Working Class Organizing: Dead?

[CNT-FAI]

Hello all, i'm new here.

Given the fact that few working people even know of the existence of radical organizations, don't we need to admit failure & radically revamp our thinking & tactics? Can we revive working class organizing, or is it simply no longer relevant to the 21st century US?

I believe it IS relevant, but why do political tendencies that used to practice it no longer do so? Granted the working classes are not what they were prior to the New Deal & WW2.

I believe we on the left talk too much to each other in non-productive ways. Focusing too much on foreign politcy issues, for example, is not going to help radicalize the US worker, who is mainly concerned with her/his immediate conditions.

I'd like to recomend the neglected classic THE POLITICAL ILLUSION, by Jaques Ellul, in which he explains why all political parties are obsolete & how to replace them with interest blocs that can take action independently of whichever party is in power.

In sum i think we need to radicalize ourselves first, examining our own errors & failures before we presume to bring about external change. Much of the Left seems to look backward more than forward & has not adapted to changing conditions or the lessons of history. This must change if we hope to become anything more than a marginal force.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Given the fact that few working people even know of the existence of radical organizations, don't we need to admit failure & radically revamp our thinking & tactics? Can we revive working class organizing, or is it simply no longer relevant to the 21st century US?

I think this can only happen if we stand together and distance us from and reject the leninist experiments as a failure of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The proletariat, especially in the West, is not too fond of leninism/stalinism (and I am considering adding "thankfully").

[Rawthentic]

You have some good ideas there comrade. I too agree that the "Leninist" experiments failed in attaining socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat, but we need to examine why. First, it is ridiculous to assume the "Leninist" parties necessarily lead to a dictatorship over the proletariat. What happened in Russia, China, and the other nations was a combination of adverse material conditions, the rise of alienating bureaucracies, and the isolation of these nations from the rest of the world. Now, I don't apologize for leaders such as Mao, Stalin, or others, but there are concrete reasons as to why these experiments failed. It wouldn't be correct to assume that, just because the Black Panther Party held a Marxist-Leninist ideology, it would lead to a despotism. In the United States at that time and now there are incredibly advanced material conditions that can have a better possibility to support a socialist society, at least relative to those in the underdeveloped nations.

This said, it is necessary to analyze past working-class and oppressed movements around the world to apply them to today to better serve the working-class and oppressed.

[CNT-FAI]

I agree. Fortunately Leninism/Stalinism are not high-profile menaces in the US. In fact i think our biggest obstacle so far is ourselves, that is, the Left without invoking any sectarian specifics. Translating theory into practice is a big task, it's much easier to just talk or write about it.

[Rawthentic]

I agree with you. What strategies do you have in mind, or what experiences have you had here.

I have always thought that it is important for communist organizations to implement programs that can make them a part of that community, like th Black Panthers did with their Free Breakfast for Children, Liberation schools, and Free Medical Clinics programs. This made the BPP an "oxen for the people to ride" as Huey Newton said.

[CNT-FAI]

Before WW2, the Communist Party did the same sorts of community-based work. Altho not a Communist, i believe this is something that could & should be revived. Local groups can take this on.

What i'm offering is not so much a bluebrint but rather an invitation to examine certain issues, &, I hope for us to get together collectively to solve the problems. "Criticism & self-criticism", with respect.

I would want to intensively discuss our failures & how we might correct them. To me this involves the radical step of admitting defeat. The fact that neofascism, imperialism, & colonialism are still alive & well with little effective opposition proves this IMO.

Unlike you i believe that tyranny is inherant in Marxism-Leninism. It has always turned out that way because there is no built in system of democratic checks & balances. Thus it always turns into sheer opportunistic dictatorship. I'm more of an anarcho-syndicalist myself.

One major flaw in Marx's work is that he never detailed the socialist & communist future; he only made vague generalizations which were easily subject to abuse by unscrupulous men.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by CNT-[email protected] 25, 2007 02:27 pm
Before WW2, the Communist Party did the same sorts of community-based work. Altho not a Communist, i believe this is something that could & should be revived. Local groups can take this on.

What i'm offering is not so much a bluebrint but rather an invitation to examine certain issues, &, I hope for us to get together collectively to solve the problems. "Criticism & self-criticism", with respect.

I would want to intensively discuss our failures & how we might correct them. To me this involves the radical step of admitting defeat. The fact that neofascism, imperialism, & colonialism are still alive & well with no effective opposition proves this IMO.

Unlike you i believe that tyranny is inherant in Marxism-Leninism. It has always turned out that way because there is no built in system of democratic checks & balances. Thus it always turns into sheer opportunistic dictatorship. I'm more of an anarcho-syndicalist myself.

One major flaw in Marx's work is that he never detailed the socialist & communist future; he only made vague generalizations which were subject to abuse by unscrupulous men.
Marxism-Leninism does not on its own breed nasty dictatorships. I went over this already. Adverse material conditions as well as huge imperialist powers breathing down there neck necessarily created strict, hierarchical rule. This, combined with Lenin's strict vanguard party of elites, created this.

Marx had no need to create a blueprint of the communist future, it is through the tools of Marxism and our organization that will be able to create a stateless, classless society.

Comrade, if you would like to discuss Leninism and why you think it breeds dictatorships, I really encourage you to make a thread in the Theory section so that we can have a wide discussion on it. It would benefit me as well as others.

[CNT-FAI]

Well, i think here you may be assuming what you wish to prove. Now, in the case of the USSR the early Western approach was soon not at all unfriendly. I recommend a great piece of "suppressed history", voluminously documented, called WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & SOVIET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol 1, by Sutton.

It destroys the myth, created by US Rightists & many on the Left as well, that the early USSR was under seige & pulled itself up by its Bolshevik bootstraps. In fact the early Soviet economic infrastructure was mainly built by US, British, & some other nation's corporations (mostly the US). This book changes our whole view of the 2oth century.

It may seem bizarre, but it was possible because President Hoover was committed to free trade & did not feel he could prohiubit US firms from doing business with Lenin. (Capitalists don't care where they make their profits - they also traded with Nazi German until WW2 began.)

[Rawthentic]

What are you trying to prove here?

Material conditions had alot to do why the USSR became what it did as well as horrible and corrupt leadership. Russia could have been socialist if there was more worker and peasant control to oversee the process of industrialization and such.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One major flaw in Marx's work is that he never detailed the socialist & communist future; he only made vague generalizations

Unlike you, Marx didn't have a crystal ball.

[CNT-FAI]

People often respond, "Well then, its a good thing the West built up the USSR, so Stalin could defeat Hitler."

This argument overlooks the fact that exploiting hate & fear of Bolshevism was a main engine of Nazism, & it's very possible that that without a strong Leninist/Stalinist Russia built by US capital, WW2 never would have occured.

[CNT-FAI]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25, 2007 10:48 pm

One major flaw in Marx's work is that he never detailed the socialist & communist future; he only made vague generalizations

Unlike you, Marx didn't have a crystal ball.
I don't think it's a question of having a crystal ball. If i advocate social change, then i think i'm responsible for providing some structure for that future, some kind of constitution or what have you. I think there has to be a concrete framework to hang the change on, otherwise it will get hijacked.

[The Grey Blur]

Judging from this thread Anarchists are a lot more fixated with Lenin than we "Leninists" are.

[Rawthentic]

Then why don't you contribute to the thread then?

[Phalanx]

Given the fact that few working people even know of the existence of radical organizations, don't we need to admit failure & radically revamp our thinking & tactics? Can we revive working class organizing, or is it simply no longer relevant to the 21st century US?

Good question. Unions today are in such a dire state because of the Cold War and the Red Scare. The government played the treason card to break up any organized labor organizations. Even now they haven't recovered, but I think the future will definately see growth in organized labor. Workers today are seeing their quality of life dwindle as the economy is booming on paper. This will only lead to organizing on the part of the workers. Of course, it won't happen without some prodding.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25, 2007 11:50 pm
Judging from this thread Anarchists are a lot more fixated with Lenin than we "Leninists" are.
Excellent point.