The Folly of Single-Cause Movements

[3A CCCP]

While I have already braced myself for the blasts that will be coming my way from the social democrats on this list, I am curious as to what reaction Communist list members will have to my post below.

As a Communist, I believe that the only way to achieve human rights for all people is through the framework of working class solidarity. The struggle is an economic class struggle that will only be resolved when capitalism has been reduced to a footnote in the history books. Single-cause movements are inherently social democratic in nature, and do not eliminate the root cause of social injustices - the capitalist system.

These single-cause, social democratic movements are akin to operating on and removing a malignant tumor from the body without follow up chemotherapy. The visible tumor may be gone, but the mestastized cancer is still in the system.

One glaring example of this is the contemporary “gay rights” crusade. This is a very narrowly focused, single cause movement that does not have a vested interest in liberating humanity from capitalist exploitation. On the contrary, gay rights activists seek to gain the “privileges” of heterosexuals and legitimize homosexuality within the framework of the bourgeois capitalist system.

A more classic example is the Afro-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. With all due respect to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., all he and the movement accomplished was to gain for black Americans the right to equal exploitation alongside whites!

On the one hand, “Jim Crow” laws and racial segregation were eliminated in the south and federal civil rights legislation was enacted. From that perspective the position of Afro-Americans improved - within the framework of American capitalist society.

On the other hand, the capitalist system not only remained intact, but became more stable due to a huge amount of steam being released from the U.S. bourgeois pressure cooker - steam that might have eventually blew the lid off!

And what happened to the leaders and organizations that led the civil rights movement during those years? For the most part, they have taken up a posture of sitting on the sidelines to monitor civil rights abuses that occur within the bourgeois system and take to the streets on occasion to protest an individual incident. They ought to put a few empty chairs on the side for the gay rights activists and myriad other single-cause social democrats who will be joining them once they have completed their individual “missions.”

The common denominator is the working class. Two people may be totally different in almost all ways (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, language, etc.), but the fact that they are both exploited workers is the glue that will bond them in the struggle against capitalism.

This is in contrast to single-cause movements which have a marked tendency to take on an elitist appearance and can divide people rather than unite them.

Single-cause movements led by social democrats are a dead end and, in fact, help the capitalists remain in power. The only way to remove the yoke of capitalist oppression from humanity is under the banner of the working class and the Communist Party!


3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Colonello Buendia]

I'm a member of a single cause movement. While the movement for human rights in Palestine provides financial aid and support to the people of Gaza and the West Bank it does not produce revolutionary tendency. I don't think that it's bad what we do because if we can help just 1 person with our supplies etc. then we're doing a good job, we're improving conditions on the ground. Ok so we're not starting a revolution but isn't it our duty to help these people? they've seen to much bloodshed and the Isrealis are too well armed for revolution to succeed so why can't we simply help the people? then once their conditions are improved and the Isrealis stood down something can happen. In some circumstances a single cause movement can expand and become really big. the anti war movement is a great example. All the left factions are united under one banner and enjoy support of the wider population (at least in Britain) so some people who still don't understand the problems with Capitalism come into contact with people who do at protests and things thus assisting in radicalizing a city/nation.

[Holden Caulfield]

do you disregard antifa in the same way Mikhail?
they are a single cause movement of sorts..

[BobKKKindle$]

Single-cause movements may not be able to overthrow capitalism or solve the root causes of social oppression, but they should still be supported, as such movements have historically been able to secure some gains within the framework of the system, and these gains have led to important changes in the condition of oppressed groups.

For example, the feminist movement argued for and eventually achieved the legalisation of abortion - an important gain, as it meant that women were able to access safe abortion, and so avoid the health risks which arise from illegal abortions. This was not an inherently anti-capitalist demand, as the benefits of legalisation were not limited to working women, and this reform did not lead to the elimination of womens oppression, but it was still progressive and demonstrates that there are some progressive reforms which can be made under capitalism by using popular movements to put pressure on the government, and to claim the the state is incapable of making any concessions is simply false. By participating in these movements, it is possible to engage with people who are not politically aware, and show how the oppression of a social group is the product of a social system, and so encourage them to take an interest in radical politics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am no great fan of single-cause movements, but I disagree with the assertion that they necessarily divert attention away from class struggle. As we all know, racism and other related forms of prejudice are often used by capitalists to divide workers and make it difficult for them to wage effective class struggle. Anything that reduces irrational prejudice in society makes it easier for workers to unite and therefore helps the class struggle.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I'll try and respond more fully later...but the OP reminded me of this quote:

"When we talk about equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace are beginning to catch up. If we keep going at this current rate, we will achieve full equality in about 475 years. I don't know about you, but I can't wait that long." -Lya Sorano

Whilst I do agree that these 'social democratic' movements as you call them, will only ever result in 'equality amongst slaves', equality amongst slaves is a prerequisite for the emancipation of the working class.

In the case of females, if they are not on equal status as men, then that denies the emancipation of half of the working class.

In the case of the LBGT community, if they are not on equal status as heterosexual society, then that effectively denies the emancipation of 10-15% of the population (or statistics from there about).

Same goes for the treatment of non-whites.

If you counter in all these facets, you are arguing for the emancipation of only a minority of the population!

Of course, its important to note that class status essentially over-rides such oppression. So, whilst women are generally in a less favourable position as men, a wealthy woman is not oppressed because money buys raw power. Of course, they can still face discrimination, just not in the economically disadvantaging way if effects working class women, which is really what communists want to fight.

My point is, the social revolution which we want is just as important as the economic one which we want...indeed, I see them as one and the same thing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of the three types of non-government organizations (NGOs) right now - single-issue, ideological, and multinational - the single-issue ones are the most effective, particularly at the local level.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders, I think we can all agree that the social and economic revolutions are both important - the question is one of priority: which revolution should be pursued first, given that we have limited resources and it may not be a good strategy to attack on all fronts at the same time.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders, I think we can all agree that the social and economic revolutions are both important - the question is one of priority: which revolution should be pursued first, given that we have limited resources and it may not be a good strategy to attack on all fronts at the same time.

As a Marxist, I argue class struggle along with feminist issues. Indeed, Marxist analysis gives the best description/arguments regarding feminism. I don't see the need to 'break our resources up.'

I don't understand what you mean by 'which revolution should we pursue first.' Changes in the economic production of society are bound to have their own social revolution; they are intrinsically connected. :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As a Marxist, I argue class struggle along with feminist issues. Indeed, Marxist analysis gives the best description/arguments regarding feminism. I don't see the need to 'break our resources up.'
If your approach is successful, excellent - keep going with it. My point was merely that such an approach may not always be successful in every environment. It was an indirect criticism of those comrades who take an all-or-nothing approach towards Marxist propaganda. Where I live it is difficult enough to get people to listen or read when you talk about class struggle - mention any other aspect of radical politics and you've almost certainly lost them.


I don't understand what you mean by 'which revolution should we pursue first.' Changes in the economic production of society are bound to have their own social revolution; they are intrinsically connected. :)
Yes, absolutely true. Economic revolution brings social revolution. But the reverse is not necessarily true: A social revolution - a radical change in social attitudes towards women, ethnic minorities etc. - does not have to bring economic revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Edric O, remember that one of my main criticisms of traditional "Marxism" was the reductionist notion that it had a "complete, integral world-outlook."

If so, how come it's taken so long for comrades to incorporate Maslow's hierarchy of needs into Marxist theory? [Hence my minimum-reformist-revolutionary program scheme, where "reformist" emphasizes issues of "employee empowerment" and all other aspects of "worker empowerment" over advanced social-welfarist issues like free housing for everybody]

How come nobody, until now, has raised the question of criticizing majoritarian democracy from a Marxist perspective (the wage slavery issue addressed in my "Connollyist" thread), ironically borrowing from the classical liberal criticisms of "mob rule"?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think we should try to push for whatever progress we can, wherever and however we can.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

If your approach is successful, excellent - keep going with it. My point was merely that such an approach may not always be successful in every environment. It was an indirect criticism of those comrades who take an all-or-nothing approach towards Marxist propaganda. Where I live it is difficult enough to get people to listen or read when you talk about class struggle - mention any other aspect of radical politics and you've almost certainly lost them.

Oh, I quite agree.

More often then not, extreme Marxist drivel puts me off - it bores me, because it becomes too theoretical and polemical.

For example, where I work I'm not going to start calling for the overthrow of the boss, but I will highlight, when changes to our wages or conditions are made, that such interests serve the boss, and indeed, how we create all this wealth for the boss. And how better we would be at managing the workplace ourselves.

And I'm not the only one who initiates it - I think if you went to any workplace you would find workers 'pissed off' at their bosses and how they are treated.

Class struggle doesn't have to mention Marx at all. ;-)


Yes, absolutely true. Economic revolution brings social revolution. But the reverse is not necessarily true: A social revolution - a radical change in social attitudes towards women, ethnic minorities etc. - does not have to bring economic revolution.Yes, well said. I think that summarises how I feel about the subject.

I would also add, that I think its opportunistic of some to put these issues 'off until the revolution.' I don't think it requires a revolution for women to be equal, or for racism to be attacked. Certainly, a revolution would speed such things up, but like that above quote said - I'm not going to mindlessly wait until such things happen - we should act today.

[rouchambeau]

3A CCCP:

Single-cause movements are inherently social democratic in nature, and do not eliminate the root cause of social injustices - the capitalist system.
Oh, the irony.

But really,

One glaring example of this is the contemporary “gay rights” crusade. This is a very narrowly focused, single cause movement that does not have a vested interest in liberating humanity from capitalist exploitation. On the contrary, gay rights activists seek to gain the “privileges” of heterosexuals and legitimize homosexuality within the framework of the bourgeois capitalist system.
And what is so wrong with that? Everyone should be fighting for the rights of homosexuals regardless of the economic framework in which heterosexism exists.


A more classic example is the Afro-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. With all due respect to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., all he and the movement accomplished was to gain for black Americans the right to equal exploitation alongside whites!
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, it's short-sighted (as are many of the goals of communists and anarchists), but doesn't make it something to be condemned. Again, we ought to fight for people of color whether or not we live under capitalism.


On the other hand, the capitalist system not only remained intact, but became more stable due to a huge amount of steam being released from the U.S. bourgeois pressure cooker - steam that might have eventually blew the lid off!
So, we might have been better off for not dealing with racism? But seriously, eliminating the racial dividers amongst peoples strengthens the possibility of change by the entire working-class. You have to fight racism to get the working-class united for revolution.


The common denominator is the working class. Two people may be totally different in almost all ways (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, language, etc.), but the fact that they are both exploited workers is the glue that will bond them in the struggle against capitalism.
History would disagree with you. As the American working-class began to include more and more people from different parts of the world (Asia, the Mid-East, Africa, South America) there has been less cohesion amongst the working-class. I'm speaking of things like the Anti-Coolie Riots, the animosity towards Latino immigrants held by many unions, etc. Racism isn't something that will just wither away, it's something that needs to be actively fought.


Single-cause movements led by social democrats are a dead end and, in fact, help the capitalists remain in power.
You have yet to show how that is the case.

[Zurdito]

I find the OP strange: obviously we would prefer it if the mass of the working class had arrived at revolutionary conclusions and joined workers parties, but clearly they haven't, otherwise by definition we would be in a revolutionary situation. Therefore it's expected that all kinds of reformist and single issue movements will arise as a response to the day to day struggles of various sections of the working class. This is due to a crisis of leadership in the working class which has not managed to unite these struggles and qualitatively lead them onwards towards a revolutionary workers party.

Trotsky idenitfied three kinds of demands: immediate, democratic, and transitional. As usual, he was right, and displaying the kind of good sense which hisenemies had long discarded of.

the first two kinds of demands are not necessarilly revolutionary, but are valid nonetheless, as we live under capitalism and have a responsibility to gain as many victories for the working class as possible, so that we may move towards a working class which is capable of challenging the system.

we are hardly likely to ahceive that if we don't throw our full critical support behind movements devoted to causes like anti-war, cancellation of thrid world debt, freedom for an oppressed nation, or improved wages and conditions for a certain part of the class. how can we expect to gain leadership of these struggles in order to make them reovltuionary, if we dismiss them for not being revolutionary?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Trotsky identified three kinds of demands: immediate, democratic, and transitional. As usual, he was right, and displaying the kind of good sense which his enemies had long discarded of.

the first two kinds of demands are not necessarily revolutionary, but are valid nonetheless, as we live under capitalism and have a responsibility to gain as many victories for the working class as possible, so that we may move towards a working class which is capable of challenging the system.

What makes transitional demands "revolutionary"? Given my extensive readings on the subject, revolutionary coating is put on essentially reformist demands. :confused:

[Zurdito]

What makes transitional demands "revolutionary"? Given my extensive readings on the subject, revolutionary coating is put on essentially reformist demands. :confused:

there is no such thing as a "reformist" demand as such. The progressive demands made by reformists in themselves are fine, the problem is that their progressive demands do not go far enough, and that they are part of an ideological framework which rejects revolution and emphasis cross-class politics. reformism is an ideology which actively ties the working class into capitalism by explicitly rejecting revolution, and demanding that liberal-democratic institutions like parliamentary democracy be sovereign and that workers must ultimately defer to them, and, at its most radical, by sowing the illusion that you can have a long term progress towards a utopia within capitalism.

Now clearly none of Trotsky's immediate, democratic or transitional demands state the above.

what is revolutionary about a transitional demand of course is that it links an immediate struggle to the broader need for a revolutionary programme, and encourages non objectively revolutionary workers to place on the bourgeoisie a demand which it cannot sustain in the long term, whilst openly stating that the bourgeoisie cannot effectively meet this demand and that only a social revolution can. This way, the old illusions in reformism are destroyed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

there is no such thing as a "reformist" demand as such. The progressive demands made by reformists in themselves are fine, the problem is that their progressive demands do not go far enough, and that they are part of an ideological framework which rejects revolution and emphasis cross-class politics. reformism is an ideology which actively ties the working class into capitalism by explicitly rejecting revolution, and demanding that liberal-democratic institutions like parliamentary democracy be sovereign and that workers must ultimately defer to them, and, at its most radical, by sowing the illusion that you can have a long term progress towards a utopia within capitalism.

Now clearly none of Trotsky's immediate, democratic or transitional demands state the above.

Forgive me, but I think the word "reformism" has undergone a significant change since the beginning of the 20th century, since now even the bourgeoisie are quite hostile to it. Nowadays, what used to be called "reformism" could be called "reductionist reformism" / "reformist reductionism" (ie, "nothing but reforms").

It's like Lenin lambasting tred-iunionizm (ie, "nothing but trade unions," or "trade-union reductionism"), which isn't really the same as modern trade unionism.

This is what we get when the "-ism" suffix has suffered so much abuse. :(


what is revolutionary about a transitional demand of course is that it links an immediate struggle to the broader need for a revolutionary programme, and encourages non objectively revolutionary workers to place on the bourgeoisie a demand which it cannot sustain in the long term, whilst openly stating that the bourgeoisie cannot effectively meet this demand and that only a social revolution can. This way, the old illusions in reformism are destroyed.

But the transitional demands are basically higher forms of welfarist demands. Trotsky never mentioned in them stuff about "employee empowerment," which I see as a much more significant type of non-revolutionary demand than demands like free housing. That can and should be taken a step further.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-and-maximum-t71845/index.html

[Zurdito]

Forgive me, but I think the word "reformism" has undergone a significant change since the beginning of the 20th century, since now even the bourgeoisie are quite hostile to it. Nowadays, what used to be called "reformism" could be called "reductionist reformism" / "reformist reductionism" (ie, "nothing but reforms").

It's like Lenin lambasting tred-iunionizm (ie, "nothing but trade unions," or "trade-union reductionism"), which isn't really the same as modern trade unionism.

This is what we get when the "-ism" suffix has suffered so much abuse. :(


The bourgeoisie are of course hostile to any challenge to their ability to manouvre free of limitations, this is why reformism in itself is a compromise between classes, inherently contradictory, and to some extent represents an aborted gain by the working class.

Regarding "nothing but reforms" - I don't see your point. It's impossible for any movement to not decide between acceptance of the bourgeois system, or rejection of it. Those who accept it are called reformist. Those who oscillate between theoretical rejection of capitalism and acceptance of it in practice called centrists. And those who hold a consistently revolutionary position are revolutionaries. Most existing "revolutionary" groups today are centrist to a greater or lesser degree. This is not the same as "reformist".



But the transitional demands are basically higher forms of welfarist demands. Trotsky never mentioned in them stuff about "employee empowerment," which I see as a much more significant type of non-revolutionary demand than demands like free housing. That can and should be taken a step further.


Actually he demanded full employment, a sliding scale of wages to match inflation, and a sliding scale of working hours. Are these realizable by capitalism in the long term? Would the forcing through of these demands - necessarilly by working class mass action - not empower workers?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#mt

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Sliding scale of wages" - is that not the same as what is the law in nine or ten states in terms of inflation-indexed, deflation-protected minimum wages? :confused:

[In general, I just don't like using the word "transitional." :( ]


Regarding "nothing but reforms" - I don't see your point. It's impossible for any movement to not decide between acceptance of the bourgeois system, or rejection of it. Those who accept it are called reformist.

Like I said, the word "reformism" has undergone a significant change since the beginning of the 20th century. Nowadays, any group that fights for reforms can be called "reformist" (heck, consider the Nepalese Maoists). :(

I also consider "revolutionary" pacifists to be reformists: those who think that the revolutionary change we keep talking about can be achieved peacefully... as if the bourgeoisie will surrender power to the pacifists' "revolutionary" program! :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

"Sliding scale of wages" - is that not the same as what is the law in nine or ten states in terms of inflation-indexed, deflation-protected minimum wages? :confused:

No, a sliding-scale of wages is one that increases by the exact same percentage as inflation increases.



Nowadays, any group that fights for reforms can be called "reformist"


wrong. a revolutionary organisation must fight for reforms, or else it renders itself irrelevant. the degeneration of the Nepalese maoists has nothing to do wth this, their ideology was always stageist, third-worldist, and nationalist. the issue is not that they placed too much emphasis on reforms, but that their cross-class strategy forced them to put forward reforms in place of rather than alongside revolution, in order to divert the class struggle and in order to strengthen the Nepalese bourgeoisie. Like Kautsky, you are upside-down on this question.


I also consider "revolutionary" pacifists to be reformists: those who think that the revolutionary change we keep talking about can be achieved peacefully... as if the bourgeoisie will surrender power to the pacifists' "revolutionary" program! :rolleyes:

A group which as part of its programme preaches to the working class that it should disarm itself is objectively anti-revolutionary and will usually explicitly reject revolution. However, it becomes specifically reformist when it explicitly calls for the legitimacy of bourgeois demcoracy above the struggle of the working class. Otheriwse, it is centrist, or something else. You claim these terms have "changed meaning", yet it seems to me that clear and precise concepts have been butchered and confused by unclear and imprecise sectarians. It's useful now to bring back some clarity and be clear on what reformism was and is: a cross-class ideology.

This is not the same as the working class fighting day to day for reforms: the default state of the working class under capitalism, defined as trade union consciousness by Lenin, and differentiated from reformism as an ideology. You cannot retrospectively re-define it as "reformism", because this existed before reformism and it gave rise to reformism. The concepts are hsitorically distinguishable To retrospectively redefine this as reformism is an inversion of history.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, a sliding-scale of wages is one that increases by the exact same percentage as inflation increases.

Not just the minimum wage, right?


wrong. a revolutionary organisation must fight for reforms, or else it renders itself irrelevant. the degeneration of the Nepalese maoists has nothing to do wth this, their ideology was always stageist, third-worldist, and nationalist. the issue is not that they placed too much emphasis on reforms, but that their cross-class strategy forced them to put forward reforms in place of rather than alongside revolution, in order to divert the class struggle and in order to strengthen the Nepalese bourgeoisie. Like Kautsky, you are upside-down on this question.

Again, that wasn't my point. The definition of words has changed over time. How else can one describe clearly "demands for real reform," unless one wishes to use the grammatically incorrect "reform demands"?

Other terms that have changed over time:

1) "Socialism" (corporate welfare)
2) "Social democracy" (welfarism and labourism)
3) "Communism" (Stalinism, but although this one can be fixed, it still sounds sectarian and "heads-up-in-the-clouds"-ish)
4) "Dictatorship" (tyranny)

Please read my articles.




A group which as part of its programme preaches to the working class that it should disarm itself is objectively anti-revolutionary and will usually explicitly reject revolution. However, it becomes specifically reformist when it explicitly calls for the legitimacy of bourgeois demcoracy above the struggle of the working class. Otheriwse, it is centrist, or something else. You claim these terms have "changed meaning", yet it seems to me that clear and precise concepts have been butchered and confused by unclear and imprecise sectarians. It's useful now to bring back some clarity and be clear on what reformism was and is: a cross-class ideology.

The "minimum demands" of the mass organization should pertain to constitutional-democratic, "labour"/"labourist," and "welfare"/"welfarist" issues. However, I also said in the RevMarx thread that the reformists will have their own interpretation of "maximum" demands, which is why I prefer to dump that latter term and instead use "reformist" and "revolutionary."

[Zurdito]

1) "Socialism" (corporate welfare)
2) "Social democracy" (welfarism and labourism)
3) "Communism" (Stalinism, but although this one can be fixed, it still sounds sectarian and "heads-up-in-the-clouds"-ish)
4) "Dictatorship" (tyranny)

Please read my articles.

you seem olbvisiou to the historical development of movements and concepts which defined terms like "socialism", "reformism" and "communism" in powerful ways, and that groups which represent a continuation of these movements have no reason to reject these labels, as doing so implies rejection of the historical continuation from the development of these principles, and rejection of the objective truths of social science laid out by Karl Marx. Your ahistorical butchering of langauge is harmful, because it implies an ahistorical butchering of concepts. i.e. when you retrospectively designate the workign class struggle for reforms as reformism. this shits all over the historical development of the working class as a class for itself, and that gains it made through this. this also impleis a lack of udnerstanding of the way in this was betrayed and co-opted into reformism - an ideological, historical development based on objective developments int he class struggle, which you cannot make disappear by simply changing the meaning of abstract terms.

[3A CCCP]

blackflagrevolutionary WROTE:
"I'm a member of a single cause movement. While the movement for human rights in Palestine provides financial aid and support to the people of Gaza and the West Bank it does not produce revolutionary tendency. I don't think that it's bad what we do because if we can help just 1 person with our supplies etc. then we're doing a good job, we're improving conditions on the ground. Ok so we're not starting a revolution but isn't it our duty to help these people? they've seen to much bloodshed and the Isrealis are too well armed for revolution to succeed so why can't we simply help the people?"

MY REPLY:
You're not a typical single cause movement trying to reconcile a social grievance in a bourgeois state. Despite what you wrote, your group is, in fact, assisting a people in resistance (if not revolution) against a military aggressor state (Israel). I applaud you! - 3A CCCP!/Mikhail


BOBKINDLES WROTE:
"Single-cause movements may not be able to overthrow capitalism or solve the root causes of social oppression, but they should still be supported, as such movements have historically been able to secure some gains within the framework of the system, and these gains have led to important changes in the condition of oppressed groups."

MY REPLY:
That's just my point. If we keep putting band aids on the social injustices of the capitalist system by fighting for one-cause issues we just strengthen the system and prolong its existence.

The ruling class will claim credit for any gain made within the framework of the capitalist system. Their line is usually something like, "See, our (bourgeois) democratic system works! It responds to the voice of the people and corrects injustices!"

Every time a liberal/social democratic single-cause movement makes a gain it releases steam from the bourgeois pressure cooker and is a defeat for the people in the long run. The ruling class is an expert at making just enough concessions to a single-cause movement to pacify them and prevent trouble from spreading any further.
-3A CCCP!/Mikhail


ManyAntsDefeatSpiders WROTE:
Whilst I do agree that these 'social democratic' movements as you call them, will only ever result in 'equality amongst slaves', equality amongst slaves is a prerequisite for the emancipation of the working class.
In the case of females, if they are not on equal status as men, then that denies the emancipation of half of the working class.

MY REPLY:
Sorry, but that is nonsense. In a capitalist society there is not going to be total (or even near total) equality of every one. We'd be waiting a long time if we wait for that to happen! And, if every one is equal, then why even have a revolution? - 3A CCCP!/Mikhail

[Die Neue Zeit]

you seem oblivious to the historical development of movements and concepts which defined terms like "socialism", "reformism" and "communism" in powerful ways, and that groups which represent a continuation of these movements have no reason to reject these labels, as doing so implies rejection of the historical continuation from the development of these principles, and rejection of the objective truths of social science laid out by Karl Marx.

So why did August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht reject the "double-duth" term known as "communism" already and adopted "social democracy" - long before the "communist" label was spoiled?

[I've merely followed their rejection and upgraded it to eliminate class ambiguities: proletocracy, social proletocracy, and [radical] social-labour democracy.]


Your ahistorical butchering of language is harmful, because it implies an ahistorical butchering of concepts.

Don't blame me: blame the bourgeoisie (dictatorship, socialism, and social democracy) and, to a lesser extent, the "Marxist-Leninist" revisionists (communism).


i.e. when you retrospectively designate the working class struggle for reforms as reformism. this shits all over the historical development of the working class as a class for itself, and that gains it made through this. this also implies a lack of understanding of the way in this was betrayed and co-opted into reformism - an ideological, historical development based on objective developments int he class struggle, which you cannot make disappear by simply changing the meaning of abstract terms.

"The phrases and watchwords which might serve to express the soul of the movement in one country may possibly stifle its soul and suffocate its expression in the other." (James Connolly)

[Zurdito]

3A CCP


MY REPLY:
That's just my point. If we keep putting band aids on the social injustices of the capitalist system by fighting for one-cause issues we just strengthen the system and prolong its existence.


The ruling class will claim credit for any gain made within the framework of the capitalist system. Their line is usually something like, "See, our (bourgeois) democratic system works! It responds to the voice of the people and corrects injustices!"

Every time a liberal/social democratic single-cause movement makes a gain it releases steam from the bourgeois pressure cooker and is a defeat for the people in the long run. The ruling class is an expert at making just enough concessions to a single-cause movement to pacify them and prevent trouble from spreading any further.
-3A CCCP!/Mikhail

Why do you think there is "inequality amongst slaves", Mikhail? Do/did the struggles for "equality amongst slaves" - i.e. fights by women, black people, and immgirants to get the vote and to enjoy equal status as everyone else, in the US for example - not in fact challenge the logic of domination in those countries?

you seem to miss the point that revolution is a qualitative change which results out of decades and years of quantitative struggles. the mass of the working class will not be revolutioanry outside of a revolutionary situation - Lenin said this and is proven right by the history of all class struggle anywhere. Therefore, all progressive struggles must be given our qualified support, because all these struggles ocntrain the domination of capital over workers in some way, thereby makign it harder for capitalism to operate. A world with no elections, strict racial segregation, no rights for immigrants, no minimum wage or welfare state etc., would be ideal for capitalism. All these limits placed on yhem via class struggle imply a permanent contradiction between workers and the needs of capital - and I daresay no revolution could occur without capital first being forced into a crisis between the need to devalue itself ont he one hand, and workers expectations - and ability to express those expectations via hard-won democratic rights - on the other hand. sectarianism whcih dismisses such struggles plays right inot the hands of a bourgeoisie which would love nothing more than to take the vote away from all oppressed groups which oppose it, to stifle all workers self-representation, and to do away with the welfare state and labour laws.



"The phrases and watchwords which might serve to express the soul of the movement in one country may possibly stifle its soul and suffocate its expression in the other." (James Connolly)

I'm an internationalist firstly, and I believe in "one class, one party".

In any case, when you espouse communism, I know for a fact that pretty much everyone in the US you talk to will realise it is communism whether or not you call it so. I also know that many people in the US believe Clitnon and Obama to be socialists, even though they never used that word. So I propose that you will actually only be seen as dishoenst by workers for attempting to pretend you are something you are not, and that they will consider you a commie - and associate you with whatever they associate that with - whether or not you call yourself that. It pays much more in the long run to be open about the fact that you are a communsit, and to fight the assumptions against this term. If you can't do that, then you will never fight the conceptual misunderstandings at the base of what you wrongly percieve as a linguistic misunderstanding.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So what about the various Trotskyist "Socialist" parties, then? DustWolf is yet another prospective comrade who asked a valid question in my "Communism's New Crisis" thread. :)

Besides, as much as I disagree with ortho-Marxists, it's time those folks get organized, too. Mainstream folks differentiate between "Marxism" and "Communism" (going as far as to saying erroneously that Lenin founded "Communism").

[Radical] Social-Labour Democracy, Proletocracy, and Social Proletocracy are positions around which ortho-Marxists and small-r revolutionary Marxists can organize. :)

[Zurdito]

^^^ So what about the various Trotskyist "Socialist" parties, then?

You've lost me. To a marxist, socialism is the transition to capitalism. I don't see the contradiction in a trotskyist group calling itself socialist, it is certainly not a denial of communism.

[gla22]

you seem olbvisiou to the historical development of movements and concepts which defined terms like "socialism", "reformism" and "communism" in powerful ways, and that groups which represent a continuation of these movements have no reason to reject these labels, as doing so implies rejection of the historical continuation from the development of these principles, and rejection of the objective truths of social science laid out by Karl Marx. Your ahistorical butchering of langauge is harmful, because it implies an ahistorical butchering of concepts. i.e. when you retrospectively designate the workign class struggle for reforms as reformism. this shits all over the historical development of the working class as a class for itself, and that gains it made through this. this also impleis a lack of udnerstanding of the way in this was betrayed and co-opted into reformism - an ideological, historical development based on objective developments int he class struggle, which you cannot make disappear by simply changing the meaning of abstract terms.

i think he is just describing the meaning of the term to the average person. To that list add
Anarchy -- Chaos

The corporate media and the government has really pushed to change the meanings. War is Peace. Communism is Totalitarianism. Freedom is Slavery. Anarchism is Chaos. The meaning of the words have been twisted.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You've lost me. To a marxist, socialism is the transition to capitalism. I don't see the contradiction in a trotskyist group calling itself socialist, it is certainly not a denial of communism.

1) Please correct your post: transition TO capitalism? ;)

2) To some US folks, it is a "denial." However, "proletocracy" and "social proletocracy" are much more effective, because there are no class ambiguities. In a way, such "denial" is actually an affirmation but in an unspoiled manner.

[Zurdito]

i think he is just describing the meaning of the term to the average person. To that list add
Anarchy -- Chaos

The corporate media and the government has really pushed to change the meanings. War is Peace. Communism is Totalitarianism. Freedom is Slavery. Anarchism is Chaos. The meaning of the words have been twisted.

I don't think it is a question of terminology, I think it is a question of concepts.

the ideological domination of capitalism is such that it persuades certain sections of the class that socialism as a concept is slavery - or that it is impossible - and that capitalism as a concept is the best system.

To fight these assumptions, you need to fight very hard to fight existing prejudices.

Simply changing the word used to express a concept does not change the underlying prejudice. it can have three effects, in my view: 1.) to make you appear dishonest, 2.) to confuse the discussion further and especially confse those workers who have a real understanding of these ocncepts within the current lunguistic framework and 3.) to reinforce the twisting of certain concepts by accepting the twisting of the words applied to them - as if you could seperate the word form the concept!

[gla22]

^^^^^
exactly, the words have a negative connotation. We have to change what people think of when they hear communism. Right now they think of Stalin and oppression, they need to think of its true meaning, freedom and equality. But right now they equate those with Capitalism. The media has done a good job turning people into sheeple.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ For all my disagreements with the American Hoxhaists, I admire their attempt to recapture the word "labor" (American Party of Labor -> Albanian Party of Labor :D ) from reformist doldrums; comrades were having problems with my "proletocracy" and "social proletocracy" concepts as IMMEDIATE ideas to organize around, so I suggested "[radical] social-labour democracy" (while remaining aware of the original "united social labour" concept).


the ideological domination of capitalism is such that it persuades certain sections of the class that socialism as a concept is slavery - or that it is impossible - and that capitalism as a concept is the best system.

Zurdito, ever heard of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else"? :rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

That's just my point. If we keep putting band aids on the social injustices of the capitalist system by fighting for one-cause issues we just strengthen the system and prolong its existence. The social revolution will result in the legalisation of abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and so will allow women to exercise full control of their fertility and participate in society on an equal basis with men - but does this mean that we should not argue for abortion rights under capitalism? Socialists had an important role in the campaign for the legalisation of abortion, and today are actively engaged in the defense of abortion when this right is threatened - it is possible that if socialists had adopted the position of not participating in any movement which does not lead to or promote the overthrow of capitalism, women would still be forced to face the dangers of illegal abortions. Is this something you are willing to accept?

There is currently a bill in the British parliament which may result in reduction of the abortion limit by four weeks. In response, a popular movement has emerged, which aims to defend the current limit - but this movement is not anti-capitalist, it also involves women who are not part of the working class. Should Socialists support or participate in this movement?

The implication of this position is that workers should never have fought for the right to organize, because trade unions are generally concerned with improvements in pay and are not committed to a change in the way society is organised - and yet is is widely recognized that the right to form trade unions is one of the most basic rights a worker can have, and winning this right signified a historic victory for the working class. Was it a mistake to fight for this right? Should worker not take strike action under capitalism, because winning pay increases is not revolutionary?

If these movements are able to reach their goals and undermine the oppression of social groups, this does not result in a loss of enthusiasm for political change, rather, it demonstrates that collective action can bring improvements to peoples lives, and so encourages people to make further demands and push for more radical changes.

Your position is indicative of someone who does not know what it is like to face oppression. If you were a woman who needed to terminate a pregnancy in a country where abortion is prohibited, you would not be willing to wait for a revolution which may never occur during your life for abortion to become legal - you would demand immediate legalisation under capitalism, even if such a demand lacks revolutionary content. Why don't you go to a woman who experienced life before abortion was legalized, and tell her she should not have demanded the right to control her own body, because she a demand is not inherently anti-capitalist, and see how she reacts?

And please, learn how to use the quote function.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Sorry, but that is nonsense. In a capitalist society there is not going to be total (or even near total) equality of every one. We'd be waiting a long time if we wait for that to happen! And, if every one is equal, then why even have a revolution?

Comrade, I did not argue that it would be possible for everyone to be equal in capitalism.

I argued that it would be possible for workers to be equal in capitalism.

And indeed, capitalism has tended to attack inequalities (racism, sexism etc) between labourers - its motive being a large labourer pool, meaning more competition amongst workers for jobs, hence lower wages and a more expendable workforce. It has taken a considerable time, however, for basic standards to be met. But its no reason to totally ignore these struggles until 'day one of the revolution.'

So yes, wage slaves may be equal, but they are still wage slaves, hence revolution is just as poignant.

[gla22]

Id have to disagree, Why would the workers be equal in capitalism?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Capitalism has tended to make them equal in rights.

Where I live there are laws which prevent employers discriminating on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. I am sure that goes for the rest of the world. Does it mean that workers are equal? Of course not.

Generally women receive lower wages then males and tend to work part time jobs. Indigenous people too receive lower wages and have far lower living standards.

But, overall, capitalism over the last 200 or so years has fought divisions between labour.

Why would they do this?

Well, if you were a factory owner, you would want to purchase the cheapest labour possible, and purely sticking to white Catholic men is going to limit the workers available for you to hire.

Also, we can see from statistics that the wealth gap is quite substantial; that there is a small minority controlling the vast majority of wealth, and a large majority of the population holding little wealth; a large amount of the population is equally poor.

[hekmatista]

Capitalism has tended to make them equal in rights.


But, overall, capitalism over the last 200 or so years has fought divisions between labour.

Why would they do this?

Well, if you were a factory owner, you would want to purchase the cheapest labour possible, and purely sticking to white Catholic men is going to limit the workers available for you to hire.

Also, we can see from statistics that the wealth gap is quite substantial; that there is a small minority controlling the vast majority of wealth, and a large majority of the population holding little wealth; a large amount of the population is equally poor.

The late Al Szymanski made this argument in the early 80's and got a lot of grief for it (especially regarding the black/white differential in USA). As globalization has accelerated since his death, his point (and that of ManyAnts) about the "averaging" of rates of exploitation is being borne out.