit least from the Empire and have the most grievances against the present system and do your best to "radicalize" them as a nucleus for later work.

And if even that proves too difficult or discouraging, then--given present constraints--you'll probably end up in academia writing radical books that no one reads and perhaps reaching one or two young students every year with your ideas.

All in all, pretty lame...but that's American reality.

And it certainly will not change because some small group of "lefties" decides to "play" at bourgeois politics.

Basically your super-revolutionary-sounding rhetoric is just an excuse for avoiding involvement in anything.

Basically even "talk" of revolution makes you nervous and uncomfortable. That's your problem, not mine.

If there was no 8 anti-zionist MP's (including 3 communists) in the Knesset the facist party Librety would be on the Knesset, and the National Unity and the Likud would have more MP's. This would mean one thing: the transfer of the arab population, an ethnical cleansing.

I am far from an expert on Israeli politics, but my impression is that Likud intends to implement ethnic cleansing and is only awaiting the right moment to do it. When that happens, the 8 MPs will be able to do nothing to stop it...indeed, they have not been able to prevent some pretty horrible events (Jenin, etc.) as things stand now. They may be useful "window dressing" for Israeli "democracy"...but they don't have and will never be allowed to have any real say in matters. You might just as well have 8 empty desks in the Knesset.

Do you want the workers to simply ignore the elections?

Yes. (A growing number do so anyway, without any advice from me.)

Do you want them not to use even the smallest power the capitalists gave them?

The capitalist class has never "given" the working class any power at all.

Do you want them to simply give the power to the right-wing conservatives and fascists instead of easing their lives by voting a workers' party?

It is the capitalist class that decides if and when right-wing conservatives and fascists shall be trusted with power, not the workers.

And working class lives are never "eased" by voting...only the most heated and vigorous struggles by the working class ever result in any reforms.

That is simply ignoring the needs of the working class.

The need of the working class is to overthrow capitalism. Reforms are just "charity".

Redstar says that any existance of capitalism always makes things worse for workers...but this perception only stands up if one looks at history as something only existing in the last 30 years!

Yes, I use the last 30 years because it shows the modern trend of capitalism.

Do you want to seriously argue that all we need is a new FDR and a new "New Deal" with plenty of working class support and that will generate a fresh wave of pro-working class reforms?

When I spoke of achieving "capitalism with a human face", you know very well that I was speaking of reforms achieved 30, 40, 50 years ago...reforms that are now being dismantled and repealed in all of the "first world" countries. (And, no surprise here, it's often the traditional reformist parties that are the ones most willing and eager to dismantle their own reforms...so much for giving a rat's ass about the workers.)

There can be no denying that democratic movements can make things better for working people.

Not any more!

Why? It's that old Marxist "devil"--the general tendency of the rate of profit to fall as capitalism ages. In simple language, there was a time when capitalism could "afford" to be "generous" with reforms...that time is over. 21st century capitalism is probably going to resemble 19th century capitalism a lot more than 20th century capitalism...and you can go read some history if you want to see what that was like.

When reform happens because of the threat of revolution (such as was the case in the 30s) this is an example of exactly what I am talking about--popular movements changing a society's political discourse...when it shifts left, so must politics.

No argument here, but so what? Why should we care who sits in parliament or what kind of rhetoric they think most appropriate?

Are we communists or are we politician-wannabes? If all you really want is one of those really plush seats on the floor of the U.S. Senate, then play the reformist card for all you think it's worth.

After the revolution, you can go into exile and write your memoirs.

:cool:

Iepilei

29th July 2003, 21:01

Quote: from antieverything on 12:36 am on July 29, 2003
...way to disregard everything any of us have said, Iepilei!

...maybe i should have just said, "i agree w/ redstar" and been done with it

Kez

29th July 2003, 21:12

i look forward to brownstar and iepilei and their motley crew to start the revolution....fuckin idiots..

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:
What Il Commy has said is bang on.
We have to use every means possible to forward the socialist revolution, every fuckin means possible, we cant say no to anything itf it means greater chance of success to the revolution

With socialists in opposition, they can attack the capitalist parties for their policies and their ideas and show them for what theyre worth, and deny the capitalists the monopoly of advertisement they have currently in the media.

Even if one sentencee is printed in the papers from the communists, then it means the worker will thnk to him/herself "shit, yeah, that guys right, im gonna look more into their ideology"

or back on planet brownstar we could do unorganised shouting like seatle and in our dreams the feeling of red will SPREAD ACROSS THE GLOBE and suddenly the proles will become conscious and there will be red globe....idiot

Severian

30th July 2003, 17:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 12:17 AM
'Scuse me, Redstar, but haven't you said that the working class in the United States is hopeless anyway?

I'll be "nice" and assume that question is based on a misunderstanding.

I have consistently advised young American communists to emigrate to western Europe...because I think that part of the world will be the first to experience a modern proletarian revolution. If you want to be part of a major historical event, that's the best place to be, in my view.

The American working class is the most reactionary working class in the world right now and will remain so as long as the Empire is successful. No one knows how long that will be.

Based on that, there is no misunderstanding. I summed you up fairly.

Why not follow your own advice, and get out of our way here, in the single country most decisive for the world class struggle?

antieverything

31st July 2003, 00:30

I think that the Israel example hits it on the head. If you decide not to vote and the far-right wackos you allowed to gain more power institute a program of ethnic cleansing, your hands are far from clean in the matter! The idea that you have no power at all is simple-minded silliness. Change can occur, it is certainly limited by constraints of the capitalist system but you can make a difference and political action can help bring the day of revolution nearer.

redstar2000

31st July 2003, 04:33

We have to use every means possible to forward the socialist revolution, every fuckin means possible, we cant say no to anything if it means greater chance of success to the revolution

You did say "if" there, didn't you?

Even if one sentence is printed in the papers from the communists, then it means the worker will thnk to him/herself "shit, yeah, that guys right, im gonna look more into their ideology"

You write this and call me idiot?

Why not follow your own advice, and get out of our way here, in the single country most decisive for the world class struggle?

Lack of resources.

And I'm not in your way...unless you want to wallow in bourgeois politics while trying to pass yourself off as some kind of "Marxist".

I note in passing that you declined to argue the analysis of the American working class that I made.

If you decide not to vote and the far-right wackos you allowed to gain more power institute a program of ethnic cleansing, your hands are far from clean in the matter! The idea that you have no power at all is simple-minded silliness. Change can occur, it is certainly limited by constraints of the capitalist system but you can make a difference and political action can help bring the day of revolution nearer.

You can assert such nonsense as often as you wish...but saying it does not make it so.

If the "far-right wackos" gain control, it's because the capitalist class desired that outcome...not because of a vote!

And that snide attempt at guilt-tripping shows the real emptiness of your position...like blaming the people who voted for Ralph Nader for Bush's "victory".

By your standards, we should always vote...and even campaign for the "not-so-far-right wackos" and "change can occur".

Have you no dignity? No sense of shame? What meaning do your principles really have if you are willing to kiss bourgeois ass and call it "exercising power"?

Of course, I'm sure I won't convince anyone who still believes that bourgeois elections "mean" something...or that getting your name in the Daily Bullshit "advances" the revolution.

Still, one would think you would have learned by now.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

Kez

31st July 2003, 11:02

i was reading this last night in my book, and i thought it was perfect answer

Bolshevism: The Road To Revolution - Alan Woods (http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/part2-2.html)

On the question of participating in legal organisations such as trade unions, co-ops, insurance and benefit schemes, where the prevailing mood of the committee-men was for a boycott, Lenin warned that “the congress cannot lay down a hard and fast rule on this point. All methods should be used for agitation. The experience of the Shidlovsky Commission gives no ground whatever for a downright negative attitude”, and went on to shock the advocates of boycott by asserting that it would be correct, under certain circumstances, to participate even in a rigged tsarist parliament: “It is impossible to reply categorically whether it is advisable to participate in the Zemsky Sobor. Everything will depend on the political situation, on the electoral system, and on other specific factors which cannot be estimated in advance. Some say that the Zemsky Sobor is a fraud. That is true. But there are times when we must take part in elections to expose a fraud.” Lenin moved an addendum to the resolution on this question which stated: “As regards the actual and sham concessions which the weakened autocracy is now making to the democrats in general and to the working class in particular, the Social Democratic party of the working class should take advantage of them in order, on the one hand, to consolidate for the people every improvement in the economic conditions and every extension of liberties with a view to intensifying the struggle, and, on the other, steadily to expose before the proletariat the reactionary aims of the government, which is trying to disunite and corrupt the working class and draw its attention away from its urgent class needs at the moment of the revolution.”

Sabocat

31st July 2003, 13:16

What most here seem to not understand is that for the most part, the working class here in the U$ is convinced that they are in the "middle class" and doing much better than most. It's an illusion that was created here and is working perfectly. In my 25 years or so of being in this workforce, I can assure you that, right now, you'd be barking up the wrong tree with talk of revolution. A quick drive to a Walmart store parking lot to see the almost complete support for the war of aggression against Iraq in the form of all those cute little sticker flags on the back windows should amply demonstrate where a large part of the working class' head is at. Even the trade unions here (with a few exceptions) flew flags and banners of support for the war.

Elections will give us nothing. Not in the U$ anyway. Firstly, there is just too many levels. Secondly, corporate media will never allow a truthful, un-biased discussion on Communism to enter the American Political scene. EVER.

The only way the U$ will see revolution unfortunately, is if they are surrounded by successful revolutions and the U$ public sees the benefits and success.

Sabocat

31st July 2003, 13:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 11:23 PM

When reform happens because of the threat of revolution (such as was the case in the 30s) this is an example of exactly what I am talking about--popular movements changing a society's political discourse...when it shifts left, so must politics.
Is that all we're looking for is reform? That's not what I want.

The threat of revolution "such as was the case in the 30's"(actually the 10's, 20's and 30's.)

Look where reform got us. People were convinced then to make concessions for a marginally better life, which is why we're at this place today. Reform didn't work then, and it won't work now, unless you're just looking for a little more comfort. A few more table scraps from the ruling class.

Kez

31st July 2003, 19:16

Nath, in regard to your first post, you are correct, however incorrect in what seems to be your pessimism in the power of the working class.

If i may, lets go back to the "booming 20's" every motherfucker was content with their hire purchase car, nice little house, good food etc etc, i wonder how many people then sed

"What most here seem to not understand is that for the most part, the working class here in the U$ is convinced that they are in the "middle class" and doing much better than most. It's an illusion that was created here and is working perfectly"

but then came the 30's, and even veteran soldiers (seen as most patriotic), clashed big time with the police and armed troops in front of the whitehouse for their "bond cards".

It is not an issue of whether ppl think this or that, it all depends on their material living. IF theyre living well, they dont give shit about revolution, when they get worse ie loose a job, or have to pay more rent etc, then they are more attentive on subjects such as socialism.

In anycase, it is clear we are entering a period of big slump, it has been here for 3 years, and its gonna get much much worse, this is the time that marxists should be talking with a clear programme on the criticism of capitalism, and the only alternative, socialism. With this we can progress from small circles of like mindedd socialists, to big committees, to big soviets. Now that was very simplistic, but what we are witnessing is not new ground, not unexplainable area, but an expected phenomenom for capitalism, and by this we predicted the slump. And here it is. Now the ball is in our court, we can either act now and agitate or forget bout revolution and be content twats and say "ooooooooh i think revolution will come one day, maybe in 100 years", fuckin idiots say that. We shouldnt

Sabocat

31st July 2003, 20:48

Yes, but as I stated before, with all the issues that the working class were fighting for (here anyway), it still has been washed away for the most part. Sure there were some concessions regarding length of work weeks, overtime pay (which of course they're trying to roll back now) but basically the ruling class won and we're just marginally better off. Yes, the soldiers clashed with the government forces over their pay, but what came of it? What fundamental things changed to better their lot?

Yes, as people become disenfranchised, they may become more interested in communism/socialism, but where are they going to go to feed their interest. Most U$ residents get all their info from TV. Nothing on TV will ever further the Communist cause. In some ways, TV has become the great checks and balances mechanism for the U$ govt. Sure a few will wander around the internet and find sites like this one, but not nearly in the numbers needed for a true uprising.

Change does need to happen, I think we should be more active in trying to attain it, but unfortunately, I don't see it happening with bourgeois politics. There's just too many safety valves to prevent it.

Kez

31st July 2003, 23:31

thats where your duty as a socialist comes in.
To agitate

redstar2000

1st August 2003, 01:33

It is impossible to reply categorically whether it is advisable to participate in the Zemsky Sobor. Everything will depend on the political situation, on the electoral system, and on other specific factors which cannot be estimated in advance. Some say that the Zemsky Sobor is a fraud. That is true. But there are times when we must take part in elections to expose a fraud.

What this quote from Lenin suggests to me is that he didn't want his hands tied by a decision of the party congress.

And, I'm afraid, it has the taint of opportunism about it. Why must "we take part in elections to expose a fraud"? It's already known to be a fraud. It was known then; it's known now.

As regards the actual and sham concessions which the weakened autocracy is now making to the democrats in general and to the working class in particular, the Social Democratic party of the working class should take advantage of them in order, on the one hand, to consolidate for the people every improvement in the economic conditions and every extension of liberties with a view to intensifying the struggle, and, on the other, steadily to expose before the proletariat the reactionary aims of the government, which is trying to disunite and corrupt the working class and draw its attention away from its urgent class needs at the moment of the revolution.

In other words, it should attempt to achieve two opposing goals at once: (1) gain real reforms and (2) expose the reactionary aims of the government.

Only in the mystical realm of "dialectics" is such a two-faced "achievement" possible. In the material world, things don't work like that. You either co-operate with the government and hope you will be rewarded with "real" concessions or you truly expose the government's reactionary aims and, as a result, refuse any cooperation.

There's no "middle way".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

antieverything

1st August 2003, 01:33

You are certainly being hard-headed on this issue, Redstar. It certainly must be convenient to disregard politics and pin everything to the "will of the capitalist class". The fact that you can't find any real reasons as to why a non-vote in Israel is justifiable, you simply state that ethnic cleansing will happen if the capitalist class wills it...there is no room for ideologies not completely parrelel to class interest in your reasoning. Certainly, this is not the case--what stops the unemployed Jewish worker from wishing to purge Israel of cheap Palestinian labor that keeps him or her in poverty? On the other hand, there are many Israeli capitalists who would be ruined if they lost access to such cheap labor. Sorry, but things just aren't as simple as you see them.

What makes you think that ethnic cleansing will happen regardless of the political atmosphere? I'll say it again and this time expect an actual response: how is it justifiable for an Israeli to not vote for a candidate opposed to ethnic cleansing if his or her abstainment could result in the election of candidates who are supportive of ethnic cleansing? How is it justifiable for Israeli radicals to not mobilize politically against this threat--to not use every possible tool to stop it from happening?

redstar2000

1st August 2003, 01:57

...how is it justifiable for an Israeli to not vote for a candidate opposed to ethnic cleansing if his or her abstainment could result in the election of candidates who are supportive of ethnic cleansing?

Because, as I've said over and over again, real political decisions are not made by the electorate under capitalism.

I'm sure there are some (many?) Israeli workers who support ethnic cleansing. Their opinions don't matter. I'm sure there are some Israeli capitalists who would regard ethnic cleansing as an economic catastrophe...their opinions do matter.

So why not vote for a capitalist politician who is opposed to ethnic cleansing?

Brace yourself! They don't have to tell you what they really think!

Yes, I'm afraid it's true...all serious candidates for public office under capitalism are liars. Many are also personally corrupt, but that's beside the point. ALL are liars.

But suppose he's a "leftist"? Liar! But suppose he's a "socialist"? Liar! But, but, suppose he's a..."communist"? Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

If you would actually acquaint yourself with the real history of "leftists" in bourgeois parliaments, you would immediately understand why I am "hard headed" on this issue.

Experience!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

1st August 2003, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:33 AM
It is impossible to reply categorically whether it is advisable to participate in the Zemsky Sobor. Everything will depend on the political situation, on the electoral system, and on other specific factors which cannot be estimated in advance. Some say that the Zemsky Sobor is a fraud. That is true. But there are times when we must take part in elections to expose a fraud.

What this quote from Lenin suggests to me is that he didn't want his hands tied by a decision of the party congress.

And, I'm afraid, it has the taint of opportunism about it. Why must "we take part in elections to expose a fraud"? It's already known to be a fraud. It was known then; it's known now.

As regards the actual and sham concessions which the weakened autocracy is now making to the democrats in general and to the working class in particular, the Social Democratic party of the working class should take advantage of them in order, on the one hand, to consolidate for the people every improvement in the economic conditions and every extension of liberties with a view to intensifying the struggle, and, on the other, steadily to expose before the proletariat the reactionary aims of the government, which is trying to disunite and corrupt the working class and draw its attention away from its urgent class needs at the moment of the revolution.

In other words, it should attempt to achieve two opposing goals at once: (1) gain real reforms and (2) expose the reactionary aims of the government.

Only in the mystical realm of "dialectics" is such a two-faced "achievement" possible. In the material world, things don't work like that. You either co-operate with the government and hope you will be rewarded with "real" concessions or you truly expose the government's reactionary aims and, as a result, refuse any cooperation.

There's no "middle way".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
i think you got wrong end of stick.

Lenins participation was not to expose the fraud to himself, he as a marxist already knew this. It was to expose it to the proleteriat. It was to reaffirm the ideae of it being a sham

However, you can state that these refroms are nothing comparedd to what will happen in a socialist state. And use history to show how refroms are easily revered by the capitalist class

if a law on domestic violence is possible, should we as marxists not push it thru? or in your mind do we not, hope it doesnt go thru, and hope it makes women more angry and therefore become revolutionaries?

No, we push it thru, at same time as showing this is not enuf, socialism provides true equality, reformism achevies nothing in long term for workers

Iepilei

2nd August 2003, 00:58

No need to insult, Tav. The purpose of debate is to broaden horizions. It's not an act of war.

Revolution via mudslinging. Interesting concept, but I must say I disagree. The problem lies in the fact that the people you would aim to impress by seeking active roles in US politics are the people who already belong to some form of faction. Trouble is, many people just don't care enough to become overwhelmed by the troubles of the world - those who do, will fall to either side ultimately.

I believe the conditions should be allowed to decay, until they reach the point that the desire for popular change exists amongst those who are "in between". And I believe that the best location to start is in the areas where such conditions are already seen. Marx held such notions that hindered areas would be largely succeptible to proletarian revolution. So our hope is not in impressing the rich with our might, by standing up to their political system and trying to make a name for ourselves. We already have a name, and it's already feared as a force to be reconed with.

A political party will never be able to reach the minds of those in the ghettos, the slums, and the projects. You know why? Because these people don't care enough to listen to loud-mouthed politicians rant on about the same old tripe. They have enough to worry about as it is. Our strength isn't in our party name, but in our cause.

redstar2000

2nd August 2003, 13:43

if a law on domestic violence is possible, should we as marxists not push it thru? or in your mind do we not, hope it doesn't go thru, and hope it makes women more angry and therefore become revolutionaries?

The assumption here is that we possess some "power" to "push it through".

What I would recommend on issues like this is that we study the actual text of the law, find the loopholes, and publicize them extensively...showing that the "reform" is indeed a fraud.

If perchance it isn't a fraud (possible but unlikely), then we go after the bastards on the issue of enforcement...and there we have them.

The United States has a huge number of laws "on the books" to protect women, ethnic minorities, etc....and enforcement of those laws is a sick joke!

I mean that phrase quite literally. Somewhere here, right now, a woman is appealing to the legal system for protection from an abusive spouse...and she will be murdered in the next 24 hours!

It's a reasonably good bet that in the same time frame, an unarmed dark-skinned person is going to be murdered by a cop...who will get away with it.

The same thing is seen in occupational health and safety regulations here; America has a massive set of regulations and rules intended to "protect" workers...only the ones that don't cost the bosses anything are actually implemented.

I'll concede things may not be as bad in Europe...a much stronger and more militant working class tradition of struggle there may have actually forced reforms that exist not only on paper but in (partial) reality.

But consider the trend: the capitalist class is waging "class warfare" on the working class with fresh enthusiasm and determination. Is it at all reasonable under these circumstances to actually expect any reforms of significance?

And if it's not reasonable, why should we tell our class otherwise?

Why not say straight out: the bastards are going for your throat & they'll have it unless you stop them...not by voting, but by resistance!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

antieverything

2nd August 2003, 15:04

I'll go tell the tortilla factory workers what you said. I'm sure they'll be excited about killing their bosses!

...anyway, back on earth, there's no better way to mobilize the working class then by mobilizing them into what they see now as possible. When they see the limits of political action--then you can start working.

redstar2000

4th August 2003, 17:47

I'll go tell the tortilla factory workers what you said. I'm sure they'll be excited about killing their bosses!

I didn't say "kill your bosses"--I said resist. There are many forms of resistance short of killing bosses, as I'm sure you know.

...there's no better way to mobilize the working class then by mobilizing them into what they see now as possible. When they see the limits of political action--then you can start working.

It's not "better"...it's just easier. It's always easier to appeal to people on the basis of whatever misconceptions they may have right now.

Racists and religious fundamentalists have a "very easy" time of things right now...their prejudices are wide-spread and "easy" to appeal to.

Want to imitate that? Want to pretend that working people can gain real reforms through participation in bourgeois politics? Want to maintain or even reconstruct a "faith" in capitalist "democracy" that is already in considerable decay?

And after they break their heads and their hearts in pursuit of the impossible, want to get up in front of them and admit that you lied to them "for their own good"...so that they would see through personal experience that bourgeois electoral politics is fucked???

I'm speculating, of course, but somehow I don't think they're going to reward you with a big wet kiss. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas