Reformism with teeth

[Comrade-Z]

So, I was at a meeting today, and, to be quite honest, there were a few times during the meeting when my mind started to wander. However, being at a meeting of radicals, my mind drifted to radical topics, and this is what I was thinking...

Wouldn't it be kickass if an international movement existed to establish indexed wages in 40+ countries around the world? You see, this is my thinking:

It is obvious to some 80% of the U.S. that the minimum wage needs to be increased. This is without question. However, it seems to me and others that it is infuriating to always have to struggle for a new minimum wage increase every five years or so just to keep up with inflation. The minimum wage should at the very least maintain itself in real-wage terms. In the early '90s workers fought for a federal minimum wage of $5.15 in real wage terms (that means, $5.15 in 1993 dollars). What they have now is $5.15 in 2006 dollars. That's not what they fought for. Their employers, by doing nothing in order to compensate workers' wages for inflation, have abrogated this minimum wage law, in essence, if not in legal terms. Therefore, I think it is of utmost importance to have a minimum wage that is indexed to the Consumer-Price-Index (CPI). When the cost of goods goes up, when the CPI goes up, the minimum wage should automatically follow. Indeed, ALL wages should behave likewise. Wage indexing should be a part of every employment contract, as a matter of course. The minimum wage and all other wages would be revised every month in accordance with monthly CPI data. In addition, there would need to be a civilian oversight board to make sure that the CPI data is being compiled correctly. Belgium already has an indexed minimum wage, so their system can be used as a guide, more or less.

This indexed minimum wage would not be cemented to that index, though. There would always be the possibility of the minimum wage being indexed higher. For instance, if it starts with an index of $5.15 in 1993 dollars ($7 or $8 in 2006 dollars), there would always be the possibility of raising the index to, let's say, $7.50 in 1993 dollars ($10 in 2006 dollars, possibly $13 in 2010 dollars, who knows....) Likewise with any other wages.

The counter-argument to this from the business community might be something like this: "That's an insane policy! Don't you know that this will just cause inflation?!" Why would it cause inflation? Presumably, business owners would try to raise prices in order to gain greater profits or maintain current levels of profits. This aggregate increase in prices would raise the CPI, which would raise wages, which would prompt business owners to reclaim some of their profits by raising prices again, and so on. A concrete way to prevent this runaway inflation would be to stipulate that companies cannot raise their prices to the extent that the overall CPI increases over 100% per year, upon pain of death and international class war. What we can also clearly realize is that:
1. Only the well-off, who have substantial savings, would be harmed by this. Everyone else would not be harmed by it because their wages would increase in accordance with the general increase in prices.
2. The business community's quest for profit would be the culprit of any inflation that occured. There would be no problems if companies would simply be content with current levels of profit or extracting more profit through productivity increases rather than real wage decreases. The demonstration of these facts would call into question the very legitimacy of that quest for profit.

Another counter-argument might run like this: "Don't you know that, by pressing these wage demands, you will drive capital out of your country and into foreign countries with more "competitive" labor markets?!" This is where the international scope of this movement comes into play:

What if the same demands were being made in China? In India? In Britain? In the EU countries? In the Latin American countries? What comparative advantage, then, would there be for companies to outsource jobs?

This is, then, what I envision:
First, an international class war.
Second, an offering of a temporary peace treaty from the international proletariat to the governments of the world. This treaty would stipulate the following:
1. For those countries without a minimum wage, a minimum wage that the populace also democratically deems a living wage shall be speedily established.
2. The minimum wages of all the countries invovled shall then be increased by 50% in their respective currencies.
3. Each country's wages shall then be indexed to each country's respective CPI. Furthermore, elected civilian committees shall be tasked with overseeing the calculation of the monthly CPI.
4. A rise in the CPI of over 100% in any year in any country will entail an abrogation of the treaty.
5. This treaty will not go into effect until all countries involved have passed laws in each of their respective governments and are signatories to this treaty.
6. Failure of any government to approve this treaty, or future abrogation of this treaty by any one government, will entail the continuance/recommencing of the international class war involving ALL the signatory countries, except in cases where revolution entails abrogation of the treaty on the part of the workers (see below).

What would the international class war entail? At the very least, general strikes in every country involved, and possibly further actions such as road blockades, workplace occupations, workplace appropriations, etc. There would be no maximum thresholds to the extremity of the international class war, only minimum thresholds. If, in the course of these events, revolution is subsequently deemed within reach and desired by the populaces, GREAT!!! Then revolution it is for those who desire it. Those who don't wish to go that far can stick to the original demands with the remaining reformist countries (since the reformist countries won't have to worry about capital flight going to the revolutionary countries who are "opting out" of the treaty and going further). If the governments of the remaining reformist countries try to declare war on the revolutionary countries, then it's international class war once again!

[rouchambeau]

Wouldn't it be kickass if an international movement existed to establish indexed wages in 40+ countries around the world?
Uh...no.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is nothing radical about demanding higher wages or a minimum wage.

The radical demand would be: "Abolish wages"

[Janus]

There is nothing radical about demanding higher wages or a minimum wage.
The struggle increases worker's consciousness however "bread and butter" politics have generally only resulted in reformism rather than revolution.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2006, 03:51 PM
There is nothing radical about demanding higher wages or a minimum wage.

The radical demand would be: "Abolish wages"
Who is that "demand" directed at? To demand that the capitalist class abolish the wages system would be ridiculous - and if taken seriously, would produce illusions that they're capable of such a thing. To "demand" that working people do so would take an arrogant attitude towards most people.

Either way, shows the emptiness of self-sufficient "radicalism".

****

Comrade-Z's idea is not new, but it's good. (The basic idea, that is - I'm not going to go into all the particular details of trying to make it into a treaty and so forth.)

And not "reformist" at all. Actual reformists, like Social-democratic leaders, consistently try to prevent or derail mass actions for demands like these.

It'd take a heck of a fight - and an international one, as Comrade-Z says - to establish, widely, wages indexed to inflation. Currently, it does exist in a few union contracts and some social benefits - I don't know if there are any countries that have a minum wage indexed to inflation.

But yeah, in the U.S. there's a period ritual fight over raising the minimum wage a smidgen. Lets one big-business party posture as the defender of workers, and the other as the defender of small business. (Who are the most reluctant to pay a halfway livable wage.)

Then they reach some deal - which usually doesn't even keep up with inflation.

That's one answer to why rising wages aren't the cause of inflation - inflation often rises faster! (Comrade-Z mentions this standard employers' objection to any attempt to raise wages.)

It's standard for financial pages to carelessly assert that rising wages cause rising prices. But even bourgeois economists will admit that's not necessarily the case.

It's not always so easy for employers' to raise prices. The market's very competitive. Instead, higher wages often cause lower profits. That's why employers are resisting 'em tooth and nail - why would they care, if it was easy for 'em to raise prices to compensate?

For example, the current Fed chairman says (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2006/july/testimony.htm) "Profit margins are currently relatively wide, and the effect of a possible acceleration in compensation on price inflation would thus also depend on the extent to which competitive pressures force firms to reduce margins rather than pass on higher costs." Business week admits (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_06/b3919041_mz010.htm) "Second, intense global competition continues to limit pricing power even amid a weaker dollar and rising production costs. As a result, the corporate adjustment to higher costs tends to show up more in profit margins than in prices."

An article with a neat little graphy of wages, profits and prices (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=2449) over recent years.

Currently, real wages are rising faster than productivity for the first time in many years. But inflation hasn't resulted - except in sectors affected by rising oil costs. I saw this mentioned in an economic news article recently but can't find it right now.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon - caused by an expanding money supply. Marx went into this theoretically in "Value, Price and Profit."

Lower profits do destabilize their system and slow the economy....but that's their problem. So is inflation, and all the other problems with their economy.

Working people shouldn't be in the business of stablizing their system....instead, our demands should aim at protecting working people from the ravages of the system and its instability, as much as possible. They should mobilize working people against the employers and their state. Raise expectations which ultimately can only be met by making a revolution.

The demand for wages indexed to inflation does all of that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:42 PM

There is nothing radical about demanding higher wages or a minimum wage.
The struggle increases worker's consciousness however "bread and butter" politics have generally only resulted in reformism rather than revolution.
That doens't make it radical.

For a moment the workers have an increased consciousness, but this consciousness does not last for long.

When the workers get what they have demanded, they have historically gone back to work and to get on with their jobs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:26 AM
To demand that the capitalist class abolish the wages system would be ridiculous - and if taken seriously, would produce illusions that they're capable of such a thing.
Surely the point is that we don't want capitalists to end wage slavery, we and the workers want to end wage slavery.

It's not so much a demand insofar as it's a threat. We want to create confrontation with the ruling class so that we can destroy them, not ask them for support.

Marxists propagate the illusion that capitalists can make our world a better place, but the only people capable enough of "making our world better" are the working class and our "demands" should reflect that, no matter how "impossible" or "ridiculous" that may seem. After all, to capitalists we are ridiculous, but we should show them how serious we are!

Asking people to demand things that we don't necessarily want makes very little sense.


To "demand" that working people do so would take an arrogant attitude towards most people.

That doesn't make any sense.


Either way, shows the emptiness of self-sufficient "radicalism".

Self-sufficient radicalism isn't even a thing...

[The Grey Blur]

Saying workers shouldn't fight for pay-rises or against pay-cuts is ultra-left nonsense

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25 2006, 03:56 PM
Saying workers shouldn't fight for pay-rises or against pay-cuts is ultra-left nonsense
I can see you've thought about that opinion in great deal. Why don't you engage in debate and present an argument against what I have said?

Asking for concessions from the ruling class will only lead to concessions from the ruling class.

Also, I'm not opposed to workers fighting for those things, I'm simply saying that it is not a radical demand, which the starter of this thread asserted.

[antieverything]

Either way, shows the emptiness of self-sufficient "radicalism".
Indeed. Well put. The armchair radical has no need for dealing with the hard work of the revolutionary struggle and instead chooses to ridicule those who do...we've seen it a million times. Hell, when I was younger I did the same thing...before realizing that the world is an incredibly complicated place and that ideological "purity" is generally counterproductive more than anything else.

In summation: What a cheese-dick. <_<

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:25 PM

Either way, shows the emptiness of self-sufficient "radicalism".
Indeed. Well put. The armchair radical has no need for dealing with the hard work of the revolutionary struggle and instead chooses to ridicule those who do...we&#39;ve seen it a million times.
You&#39;ve been away from this board for so long and then you come back with this ad hominem bullshit. What a disappointment.

Referring to others as "armchair radicals" simply because they don&#39;t agree with your definition of "radicalism" is both untrue, in my case at least, and incredibly arrogant. Plus not very intelligent.

I apologise that your experience with the broad spectrum of the revolutionary left is limited solely to that of Marxists and their crusade for better conditions of exploitation but actually, there is a whole other part who struggle for revolutionary goals and work equally as hard as you allegedly do.

Further more, I think the contents of this thread thus far clearly shows that no one is attempting to ridicule anyone or anything, so keep up.


Hell, when I was younger I did the same thing...before realizing that the world is an incredibly complicated place and that ideological "purity" is generally counterproductive more than anything else.

Of course "ideological purity" will be counterproductive to activists who want to create better conditions in which workers are exploited, because those things won&#39;t necessarily be achieved if you tell people the truth.

Unfortunately as history has proven this tactic rarely ever achieves anything other than what you ask for, well why would it I suppose? Fighting for revolutionary change requires being revolutionary. Achieving a radically different society requires one to be radical.

That maybe difficult, but that&#39;s just the way it is.


In summation: What a cheese-dick. <_<

Yeah, god forbid that someone would have a different analysis to your failing, stagnant and outdated politics.

[Janus]

That doens&#39;t make it radical.
It doesn&#39;t make it very radical but the alternative is to just let their conditions get worse which is something we don&#39;t want.


For a moment the workers have an increased consciousness, but this consciousness does not last for long.

When the workers get what they have demanded, they have historically gone back to work and to get on with their jobs.
Yes, but back then it was more a matter of practicality than true revolutionary struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:25 AM

That doens&#39;t make it radical.
It doesn&#39;t make it very radical but the alternative is to just let their conditions get worse which is something we don&#39;t want.
Confrontation will only happen when the world in which working class people live in is no longer viable for the survival.

If we continue to demand concessions that improve our conditions of living we will continue to live in a society where our doncitions of living are better and better and better.

This will not end exploitation, it will simply make it better.


Yes, but back then it was more a matter of practicality than true revolutionary struggle.

It&#39;s not a question of "back then" it&#39;s happening right now.

Revolutionary struggle is not demanding tape in which to patch up this fragile box. It&#39;s the outright destruction of capitalism and the sate, and the creation of a communist society based on "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Radical?...damn fuckin&#39; right&#33;

[Janus]

Confrontation will only happen when the world in which working class people live in is no longer viable for the survival.
Right.


If we continue to demand concessions that improve our conditions of living we will continue to live in a society where our doncitions of living are better and better and better.

This will not end exploitation, it will simply make it better.
That is not viable for capitalism. It&#39;s going to clamp down at some point and we&#39;re seeing that today.


Revolutionary struggle is not demanding tape in which to patch up this fragile box. It&#39;s the outright destruction of capitalism and the sate, and the creation of a communist society based on "From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Radical?...damn fuckin&#39; right&#33;
You were originally discussing what happened with these reforms in history. However, one must look at the historical context which produced these reforms. This is the base from which our struggle begins and I agree with you that short-term gains will soon no longer be viable. I think what should happen is that we still need to show solidarity with those engaged in the struggle to better their lives but also point them towards our direction as well.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 25 2006, 03:20 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 25 2006, 03:20 AM)
Originally posted by Severian+Sep 25 2006, 07:26 AM--> (Severian &#064; Sep 25 2006, 07:26 AM) To demand that the capitalist class abolish the wages system would be ridiculous - and if taken seriously, would produce illusions that they&#39;re capable of such a thing. [/b]
Surely the point is that we don&#39;t want capitalists to end wage slavery, we and the workers want to end wage slavery. [/b]
OK, then: as I said earlier:
"To "demand" that working people do so would take an arrogant attitude towards most people."

For some unexplained reason, you didn&#39;t understand this. It&#39;s pretty straightforward. To "demand" people do something is to try to coerce them.


It&#39;s not so much a demand insofar as it&#39;s a threat. We want to create confrontation with the ruling class so that we can destroy them, not ask them for support.

You used the word demand earlier. It&#39;s not my fault if you&#39;re having difficulty saying what you think.

"Threat" makes it even less clear. Who are you threatening?

The ruling class - think you can make &#39;em behave?

Or are you threatening workers? Even more arrogant....


Marxists propagate the illusion that capitalists can make our world a better place, but the only people capable enough of "making our world better" are the working class and our "demands" should reflect that, no matter how "impossible" or "ridiculous" that may seem. After all, to capitalists we are ridiculous, but we should show them how serious we are&#33;

If you realize that only working people can change the world....why do you care what the capitalists think? Why are you trying to show them how "serious" you are?

If anything, it&#39;s better to be underestimated by the class enemy...let them remain complacent until it&#39;s too late to stop the growing revolutionary movement.

And since your tactics and "demands" are geared to showing "them how serious we are&#33;" - I gotta doubt how serious you are about the self-liberation of the working class. (If you don&#39;t act on something, do you really believe it?)

Like the Yippies and Weathermen, you sound like you&#39;re trying to scare Daddy Capitalist into being good. Ultraleft rhetoric and tactics usually cover reformist content.

In contrast, the communist strategy of transitional demands aims to mobilize working people. To help our class gain experience in struggle, and move from one demand to another until the necessity of abolishing capitalist property becomes apparent to everyone through their own experience.

Against your straw man claim that "Marxists propagate the illusion that capitalists can make our world a better place", lemme quote Engels on the role of transitional demands and measures:


[email protected]
All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.
source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)


Anarchist Tension
Confrontation will only happen when the world in which working class people live in is no longer viable for the survival.

If we continue to demand concessions that improve our conditions of living we will continue to live in a society where our doncitions of living are better and better and better.

This will not end exploitation, it will simply make it better.

Also manipulative and arrogant. Views working people as sheep, who must be corralled into the worst possible conditions in order to make them revolt.

A world away from the communist approach: "Communists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working class as a whole."

And as Janus points out, capitalism cannot afford better and better conditions for working people. Instead, it suffers from a long-term tendency for the rate of profit too fall.

The bosses can only reverse this by attacking the standard of living of working people - everything we&#39;ve won in struggle over past decades. Fighting back - and demanding concession whenever we can - destabilizes their economic system by lowering their profit rate.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 27 2006, 03:28 AM--> (Severian &#064; Sep 27 2006, 03:28 AM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 25 2006, 03:20 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; Sep 25 2006, 03:20 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 07:26 AM
To demand that the capitalist class abolish the wages system would be ridiculous - and if taken seriously, would produce illusions that they&#39;re capable of such a thing.
Surely the point is that we don&#39;t want capitalists to end wage slavery, we and the workers want to end wage slavery. [/b]
OK, then: as I said earlier:
"To "demand" that working people do so would take an arrogant attitude towards most people."

For some unexplained reason, you didn&#39;t understand this. It&#39;s pretty straightforward. To "demand" people do something is to try to coerce them. [/b]
I didn&#39;t understand it because you&#39;re referring to something I never said? How can I respond to something when what I am referring to relates to an opinion I never made?

Neither I nor anyone else should demand anything from working class people. What we should demand from the ruling class however, is for them to fuck off&#33;



It&#39;s not so much a demand insofar as it&#39;s a threat. We want to create confrontation with the ruling class so that we can destroy them, not ask them for support.

You used the word demand earlier. It&#39;s not my fault if you&#39;re having difficulty saying what you think.

You&#39;re confused Severian. I&#39;m referring to demands/threats made by the working class to the ruling class, not from revolutionaries to the working class...


The ruling class - think you can make &#39;em behave?

It&#39;s nothing about making them behave; rather forcibly remove them from their positions of wealth and power, seize control of the means of production and destroy capitalism and the state.


If you realize that only working people can change the world....why do you care what the capitalists think? Why are you trying to show them how "serious" you are?

You&#39;ve taken a very odd line of argument here? You&#39;re not actually debating the issues, rather debating my use of words?

I&#39;m not asserting that the workers should "show how serious we are" in a literal sense, (surely you can grasp the simplicities of what I&#39;m saying). I&#39;m asserting that a) the demand for wages is not a radical demand and b) any demand from the workers should reflect an overall goal for societal change.

Remembering after all, we will only get what we ask for.


If anything, it&#39;s better to be underestimated by the class enemy...let them remain complacent until it&#39;s too late to stop the growing revolutionary movement.

The point is that a revolutionary movement won&#39;t emerge from the tactics you employ or propose to employ.

If it were the case, it would have happened already.


And since your tactics and "demands" are geared to showing "them how serious we are&#33;" - I gotta doubt how serious you are about the self-liberation of the working class. (If you don&#39;t act on something, do you really believe it?)

Address the issues Severian, not my personality or commitment to revolutionary struggle.


Like the Yippies and Weathermen, you sound like you&#39;re trying to scare Daddy Capitalist into being good. Ultraleft rhetoric and tactics usually cover reformist content.

That doesn&#39;t even make any sense, Severian...


In contrast, the communist strategy of transitional demands aims to mobilize working people. To help our class gain experience in struggle, and move from one demand to another until the necessity of abolishing capitalist property becomes apparent to everyone through their own experience.

I know, but it doesn&#39;t work. Capitalism adapts and co-opts struggles or gives the necessary concessions to avoid such confrontation. This has been what has happened and what continues to happen today.

That&#39;s not to say however, that if industrial action occurs, it should be discouraged.


Against your straw man claim that "Marxists propagate the illusion that capitalists can make our world a better place"

You do propagate that illusion, indirectly I&#39;m sure. By asking the ruling class to make our conditions better, this historically leads to them doing just that.


Engels
All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.

Clearly Engel’s was wrong, and had he experienced working class 20th century struggle, his opinions may well have been different.


Also manipulative and arrogant. Views working people as sheep, who must be corralled into the worst possible conditions in order to make them revolt.

:rolleyes:

What absolute nonsense&#33; See an opportunity and you take it don&#39;t you? Your masters have taught you well.

The conditions of the working class will become obvious the more we struggle to destroy capitalism by making that very demand.

The condition of working class and oppressed people is exploitative, it is oppressive, it is alienating and patching that up with hand outs from the ruling class is not revolutionary, nor radical and it will never create a communist society.


A world away from the communist approach: "Communists have no interests separate and apart from those of the working class as a whole."

And the interests of the working class is to create a communist society.


The bosses can only reverse this by attacking the standard of living of working people - everything we&#39;ve won in struggle over past decades. Fighting back - and demanding concession whenever we can - destabilizes their economic system by lowering their profit rate.

Then why have we not seen a working class revolution in the world...ever&#33;?

[Comrade-Z]

Hahaha, so now that I&#39;ve given you all the setup, I&#39;ll proceed to the main question:

If these sort of reformist measures are not the right way to go, then what do we do right now?

I can think of several options:
*Continue and enlarge public dialogue about capitalism and communism.
*Try to help organize and participate in mass movements which don&#39;t engage in any reformist actions whatsoever (such as strikes, protests, etc. when they don&#39;t demand complete abolition of captialism). This organization&#39;s sole aim would be the overthrow of capitalism. All its publications, all its strikes and protests, would have this sole aim and message. When we protest in the street and people ask us what we are protesting for, we reply that we are trying to advocate the overthrow of capitalism and that we won&#39;t go away until we achieve it.

Why don&#39;t we have these types of organizations? Even AF, NEFAC, etc. don&#39;t have this view. They get bogged down in reformism just as much as any other organizations.

[Seafire]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25 2006, 10:56 AM
Saying workers shouldn&#39;t fight for pay-rises or against pay-cuts is ultra-left nonsense

It&#39;s neither ultra-left, nor is it nonsense. It&#39;s not even so much they "shouldn&#39;t" (that&#39;s a bullshit moral assessment). it&#39;s that doing so is self-destructive, self-defeating, and playing directly into the hands of the elite. One should NOT beg for crumbs, when one is due the entire loaf&#33;

Capitalism can not be reformed, it can only be destroyed.

Seafire

[Seafire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:25 PM
It doesn&#39;t make it very radical but the alternative is to just let their conditions get worse which is something we don&#39;t want.


Why not let conditions get worse? In fact, why not push them in that direction? The corporate- empire is self-destructing, why streach out a helping hand? While they run head-long towards the cliff, why stop them?

Bush has done more to destroy the status quo (http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20040913/006225.html) than ANY "left-wing" or "liberal" movement could have dreamed of doing in such a short time.

The working class will only wake up from their narcolepsy, when they feel some pain and discomfort. It&#39;s the counter-revolutionary liberals who keep pulling the system back from the brink&#33; The "reformers" are the enemy of the revolution, putting a band-aid on the festering sore, and perpetuating the systemic disease; they are a bigger hinderance than the bosses&#33;

You can not treat the symptoms of the disease, you have to cure the underlying cause. The horrible distribution of wealth, the disenfranchisement of the workers, are only a symptoms of the disease called Capitalism.

I thought this was a revolutionary board??

Seafire

[Seafire]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 27 2006, 10:51 AM
If these sort of reformist measures are not the right way to go, then what do we do right now?



We continue to chip away at the tree.... We allow it&#39;s disease to weaken it, and destroy it from within. It cannot sustain itself; Capitalism is inherently self-destructive. What we do NOT do, is repair it, put band aids on it, warn it, reform it..... we help it self-destruct, pushing a bit further towards the edge, a little bit at a time, till it is in full collapse. .

Seafire

[KC]

It&#39;s not even so much they "shouldn&#39;t" (that&#39;s a bullshit moral assessment). it&#39;s that doing so is self-destructive, self-defeating, and playing directly into the hands of the elite. One should NOT beg for crumbs, when one is due the entire loaf&#33;


And the whole point about reformism is that it leads workers towards marxism when it fails, and when it succeeds they get an increase in living standards.



Why not let conditions get worse? In fact, why not push them in that direction?

Yeah, let&#39;s vote against workers rights so we can free them... :rolleyes:


The "reformers" are the enemy of the revolution

Now you&#39;re saying that workers are the enemy of the revolution? Good fucking job.

The question shouldn&#39;t be whether or not the workers should be demanding reforms, because they inevitably will do so. The question should really be what is our role in this process?

Should we oppose reformism outright? Of course not. That will do nothing but alienate the working class from the communist movement.

Should we fully support reformism as a way to solve the problems of the working class? No&#33; This leads to nothing more than working within capitalism than working to overthrow it.

The answer is that we support them in their struggle for workers rights while also helping them become class conscious and organize them into a class against the bourgeoisie. Our job is to turn the working class from "a class as against capital" into a class "for itself".

[Seafire]

And the whole point about reformism is that it leads workers towards Marxism when it fails, and when it succeeds they get an increase in living standards.

All that does is enlarge the petit bougousie&#33; Where has reformism ever led workers to Marxism? This is the 21st century, the age of mass media, global communications, this is not Paris and it&#39;s not 1871. Look at the current state of the "labor" movement. It has become a capitalist tool, doing the exact reverse of "leading workers to Marxism".


Yeah, let&#39;s vote against workers rights so we can free them... :rolleyes:

Participation in elections in America, is legitimising an illegitimate and corrupt system. The more you VOTE, the more power you cede to the capitalists. Voting in the US is a counter revolutionary act.


Now you&#39;re saying that workers are the enemy of the revolution? Good fucking job.

Workers can be as counter revolutionary as bosses, especially American workers who see themselves as above "workers", a rising class, the "American Dream" of riches... all potential member of the elite, all potential Bill Gates&#39;&#33;&#33; The "Haymarket Riot", it&#39;s aftermath, and the subsequent setback of the 8 hour workday in 1886 Chicago was perpetrated by "WORKERS". American workers across the country sided with management, against the unionists.

One of the tools they use to oppress are the very workers who are being oppressed.

One other point on your post I will repeated it here for clarity
so we can free them...

WE can NOT free them; they must free themselves. They must fight for their rights, we can not do it for them.


Should we oppose reformism outright? Of course not. That will do nothing but alienate the working class from the communist movement.

I am not advocating opposing reformers, their continuing failure to affecting meaningful change goes a long way to educate the workers about the futility of reform. I am saying we should not expend energy on reformation, we need to concentrate on revolution, on preparing the masses to fight against their oppression. More importantly, we need to position ourselves to take power AFTER the revolt, we need to be organized and prepared to educate in the aftermath, and we need to provide a measure of leadership for the fight itself.


Our job is to turn the working class from "a class as against capital" into a class "for itself".......

Strategically you are correct, but I believe your tactics are backwards. I will site 2 successful instances, of revolution and the subsequent emergence class consciousness which I have personal experience in as examples.

1) Nicaragua: The revolution, spearheaded by a wide coalition of political parties, overthrew the fascist tyrant Somosa. They did so, NOT as a result of "class consciousness" but they did so because of oppression, poverty, abuse and violence. To use a famous quote, they had nothing to lose but their chains. Class and social consciousness, came about afterwards, why? Because there was a structure which had prepared itself beforehand to do so. Our job, is to prepare to be that structure when the workers finally throw off their chains and revolt.

2) Cuba: The revolution was spearheaded by a small group of revolutionaries who barely survived the landing of the Granma. The thrust was opposition to Batista, his oppression, corruption, and abuse. It was against his violence, and against the poverty of the masses. Educating the people about class consciousness took place AFTER Batista fled, not before.

If the revolutionaries in both of the examples above would have put their energies into reformation, and had they succeeded, even a little, in making the plight of their respective peoples better, neither revolution would have triumphed. In fact neither would have even begun, and there would have been left behind a milder, less brutal form of capitalism, far more difficult to defeat. This is the very situation we face today in the US, the "working class" have morphed into the "petit bougousie", mainly because of reformation, and the fact that the bougousie have learned how to better control the masses by giving them a bit of honey and hope now and then. We face a much more difficult struggle than Fidel and Ortega faced.

Seafire

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2006, 06:53 AM
I&#39;m referring to demands/threats made by the working class to the ruling class, not from revolutionaries to the working class...
and later:

Remembering after all, we will only get what we ask for.

OK, thanks for finally clearing that up.

Again, they won&#39;t - and can&#39;t - abolish the wages system, no matter what you demand or threaten or ask for.

To demand or threaten or ask for "the abolition of the wages system" can only encourage illusions in the possibility of abolishing capitalism by means of reform.

I expect you&#39;ll go back to saying you were demanding it from the workers again, now. It&#39;s rotten either way, reformism one way and ultraleft authoritarian arrogance the other.

Reformism and ultraleftism, two sides of one coin, both based on the denial of the self-liberation of the working class.


The point is that a revolutionary movement won&#39;t emerge from the tactics you employ or propose to employ.

If it were the case, it would have happened already.

Heh. That&#39;s the only place that revolutionary movements have ever emerged from - the real class struggle, which begins with more limited goals.

I&#39;ll stack up the contributions of communism to advancing the class struggle, historically, against the contributions of anarchism and similar ultraleft doctrines - any day.

We&#39;ve discussed that before - and all you can do is claim the Spanish Revolution was a success&#33; By all means, if you want the triumph of fascists, keep following your approach.


That&#39;s not to say however, that if industrial action occurs, it should be discouraged.

Wow. It shouldn&#39;t be discouraged, huh? If I disentangle that sentence right.

Unlike Proudhon, at least you don&#39;t say that striking workers should be shot. I guess that&#39;s a step forward.


By asking the ruling class to make our conditions better, this historically leads to them doing just that.

Oh no&#33;

Like I said: "Also manipulative and arrogant. Views working people as sheep, who must be corralled into the worst possible conditions in order to make them revolt."

And in fact, that&#39;s not the only result historically. When they can afford to give concessions - of course they can contain the working-class movement short of revolution. There&#39;s no magic wand of "threats" you can wave to change that reality.

When they can&#39;t - movements around particular demands grow into revolutions.


Then why have we not seen a working class revolution in the world...ever&#33;?

That&#39;s another revealing statement.

If that&#39;s what you think.....why do you believe there will ever be one?

Heck, in what sense do you really believe there will be? At best, such a belief could be an abstract statement of doctrine, nothing to do with the real world of the present-day class struggle, or the events of history.

In other words, not a guide to action, just a motive for abstract propaganda that greatly resembles religous preaching about the Second Coming of Jesus which will arrive from the clouds someday, nobody knows when.

If that utopian vision actually could be imposed on people, due to some unusual circumstance...it&#39;s unlikely that would benefit working people. More likely it&#39;s be completely botched.

You may call your utopia "communism", but communism refers to something that grows out of the class struggle, the historical process, not a pie-in-the-sky vision someone tries to graft onto history....

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 27 2006, 08:51 AM
I can think of several options:
*Continue and enlarge public dialogue about capitalism and communism.
*Try to help organize and participate in mass movements which don&#39;t engage in any reformist actions whatsoever (such as strikes, protests, etc. when they don&#39;t demand complete abolition of captialism). This organization&#39;s sole aim would be the overthrow of capitalism. All its publications, all its strikes and protests, would have this sole aim and message. When we protest in the street and people ask us what we are protesting for, we reply that we are trying to advocate the overthrow of capitalism and that we won&#39;t go away until we achieve it.

Why don&#39;t we have these types of organizations? Even AF, NEFAC, etc. don&#39;t have this view. They get bogged down in reformism just as much as any other organizations.
Oh, there is one. The Socialist Labor Party. It&#39;s been around since the 19th century, and it&#39;s been completely irrelevant to everything that&#39;s happened in that time.

From your initial post, I thought you were having an attack of temporary sanity, but I see I was wrong.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:33 AM
. I will site 2 successful instances, of revolution and the subsequent emergence class consciousness which I have personal experience in as examples.

1) Nicaragua: The revolution, spearheaded by a wide coalition of political parties, overthrew the fascist tyrant Somosa. They did so, NOT as a result of "class consciousness" but they did so because of oppression, poverty, abuse and violence. To use a famous quote, they had nothing to lose but their chains. Class and social consciousness, came about afterwards, why? Because there was a structure which had prepared itself beforehand to do so. Our job, is to prepare to be that structure when the workers finally throw off their chains and revolt.

2) Cuba: The revolution was spearheaded by a small group of revolutionaries who barely survived the landing of the Granma. The thrust was opposition to Batista, his oppression, corruption, and abuse. It was against his violence, and against the poverty of the masses. Educating the people about class consciousness took place AFTER Batista fled, not before.

If the revolutionaries in both of the examples above would have put their energies into reformation, and had they succeeded, even a little, in making the plight of their respective peoples better, neither revolution would have triumphed.
This is a profoundly simplistic and mistaken view of how the Sandinistas, and the July 26th Movement in Cuba, built the support needed to make a revolution.

If you read anything about the activity of the Sandinistas and the July 26th Movement, they did in fact make all kinds of demands on the government, organized people to press these demands, and sometimes won them. Both made agreements and alliances with other forces - including the bourgeois opponents of the dictatorship.

Read Omar Cabezas&#39; "Fire From the Mountains" or Armando Hart&#39;s "Aldobonazo" for Nicaragua and Cuba respectively. Both were active in the urban underground.

Additionally, you say yourself: "The thrust was opposition to Batista, his oppression, corruption, and abuse. It was against his violence, and against the poverty of the masses."

In other words, not just demanding the abolition of capitalism as TAT suggests.

The end of the Batista dictatorship, land reform, everything else in the Moncada program of the Cuban revolutionaries - those are all limited, just as surely as demanding that wages be indexed to inflation.

Though the experience of fighting for these goals, millions of Cubans came to realize the need for socialism - the experience of the struggle prepared them to welcome Fidel Castro&#39;s declaration that the Cuban revolution was a socialist revolution.

You say "Educating the people about class consciousness took place AFTER Batista fled, not before. " But it&#39;s wasn&#39;t mostly a matter of "educating the people", either before or after, though propaganda has its place and Fidel Castro&#39;s televised speeches certainly helped.

Experience educated working people and raised class consciousness. The main question was making possible the struggles in which millions could gain that experience.


****

I could make similar points about other revolutions. In particular, the Bolsheviks were masters of the transitional demand and organizing to press those demands. Through with alliances with other forces, when that was useful.

They generalized the experience of making the Russian Revolution for revolutionaries in other countries....In these "These on Tactics" for example. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/tactics.htm)

Oh, and they also participated in bourgeois and even tsarist elections. Nobody&#39;s who&#39;s ever led a revolution - has ever been so dogmatic as to reject on principle, participation in elections.

Most of &#39;em didn&#39;t participate in bourgeois elections only because they didn&#39;t have the opportunity....

[KC]

Where has reformism ever led workers to Marxism?

Reformism and trade unionist politics have always led workers to Marxism. Workers don&#39;t just get up one day and say "we should just overthrow capitalism; that&#39;d rock&#33;" They attempt to better their situation within capitalism, and if (when) that fails they usually turn towards Marxism (usually only if that opportunity is presented to them by Marxists).


Look at the current state of the "labor" movement. It has become a capitalist tool, doing the exact reverse of "leading workers to Marxism".

And that&#39;s not a labor movement; it&#39;s an illusion of one. Workers will (have) realize(d) this and act accordingly.



Participation in elections in America, is legitimising an illegitimate and corrupt system. The more you VOTE, the more power you cede to the capitalists. Voting in the US is a counter revolutionary act.

Wow, who said anything about voting? You said you actively supported making the conditions of the working class worse. That was what my response was too.

Anyways, participating in elections doesn&#39;t do a damned thing. If I went and voted republican it wouldn&#39;t matter. People don&#39;t base their support of a system on poll turnouts; if they did then capitalism probably would have already been overthrown&#33;

Moreover, you&#39;re not "ceding more power" to the capitalists at all if you vote. That&#39;s the dumbest thing I&#39;ve ever heard. A president is going to be elected regardless of whether you vote or not; bourgeois rule is going to sustain itself regardless of whether or not you vote. Now, if a huge majority of the population didn&#39;t vote what would happen? First, the electoral college would vote anyways and we&#39;d get a president anyways. Second, that would never happen.

Saying that "you cede power" to the bourgeoisie by voting implies that you can take power from them by not. Neither of which is true at all.




Workers can be as counter revolutionary as bosses, especially American workers who see themselves as above "workers", a rising class, the "American Dream" of riches... all potential member of the elite, all potential Bill Gates&#39;&#33;&#33; The "Haymarket Riot", it&#39;s aftermath, and the subsequent setback of the 8 hour workday in 1886 Chicago was perpetrated by "WORKERS". American workers across the country sided with management, against the unionists.

One of the tools they use to oppress are the very workers who are being oppressed

You said that reformists are enemies of the revolution, which implies that all workers are enemies of the revolution because all workers are/have/will participat(ing/ed/e) in trade unionist politics. This implies that you would actively support the attack on striking workers and the resulting scabbing that strikes incur. Your views support the bourgeoisie.


WE can NOT free them; they must free themselves. They must fight for their rights, we can not do it for them.

I knew you were going to say this. Maybe you didn&#39;t realize that WE are WORKERS (at least, I am).

Workers fight to free themselves. I am a worker. I am part of the fight. The reason I said "so we can free them" is because the "we" is the vanguard of the working class and the "them" is the section of the working class that is not yet class conscious.


I am not advocating opposing reformers, their continuing failure to affecting meaningful change goes a long way to educate the workers about the futility of reform. I am saying we should not expend energy on reformation, we need to concentrate on revolution, on preparing the masses to fight against their oppression. More importantly, we need to position ourselves to take power AFTER the revolt, we need to be organized and prepared to educate in the aftermath, and we need to provide a measure of leadership for the fight itself.

You&#39;re "not advocating opposing reformers" even though you view them to be the "enemy of the revolution"? That&#39;s quite odd. Either you really don&#39;t view reformists to be enemies or you&#39;re against fighting class enemies. Care to clarify that?

What you don&#39;t realize is that helping workers in trade unionist struggles while helping them develop their class consciousness is "preparing the masses to fight against their oppression". The workers aren&#39;t going to "fight against their oppression" until they realized that the system is unfixable and that there is a better system that they can have a part in creating.

And regarding organizing: that&#39;s what a party is for.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nobody&#39;s who&#39;s ever led a revolution - has ever been so dogmatic as to reject on principle, participation in elections.

Mao?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why not let conditions get worse? In fact, why not push them in that direction?

Speaking as a worker.. wait, do I even have to answer this? Many of us are barely getting by as it is. Yeah, we should fight for lower wages. :rolleyes:

[Leo]

Khayembii;


Reformism and trade unionist politics have always led workers to Marxism. Workers don&#39;t just get up one day and say "we should just overthrow capitalism; that&#39;d rock&#33;" They attempt to better their situation within capitalism, and if (when) that fails they usually turn towards Marxism (usually only if that opportunity is presented to them by Marxists).

This is a valid point... Yet, the question remains: should communists support reformism trade unionist politics? Of course not, and every time unions and reformists sell the workers out (they&#39;ve always been doing it and they&#39;ll always keep doing it), workers move closer to communism, but this doesn&#39;t mean that we, as communists should not tell struggle against trade unionists and reformists ideas. After all, selling the working class out is the core of the existance of reformism and trade unionist politics.


I knew you were going to say this. Maybe you didn&#39;t realize that WE are WORKERS (at least, I am).

Workers fight to free themselves. I am a worker. I am part of the fight. The reason I said "so we can free them" is because the "we" is the vanguard of the working class and the "them" is the section of the working class that is not yet class conscious.

First of all, I personally don&#39;t like the word vanguard. I find it patronizing if nothing else. But the fact that there is a class-consciouss section of the proletariat that organize is obviously impossible to deny. The point I&#39;m gonna make is a purely theoretical point: I disagree with you when you say we will free them, because I think in reality only they can &#39;free&#39; the most class-consciousness section of the working class among with themselves. Of course those proletarian revolutionaries we are talking about will do their best to raise class-consciusness among non-class consciouss workers, but if they fail, if the material conditions are nor ready for a proletarian movement, then members of this this class-conscious section will be beaten up in streets, thrown into jails, tortured, executed etc.

[KC]

This is a valid point... Yet, the question remains: should communists support reformism trade unionist politics? Of course not, and every time unions and reformists sell the workers out (they&#39;ve always been doing it and they&#39;ll always keep doing it), workers move closer to communism, but this doesn&#39;t mean that we, as communists should not tell struggle against trade unionists and reformists ideas. After all, selling the working class out is the core of the existance of reformism and trade unionist politics.

This is a very fine line, and a very arguable point on where to draw it, yet I largely agree with you. The problem comes when we discuss how to deal with reformism. Should we struggle against trade unionist and reformist ideas? Yes. But we should also support workers in their struggle to increase their standard of life within capitalism; to do this, workers engage in reformist politics. So this is essentially a contradiction in the beliefs that we should hold (the same way that we support both workers rights and the development of capitalism which decays those rights and leads workers closer to revolution).

Because of this, it is hard to find a position that many leftists agree on, since this issue is so debatable.


The point I&#39;m gonna make is a purely theoretical point: I disagree with you when you say we will free them, because I think in reality only they can &#39;free&#39; the most class-consciousness section of the working class among with themselves.

Well, I think this is a semantics issue but I agree with you on this point. Obviously revolution will be performed by and with the support of the entire proletarian class.

[BreadBros]

1. If we were able to mount an international class war, and the only result was indexed wages, that&#39;d be a complete failure. If things escalated to that point, even if the state continues to exist, socialism and the worker takeover of said state would even be better than this. Why would we allow bourgeois states and the capitalist system to remain in place?

2. I don&#39;t see the huge benefit in having indexed wages. I have no problem in pressing for demands such as these (although I agree with those that have said that the destruction of the class system is the ultimate goal, not mere reforms) but I don&#39;t see terrible amounts of benefit for the effort this would take.

3. Good luck EVER getting this reform passed. The opening up of vast new labor markets (as well as consumer markets) means theres huge downward pressure on wages all over the world, huge demand for consumer goods, and ergo HUGE profits in store for capitalists. More likely than not they would fight tooth and nail against this, and if your going to go far enough to fight that, you might as well destroy the entire system, not just ask for a mere reform.

4. One of the things you said was that if the nations didnt obey this the proletariat would mount a class war against them. If we had the ability to mount an international class war with such ease why the HELL would we ever just settle for indexed wages?

[Leo]

This is a very fine line, and a very arguable point on where to draw it, yet I largely agree with you. The problem comes when we discuss how to deal with reformism. Should we struggle against trade unionist and reformist ideas? Yes. But we should also support workers in their struggle to increase their standard of life within capitalism; to do this, workers engage in reformist politics. So this is essentially a contradiction in the beliefs that we should hold (the same way that we support both workers rights and the development of capitalism which decays those rights and leads workers closer to revolution).

You touched and incredibly crucial point: the contradiction of supporting workers struggles for making their daily lives better and struggling against reformist and trade unionist ideas. This contradiction is vital, because communism flowers inside workers’ struggle for their daily interests, and an expression of their need for emancipation from wage labour, capital, and the state, when workers start to struggle for their own interests autonomously from the unions and self-proclaimed workers’ parties.

In the same way the communist organisation is formed organically inside this struggle, and is born from the international union of the most radical, and determined minorities’ interventions in the class struggle, which express the antagonism between workers and capital.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 29 2006, 10:00 AM

Nobody&#39;s who&#39;s ever led a revolution - has ever been so dogmatic as to reject on principle, participation in elections.

Mao?
I doubt it. That&#39;d be ironic, if he supported the Kuomintang but rejected participation in elections.

The politics practiced by the Chinese Communist Party had little in common with the politics it later recommended to small groups in some other countries.

[Leo]

That&#39;d be ironic, if he supported the Kuomintang but rejected participation in elections.

Well, to be fair, there weren&#39;t elections in China so that Mao could reject to participate.

[Severian]

Right, that&#39;s what I said earlier.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

el Che?

[Severian]

Don&#39;t be ridiculous.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Che advocated participation in bourgeois elections?

He did say, "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted." But he never advocated participation in them.

In fact, later on, he even changed his ideas, and thought that the guerrilla outbreak could be promoted under bourgeois-democratic regimes.

In the Message to the Tricontinental, he said "It is absolutely just to avoid all useless sacrifices. Therefore, it is so important to clear up the real possibilities that dependent America may have of liberating itself through pacific means. For us, the solution to this question is quite clear: the present moment may or may not be the proper one for starting the struggle, but we cannot harbor any illusions, and we have no right to do so, that freedom can be obtained without fighting. And these battles shall not be mere street fights with stones against tear-gas bombs, or of pacific general strikes; neither shall it be the battle of a furious people destroying in two or three days the repressive scaffolds of the ruling oligarchies; the struggle shall be long, harsh, and its front shall be in the guerrilla&#39;s refuge, in the cities, in the homes of the fighters — where the repressive forces shall go seeking easy victims among their families — in the massacred rural population, in the villages or cities destroyed by the bombardments of the enemy."

[Janus]

Why not let conditions get worse?
We could but we would loose mass support.

In fact, why not push them in that direction?
So we should force the conditions to get so terrible? We should purposely put so much strain on the people? You&#39;re acting as if people are simply tools for you to manipulate which is quite elitist.

[Severian]

None of which is a rejection on principle, of participation in elections.