A Few Random Questions

[The Grey Blur]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas? Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism. That question is mainly for Anarchists (or "Left" Communists) who outright reject participation in the bourgeois democratic process.

Does everyone on the board agree that a revolutionary situation is when a situation of dual power exists? When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled. An examples would be the Soviets of Russia and the Provisional Government in 1917. If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?

I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class. As such (to quote/paraphrase from the Manifesto) "we should not create seperate organisations" and we should work within these unions to destroy this bureaucracy and replace it with rank and file-accountable leadership. If you disagree with this, why?

I think that Anarcho-Syndicalism/Economism is flawed in that in focuses on narrow economic issues and a narrow strata of the oppressed classes. It neglects the poor, the families of workers, farm labourers/peasants (though in SPain they suceeded here), soldiers, and those elements of the intelligentsia and middle classes who will side with the communist revolution. The above paragraph on unions also applies to non-mass Syndicalist organisations in that they create ideologically thorough but isolated unions. I think that Syndicalism neglects the political side of the struggle and will fall into Economism or panic in a revolutionary situation and end up in a reformist situation, despite the mass existence of worker's councils - I take this opinion from the failures of the Italian Socialists in the late 1910s and the Spanish revolution. I feel a central political grouping is neccessary, a democratic one, which can carry out the nitty-gritty details of funding, political education, recruitment, organisation, coordination, campaigning. How will an Anarcho-Syndicalist union carry out a revolution which requires it to move outside it's sphere (no matter how important the work-place revolutionary step is)? To seize the real centres of capitalist power - the banks, the means of communications, the armed forces and the rest of the state.

Also, does Anarchist opposition to the state, on the same level as capitalism, mean they could hypothetically ally with the reaction/counter-revolution against a worker's state?

Was the October revolution of Russia 1917, the seizure of power by the working-class, voted on in the soviets? Or was the decision taken from within the Bolshevik Party (though it did have mass support)?

Any info on Makhno and the Haymarket martyrs? I'd like to learn more.

Anyway, I'm just back from the May Day march here and it was pretty good and I've sat for like four hours chatting with fellow Socialist of all different stripes so I'm full of questions and opinions at the moment. I am not trying to start a fight or shit stir or belittle any political movement or ideology, I'm just looking for a bit of discussion backed up with facts and opinions that we can al learn from.

PS - I was reading an Anarcha-feminist review and it contained a short section titled "What Attributes to Look Out For In A Possible Rapist" (prone to arguments, belittles your opinions, invades your personal space) and I fitted every single criteria. I am very worried. :unsure:

[Rawthentic]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas?
Personally, no. We should agitate, more than anywhere, with the workers, by the workers, as one of them. Reformism is a confusion of the real goal, revolution.

I also agree with all you said about syndicalism, a proletarian vanguard is necessary that unites all the struggles as an umbrella organization.

And about the question on the state, thats not even a serious one. If they ally against it, they can be placed and repressed along with the counterrevolutionaries.

Well, the Russian working class did take power on their own, and the Bolsheviks gained a majority through their program.

The Haymarket martyrs were anarchists who were executed for allegedly throwing a bomb that killed some people.

[Fightin Da Man]

Trying to beat them at their own game means they've already won, as Crimethinc says. You may make some small changes within the basic framework by running in elections, but the kind of resources that it takes to get elected in this day and age (in the US anyway, maybe it's different elsewhere) makes it seem to me that the money would be better spent on other activities.

[Leo]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas?

No... Although I would agree that it was a good idea in the past, say, before 1914, now it is simply absurd.


Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism.

Even if we assume that the people sent to the parliament won't be won over by the bourgeois life the parliament gives, it's not worth the effort to begin with. "Campaigns" of communists should be focused on the class, generalization of class struggle, organization of flying pickets etc. not on getting elected to office which is merely useless. The working class is what matters to communists, and thus independent organs of the working class: workers' councils, not bourgeois parliaments are what communists should be interested in.


When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled. An examples would be the Soviets of Russia and the Provisional Government in 1917.

Yes, if I recall correctly the Soviets destroyed the Provisional Government in 1917.


If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?

No, Venezuela is a capitalist state, there aren't any independent working class organs but "self-management" (read: self-exploitation) under the guidance of "Bolivarian" bureaucrats.


I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class.

I personally think that no matter how open or left-wing, unions are inherently organization of their bureaucratic leadership which is attached to the bourgeoisie. Not only are the unions incapable of undertaking revolutionary action but also they are incapable of defending worker’s basic living conditions in the here and now. When workers' are militantly struggling for their class demands, they are first of all struggling against the union which doesn't want them to struggle at all and then against the capitalists. Unions are not much different than social clubs or civil foundations. In reality the only thing that the unions do is to divide workers into different sectional groups, and pull their class interests as a whole behind social democratic slogans. Calling for the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!" means calling for the destruction of all existing unions, as all workers from different ideologies, different countries, different sectors, different unions and all non-unionized and unemployed workers coming together would mean that there wouldn't be unions anymore and that the bureaucratic union leadership is useless.


Was the October revolution of Russia 1917, the seizure of power by the working-class, voted on in the soviets? Or was the decision taken from within the Bolshevik Party (though it did have mass support)?

It was voted in the military committees of the Petrograd and Moscow soviets, not the Bolshevik Party. I think many were opposed to the revolution from within the Bolshevik Party at the beginning, including Zinoviev, Kamanev and Stalin - the right wing of Bolsheviks at that point.

[The Grey Blur]

Personally, no. We should agitate, more than anywhere, with the workers, by the workers, as one of them. Reformism is a confusion of the real goal, revolution.


Trying to beat them at their own game means they've already won, as Crimethinc says. You may make some small changes within the basic framework by running in elections, but the kind of resources that it takes to get elected in this day and age (in the US anyway, maybe it's different elsewhere) makes it seem to me that the money would be better spent on other activities.

I never suggested reformism, I suggested using elections, with their massive political weight for the non-class conscious, as a tool for propaganda. That said, reforms are a good thing, and should be celebrated and defended when won. Our problem with reformism isn't what you both are saying but that it cannot bring an end to the Capitalist system - a revolution is required for that.

I also don't advocate putting more emphasis on elections than other elements of the class struggle.

I'll respond to the rest of your posts and Leo's later, I'm just a bit busy at the mo. Thanks for the response anyway.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I agree that trade unions should be "infultrated" as it where and then an elected council from each sector (trade) could form a vanguard os some sorts...but not an "iron party" like the bolshevicks, one ehich makes decisions on the vote of the current unions. This would give the left something to look up to as something thats doing something for them...a leader of some sorts. BTW this is pre revolution.
There should also be a militia for each union...so after an incident ( a kind of spark) the revolution kicks off!!!

On elections...im not sure, its costley, but a good form of propoganda. I think if a communists party became to popular then the bourguoise would "tame" it some how!

Also we need to defeat the bourguoise hedgemony (yes im a euro-communist of sorts!) i.e a big paper and TV chanel etc. Propoganda is important, to make the workers feel alienated and promote class-conciousness, which leads to support.

I dont understand what you mean about syndicalism

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 05, 2007 05:32 pm
When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas? Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism. That question is mainly for Anarchists (or "Left" Communists) who outright reject participation in the bourgeois democratic process.

Yes we should

Does everyone on the board agree that a revolutionary situation is when a situation of dual power exists? When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled. An examples would be the Soviets of Russia and the Provisional Government in 1917. If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?
Such a situation is certainly a revolutionary situation
I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class. As such (to quote/paraphrase from the Manifesto) "we should not create seperate organisations" and we should work within these unions to destroy this bureaucracy and replace it with rank and file-accountable leadership. If you disagree with this, why?
Unions are in theroy a good thing and we should work to improve them and make them good in practice also.
Also, does Anarchist opposition to the state, on the same level as capitalism, mean they could hypothetically ally with the reaction/counter-revolution against a worker's state?
I doubt it. There is no reason for them to side with reactionaries

[syndicat]

think that Anarcho-Syndicalism/Economism is flawed in that in focuses on narrow economic issues and a narrow strata of the oppressed classes. It neglects the poor, the families of workers, farm labourers/peasants (though in SPain they suceeded here), soldiers, and those elements of the intelligentsia and middle classes who will side with the communist revolution. The above paragraph on unions also applies to non-mass Syndicalist organisations in that they create ideologically thorough but isolated unions. I think that Syndicalism neglects the political side of the struggle and will fall into Economism or panic in a revolutionary situation and end up in a reformist situation, despite the mass existence of worker's councils - I take this opinion from the failures of the Italian Socialists in the late 1910s and the Spanish revolution. I feel a central political grouping is neccessary, a democratic one, which can carry out the nitty-gritty details of funding, political education, recruitment, organisation, coordination, campaigning. How will an Anarcho-Syndicalist union carry out a revolution which requires it to move outside it's sphere (no matter how important the work-place revolutionary step is)? To seize the real centres of capitalist power - the banks, the means of communications, the armed forces and the rest of the state.

There is no reason for anarcho-syndicalism to focus on "narrow economic issues and a narrow strata of the oppressed classes." In Workers Solidarity Alliance we advocate the development of mass organizations not only in workplaces but also in the community, and recognize structures of oppression based on race/nationality and gender/sexual orientation which also generates or influences struggles. For example, in the late '80s/early '90s one of our main areas of focus was reproductive rights and defense of abortion clinics. We were also active in Hostess, an anti-gaybashing street patrol in San Francisco. We've been active in anti-gentrification struggles here in San Francisco, which are both class struggles but also with an anti-racist dimension since displacement tends to especially affect communities of color.

This all fits in with our strategy of developing self-managed mass organization in the community as well as the workplaces.

You seem to think of anarcho-syndicalism only as the advocacy of a union organization and not a political organization. Historically there have been two different views among anarcho-syndicalists. There are some who see a particular union organization as the be-all and end-all, maybe. I don't think that most syndicalists see it that way nowadays.

Historically there were those anarcho-syndicalists who have also advocated a separate "specific" (political) organization, as WSA does. WSA is a specific group, not a union. Historical examples include the Turin Libertarian Group (anarcho-syndicalist worker activist political group) which played an important role in the building of the cross-union workplace councils at the time of the almost-revolution and mass factory occupation in Italy in 1920. Another example are the FAI groups that acted as anarchist political caucuses in the CNT union in Spain in the '30s.

In the case of the Spanish revolution, your analysis of their mistakes doesn't hold up. In July of '36, after the union defense organization defeated the fascist army in Barcelona, the union federation had a debate on whether to overthrow the government and take power. It was the radical syndicalist unionists from an industrial suburb area near Barcelona who advocated overthrow of the government. The people advocating caution and collaboration with the Popular Front parties were intellectuals from the FAI. but the FAI was exactly a political organization, formed to influence the CNT in a revolutionary direction. formation of a political organization doesn't ensure that that organization itself will not make mistakes.

Moreover, the CNT did create its own army, and eventually did propose seizure of the banks, and the taking over the governing authority by the unions, creation of a new "people's courts" system, and a unified people's militia.

Either it is the working class itself that runs things, and if so it needs its mass organizations for this, or else it is some political vanguard group trying to set up its own state power. You can't have it both ways. Political organization has a role, as an influence within the mass organizations, but not substituting itself for the mass demoracy of the working class. The latter is only the road to some new managerialist mode of production, retaining class subordination and exploitation.

[KC]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas?

It depends on the situation. Electoral politics should never be the primary goal or work for socialists. If it is possible to win elections without allocating too many organizational resources into that area, then sure it wouldn't be bad. Of course, we also have to ask how effective it would be to have someone elected. I think that the effrectiveness of this tactic is what determines whether or not it should be done.


Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism. That question is mainly for Anarchists (or "Left" Communists) who outright reject participation in the bourgeois democratic process.


That is one way of doing it, yes. Another way would be to remove the individual from the organization or from any leadership or decision making processes in that organization and make his actions within the government subordinate to the will of the organization. This way the organization is determining the elected individual's policy and therefore he is merely serving as a relayer of political actions, political outlook and political ideology in general.


Does everyone on the board agree that a revolutionary situation is when a situation of dual power exists? When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled.

I don't think that's the only way a revolutionary situation manifests itself, but that is one form.


If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?

Venezuela's walking a thin line between true proletarian revolution and petty-bourgeois socialism.



I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class. As such (to quote/paraphrase from the Manifesto) "we should not create seperate organisations" and we should work within these unions to destroy this bureaucracy and replace it with rank and file-accountable leadership. If you disagree with this, why?

I completely agree with this, and if the unions are beyond saving then communists should assist workers in creating new unions to both combat the old ones and to represent the interests of the proletariat.


Personally, no. We should agitate, more than anywhere, with the workers, by the workers, as one of them. Reformism is a confusion of the real goal, revolution.

Having elected officials in government isn't reformism. Permanent Revolution wasn't suggesting to use them as tools of reform, but to voice the interests of the working class within government. That definitely isn't reformism.


Trying to beat them at their own game means they've already won, as Crimethinc says. You may make some small changes within the basic framework by running in elections, but the kind of resources that it takes to get elected in this day and age (in the US anyway, maybe it's different elsewhere) makes it seem to me that the money would be better spent on other activities.

Again, I don't think this is an all-or-nothing decision; it's a decision that depends on the conditions present at the time.


Either it is the working class itself that runs things, and if so it needs its mass organizations for this, or else it is some political vanguard group trying to set up its own state power.

The vanguard is part of the working class. Stop posting this crap; I've already refuted it.

[Whitten]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas? Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism. That question is mainly for Anarchists (or "Left" Communists) who outright reject participation in the bourgeois democratic process.

Yes, we should opperate and try to spread our influence whereever it will be noticed by the working class as a whole. There are few better arena's than Parliaments for this (and if we get lucky we may even be able to block some of the more extreme reactionary laws.) I, ofcourse, dont advocate reformism as a strategy, rather a form of high-profile political agitation.


Does everyone on the board agree that a revolutionary situation is when a situation of dual power exists? When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled. An examples would be the Soviets of Russia and the Provisional Government in 1917. If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?

Yes to the first question and the second question. In Venezuela there is a growing conflict between the working class organisations and the Capitalists, and the government (however reformist you see them as) are clearly siding with the working class against the Bourgeois. This is a revolutionary situation, which can ever be seen as the dying phase of capitalism or the early stages of socialism.


I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class. As such (to quote/paraphrase from the Manifesto) "we should not create seperate organisations" and we should work within these unions to destroy this bureaucracy and replace it with rank and file-accountable leadership. If you disagree with this, why?

I agree, although I personally believe Unions will only play a minimal role in future radical politics, they should be used as what they are, an organising ground for working class industrial action.


I think that Anarcho-Syndicalism/Economism is flawed in that in focuses on narrow economic issues and a narrow strata of the oppressed classes. It neglects the poor, the families of workers, farm labourers/peasants (though in SPain they suceeded here), soldiers, and those elements of the intelligentsia and middle classes who will side with the communist revolution. The above paragraph on unions also applies to non-mass Syndicalist organisations in that they create ideologically thorough but isolated unions. I think that Syndicalism neglects the political side of the struggle and will fall into Economism or panic in a revolutionary situation and end up in a reformist situation, despite the mass existence of worker's councils - I take this opinion from the failures of the Italian Socialists in the late 1910s and the Spanish revolution. I feel a central political grouping is neccessary, a democratic one, which can carry out the nitty-gritty details of funding, political education, recruitment, organisation, coordination, campaigning. How will an Anarcho-Syndicalist union carry out a revolution which requires it to move outside it's sphere (no matter how important the work-place revolutionary step is)? To seize the real centres of capitalist power - the banks, the means of communications, the armed forces and the rest of the state.

I agree, especially as traditional industrial settings (such as high-manpower factories) are becomming far less common in the first world, with many (most?) people employed in alternate forms of production.


Also, does Anarchist opposition to the state, on the same level as capitalism, mean they could hypothetically ally with the reaction/counter-revolution against a worker's state?

On an ideological level no, ofcourse not. On a practical level yes, as the elimination of a workers state prior to the complete destruction of the bourgeois will just result in the rise of a new capitalist state.


Was the October revolution of Russia 1917, the seizure of power by the working-class, voted on in the soviets? Or was the decision taken from within the Bolshevik Party (though it did have mass support)?

It was voted on in the soviets., with the Bolsheviks initially split as to whether the time was right.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 05, 2007 06:33 pm
I agree that trade unions should be "infultrated" as it where and then an elected council from each sector (trade) could form a vanguard os some sorts...but not an "iron party" like the bolshevicks, one ehich makes decisions on the vote of the current unions. This would give the left something to look up to as something thats doing something for them...a leader of some sorts. BTW this is pre revolution.
There should also be a militia for each union...so after an incident ( a kind of spark) the revolution kicks off!!!

On elections...im not sure, its costley, but a good form of propoganda. I think if a communists party became to popular then the bourguoise would "tame" it some how!

Also we need to defeat the bourguoise hedgemony (yes im a euro-communist of sorts!) i.e a big paper and TV chanel etc. Propoganda is important, to make the workers feel alienated and promote class-conciousness, which leads to support.

I dont understand what you mean about syndicalism
what does this make me???

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+May 05, 2007 08:21 pm--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg @ May 05, 2007 08:21 pm)
Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 05, 2007 06:33 pm
I agree that trade unions should be "infultrated" as it where and then an elected council from each sector (trade) could form a vanguard os some sorts...but not an "iron party" like the bolshevicks, one ehich makes decisions on the vote of the current unions. This would give the left something to look up to as something thats doing something for them...a leader of some sorts. BTW this is pre revolution.
There should also be a militia for each union...so after an incident ( a kind of spark) the revolution kicks off!!!

On elections...im not sure, its costley, but a good form of propoganda. I think if a communists party became to popular then the bourguoise would "tame" it some how!

Also we need to defeat the bourguoise hedgemony (yes im a euro-communist of sorts!) i.e a big paper and TV chanel etc. Propoganda is important, to make the workers feel alienated and promote class-conciousness, which leads to support.

I dont understand what you mean about syndicalism
what does this make me??? [/b]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking what ideological category of school of socialism you fall into based on those views? If so any number of possibly ideologies, although it does sound vairly syndicalist.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:34 pm
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking what ideological category of school of socialism you fall into based on those views? If so any number of possibly ideologies, although it does sound vairly syndicalist.
Yeah i usually say non-aliogned left or council communist

[Labor Shall Rule]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas?

I think that anything that would further the class struggle further--should be endorsed without a moment's breath. Through participation in the bourgeois spectacle of elections, we increase the political activity of the working class as a whole, and present them as a force that is to be reckoned with. It is obvious that Allende was overthrown because the result of his election; the workers had started to seize their factories and demand arms, because the entire process had illuminated certain class forces that wished to retain control over the copper mines, factories, and land plots. It is a method of not creating socialism, but of fueling sentiments for it.


When worker's organisations and the bourgeois apparatus are in direct competition and a political vacuum exists which must be filled. An examples would be the Soviets of Russia and the Provisional Government in 1917.

I concur. The Provisional Government, under the banner of the Cadets with the joint-leadershing of Kornilov and Kerensky, attempted to march troops into Petrograd in order to destroy the Soviet. This incident corresponded with the decision to overthrow the governing stratum that was made by a coalition of soviets, which later lead to the formation of the Military Revolutionary Committee that would oversee the insurrection.


If so, would you agree that Venezuela today (with it's factory seizures and mass socialist organisations) is in such a position? If not, why not?

The formation of the United Socialist Party, which is planning to hold a congress of influential socialist parties, will hopefully merge with each other in order to create a potent force within Venezuela. The UNT has endorsed worker's control of industry, and it's membership has been increasing daily. I read somewhere that they are proposing some sort of intiative to create a 'soviet'-like unit within workplaces.


Was the October revolution of Russia 1917, the seizure of power by the working-class, voted on in the soviets? Or was the decision taken from within the Bolshevik Party (though it did have mass support)?

It had mass support. It was voted on by the soviets.


September 1:
A wave of support floods the Soviet Central Executive Committee from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Central Asia, etc. 126 local Soviets demand the Petrograd Soviet take power. The Petrograd Soviet adopts a resolution to support the Bolshevik party. The Mensheviks and SRs try to filibuster, but the resulting vote is still devastating: 279 to 115. This brings Bolshevik support to four major cities: Petrograd, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kronstadt, and Krasnoyarsk. The number of land seizures by the peasants increases to 958 incidents. Meanwhile, Kerensky openly declares Russia a "Republic", and arrests General Kornilov.

Timeline of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/timeline/1917.htm)

[cenv]

When Socialists have enough support among the working-class to win seats in the bourgeois parliaments or to run seriously in elections, should we not do so and use them as a means to broadcast socialist ideas? Our election campaigns would be used to get across a revolutionary message and if elected these parliamentary representatives could be subject to recall and accept only a worker's wage, to ensure accountaility and to prevent careerism. That question is mainly for Anarchists (or "Left" Communists) who outright reject participation in the bourgeois democratic process.
This has been used as an excuse for participating in electoral politics in the past. Unfortunately, this is a case where the means tend to become the end, with disastrous consequences. Parties may start out genuinely interested in simply using bourgeois democracy to spread revolutionary ideas, but they usually end up more interested in succeeding in electoral politics than anything else.

Moreover, if we have attracted enough support to gain seats in the parliament, we most likely have enough of a following to spread class consciousness in more direct and less dangerous ways.


I personally believe that no matter how corrupt or right-wing, unions are inherently organisations of the working-class. As such (to quote/paraphrase from the Manifesto) "we should not create seperate organisations" and we should work within these unions to destroy this bureaucracy and replace it with rank and file-accountable leadership. If you disagree with this, why?
While working within unions should by no means be excluded, it's important to keep in mind that under capitalism, traditional trade unions server more to attempt to reconcile capitalism with the concept of workers' power. Hence, changing the nature of these organizations requires changing the entire function of them.


I think that Anarcho-Syndicalism/Economism is flawed in that in focuses on narrow economic issues and a narrow strata of the oppressed classes. It neglects the poor, the families of workers, farm labourers/peasants (though in SPain they suceeded here), soldiers, and those elements of the intelligentsia and middle classes who will side with the communist revolution.
Many of the elements you named would be members of the "oppressed classes". I'm not quite sure how syndicalism focuses on "narrow economic issues" or "a narrow strata of ... classes" though, as syndicalism is about the working class, which happens to include the vast majority of the world's population.

It's unclear how exactly you define "middle class", though. Are you referring to the petty-bourgeoisie? If so, I'm skeptical as to how interested the small businesses owners, managers, and such will be in joining a fundamentally proletarian struggle. Obviously, there will be exceptions, but in the end, the petty-bourgeoisie will tend to side with the capitalists. Or by "middle class" are you referring to teachers, nurses, and such? If so, most syndicalists would include them as a section of the "working class".

In the end, the basic idea behind syndicalism is that capitalism conflicts with the basic interests and needs of the working class, so the working class will struggle to overthrow capitalism. It follows logically that most of the employers will defend capitalism, though a few may switch loyalties. I'm not sure how you can simply dismiss this as "economism". Anarcho-syndicalists recognize the other factors involved in anti-capitalist struggles.


How will an Anarcho-Syndicalist union carry out a revolution which requires it to move outside it's sphere (no matter how important the work-place revolutionary step is)? To seize the real centres of capitalist power - the banks, the means of communications, the armed forces and the rest of the state.

Keep in mind that it's the good ol' working class that carries out the revolution, not some elite group (regardless of whether it's a "union" or a "party").


Also, does Anarchist opposition to the state, on the same level as capitalism, mean they could hypothetically ally with the reaction/counter-revolution against a worker's state?
This is such a hypothetical question and so removed from reality that it's impossible to answer it accurately. Obviously, it's going to depend on factors such as how exactly this "workers' state" is structured and who the anarchists in question are. In the end, keep in mind that anarchists are not a monolithic group of people with identical views... there's actually a huge variety of conflicting opinions within the anarchist camp.

[KC]

This has been used as an excuse for participating in electoral politics in the past. Unfortunately, this is a case where the means tend to become the end, with disastrous consequences. Parties may start out genuinely interested in simply using bourgeois democracy to spread revolutionary ideas, but they usually end up more interested in succeeding in electoral politics than anything else.

I doubt that merely participating in bourgeois politics is what caused this to happen. Usually such ideological and tactical shifts like that are more due to a vulgarization of party theory or a change in leadership.


Moreover, if we have attracted enough support to gain seats in the parliament, we most likely have enough of a following to spread class consciousness in more direct and less dangerous ways.

Of course, but it's a great tool to have to show bourgeois politics for what they really are - an illusion. That's a great tool in gaining support, as has happened in many circumstances.


While working within unions should by no means be excluded, it's important to keep in mind that under capitalism, traditional trade unions server more to attempt to reconcile capitalism with the concept of workers' power. Hence, changing the nature of these organizations requires changing the entire function of them.

The goal of working within unions isn't to change the nature of them, but to help the workers in the unions become class consciousness through a participation in the trade unionist struggle while also providing a revolutionary socialist perspective of that struggle.

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


Keep in mind that it's the good ol' working class that carries out the revolution, not some elite group (regardless of whether it's a "union" or a "party").

Proletarian revolution isn't a spontaneous action; in order for it to happen the proletariat must be organized.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:22 pm
This has been used as an excuse for participating in electoral politics in the past. Unfortunately, this is a case where the means tend to become the end, with disastrous consequences. Parties may start out genuinely interested in simply using bourgeois democracy to spread revolutionary ideas, but they usually end up more interested in succeeding in electoral politics than anything else.
It should be noted that the Bolshevik participation in the Duma elections of 1906 and in the Constituent Assembly helped in drastically increasing their support base. I would also like to note the disastrous concequences of the German Revolution when the KPD refused to participate in electoral politics.

[cenv]

The goal of working within unions isn't to change the nature of them, but to help the workers in the unions become class consciousness through a participation in the trade unionist struggle while also providing a revolutionary socialist perspective of that struggle.
I'm well aware of this. However, it sounded as if the original question related to changing the nature of unions.



Proletarian revolution isn't a spontaneous action; in order for it to happen the proletariat must be organized.
Obviously. However, it's also critical to note that anarcho-syndicalists do not envision a syndicalist union substituting itself for the working class. Permanent Revolution was talking about whether a syndicalist union would "seize" "the state", so I wanted to note that a syndicalist union is not simply something to replace the old state machinery. Rather, it is the collective organization of the workers designed to abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a radically democratic system of self-governance which anarchists would refer to as a "federation" and Marxists may call a "state".


It should be noted that the Bolshevik participation in the Duma elections of 1906 and in the Constituent Assembly helped in drastically increasing their support base. I would also like to note the disastrous concequences of the German Revolution when the KPD refused to participate in electoral politics.

Points taken. However, it should be noted in addition to that the vast array of revolutionary parties that have begun by running in elections as propaganda and gradually fallen into the abyss of petty-bourgeois socialism. As with anything, this may vary with the specific situation, but I stand by my original opinion that there tend to be more effective ways of spreading class-consciousness.

[The Grey Blur]

Zampano, RedDali, Whitten: I enjoy reading your posts, sound political ideas.

Cenv: You misrepresented my views a few times:


Permanent Revolution was talking about whether a syndicalist union would "seize" "the state"
No I wasn't.


It's unclear how exactly you define "middle class", though. Are you referring to the petty-bourgeoisie? If so, I'm skeptical as to how interested the small businesses owners, managers, and such will be in joining a fundamentally proletarian struggle. Obviously, there will be exceptions, but in the end, the petty-bourgeoisie will tend to side with the capitalists. Or by "middle class" are you referring to teachers, nurses, and such? If so, most syndicalists would include them as a section of the "working class".
The middle-classes is a non-scientific general term to describe certain elements of the petit-bourgeois and self-employed classes. These will side with the imminent proleterian revolution as their only means of survival. Teachers, etc are working-class.


In the end, keep in mind that anarchists are not a monolithic group of people with identical views... there's actually a huge variety of conflicting opinions within the anarchist camp.
Just like Communists then.

Cheers for all the replies I wouldn't sure this would get much of a response but I'll go into more depth later.

Oh and YCCC don't get other people to apply a label to yourself, get out and get active and see what theoretical idea you can apply to your activity.

[syndicat]

"middle class" is a confused term in that it used in contradictory ways. in the USA sometimes people mean just having enough income to own a house and a car, this is living a "middle class life style." When higher paid working class jobs are called "middle class" this is what it means. But this is contrary to the way "class" has been historically used in radical political economy. Marx and others in the tradition of radical political economy define a "class" by its power relations to other groups in social production.

There are different things that can be the basis of power in social product. Owning means of production is one way, and this gives rise to the capitalist class, as employers of wage labor.

But there is a substantial set of people with power over workers whose positions aren't due to ownership. These are the managers and the top professionals who also have influence over production (corporate lawyers, top engineers and accountants). I call this class the "coordinator" class. Their class position is defined by a relative monopolization of empowering condtitions (positions in a hierarchy, key expertise). This class has a charactertistic ideology, meritocracy, which says theys should be the people making the decisions because of their degrees, credentials, expertise, positions.

The capitalists are divided between the big capitalists and the small business class. The big capitalists -- the plutocracy -- have enough wealth that they don't deal much with workers directly. They are insulated from workers by layers of management. It's the coordinator class that workers deal with directly, exepct in small businesses.

The small business class differs from the big boys in that they have to do much of the coordinator class labor, planning and supervision, themselves. They often work long hours. They directly supervise their workers.

There is also a layer of lower-level professional workers who have a somewhat worker-like situation, despite their college degrees and professional status, and they often form unions and fight management. This includes RNs, teachers (except for the elite of tenured university professors), writers (except for elite pundits), social workers, application programmers, many commerical artists (except for celebrity artists). This layer is sort in a fuzzy or contradictory situation between the proletarian class and the coordinator class.

The plutocracy is about 2% of the population in the USA. the small business class is about 6% of the population. managers are about 12% of the population. i think the three elite classes -- plutocracy, coordinators, and small business class -- are about a fourth of the population.

Altho it makes sense for working people to vote to defend themselves against anti-working class politicians trying to get in office, the problem with a strategy oriented to elections is that it tends to focus on leaders, and especially tends to put to the front highly educated leaders from the educated professional/managerial strata. On the other hand, a strategy that focuses on mass mobilization and collective struggle focuses on ordinary working people, and helps to develop their own sense of power and self-confidence and consciousness.

Electoral politics tends to define politics in terms of a group of leaders being elected to run the state and implement a program topdown thru the hierarchy of the state. Thus it tends to empower the coordinator class whose cadres run the state.

[cenv]

No I wasn't.
My bad. I must have misinterpreted this sentence: "To seize the real centres of capitalist power - the banks, the means of communications, the armed forces and the rest of the state."

syndicat: Why d'you separate the traditional petty-bourgeoisie into a "coordinator class" and a "small business class". Don't you think small business owners and "coordinators" are generally members of the same class? This is something I always wonder when I read your articles on WSA and elsewhere. And where do self-employed people fit into your model?

[syndicat]

The basis of the power of the small busines class is different than that of the coordinator class. In one case due to a relative concentration or monopolization of expertise, connections, the power inherent in their job. They may own some small capital holdings, maybe some stocks or a small investment property, but their prospects aren't derived from capital ownership but their connections, expertise, credentials etc. Law firms and medical practices, altho they take a business form, are actually coordinator class positions because there is no value to the firm apart from the expertise, connections etc of the principals. A small business like a store or a small factory has value as a property apart from the owner. The small business class are capitalists, and capital ownership is a different form of power.

This is important to uderstand the nature of the mode of production in the countries run by Communist Parties, like the old Soviet Union. They are coordinatorist modes of production because that class is dominant. Those societies were not capitalist because the private wealth accumulating class had been eliminated from production.

Being self-employed is not in itself a class position. Depends on the circumstances. Sometimes you have people who are forced to work for companies as contractors, like some truck drivers or taxi drivers, but this is just a legal ruse to abrogate their unionization rights.

Sometimes workers who have a hard time finding work create a job for themselves through self-employment. If they don't employ someone else, they're not part of the capitalist class. But, if they own a business, it's true there is the potential for them to hire someone else, and if they are successful they may do so, and then they become a capitalist.

Some sorts of jobs are in a kind of fuzzy boundary line positioni in society. Self-employed are like that, as is the case also for the lower-level professionals, like teachers and social workers. People in these positions are more likely candidates as potential allies of the working class.

Class lines are not always real clear. How much capital exactly does someone have to own to move from the small business to big capitalist classes?