workers' well being and the revolution

[Black Sheep]

There is somewhat of a balance in this.
As leftists, we support workers' struggles for better pays, more rights, and generally a better life, in capitalism, today.

At the same time we strive for overthrowing the inherently exploitative system of capitalism.

If the workers' struggles are very successful and manage to obtain a good level of life,wont that suppress a bit their class conciousness? As they will shift a bit to the more fortunate members of society.

What are the criteria on what to do on such cases?

i m confused

[ernie]

There is somewhat of a balance in this.
As leftists, we support workers' struggles for better pays, more rights, and generally a better life, in capitalism, today.
This is debatable. In today's capitalism, supporting these sorts of "struggles" is reformism, and revolutionaries shouldn't get involved in them.


At the same time we strive for overthrowing the inherently exploitative system of capitalism.

If the workers' struggles are very successful and manage to obtain a good level of life,wont that suppress a bit their class conciousness? As they will shift a bit to the more fortunate members of society.
You seem to be under the impression that we can accomplish anything we put our minds to. We can't. What we can accomplish is limited by the conditions in which we live.

This is sort of related to the claim that we should try to make things worse for the working class (I've heard people say, for example, that we should have voted for McCain) so that they become more conscious. This implies that we have the power to make things better or worse for the working class. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. I think that material conditions prevail. For instance, the working class fought for labor reforms when it made sense to do so, as it did in the US at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. I don't think this is the case now.

Think about it: there haven't been any major labor reforms in the US or Europe for a long time. I think that means something; namely that there aren't going to be any, no matter how hard we try.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, it also indicates that Keynesianism turned out to be unsustainable after a while, and thus we get the tragedy that most call 'neoliberalism'.
Also, "I voted for McCain so that things get worse for all of you, and thus you would join our side" doesn't sound especially appealing.

[Potemkin]

Forgive me if I'm way off base here. Let me know and I'll shut up. Again, I apologize for length. Good questions deserve good responses, though.

As you can see, this is a fairly complex question that I don't think anyone really has the answer to. Aren't workers entitled to seek the best lives under whatever system they happen to find themselves working within? Should they have to wait for a revolution that might take generations to come? At the same time, doesn't reforming working conditions just allow for workers to become more comfortable in their role as the exploited, allowing capitalism to exist longer than it otherwise would have? These are some of the questions raised.

And predictably, there are a variety of answers to these questions. From the perspective of the worker, though, they're just thinking about how they can provide the best life for themselves and their families. Often, they don't have time for analysis or strategy -- capitalism is designed to do this to minimize dissent. Rather than work to overcome their situation, we usually just try to get away from it by spending our checks on entertainment and trying to decompress enough to get through the next day/week/year/lifetime.

What to do about it? Well, speaking from an anarchist-communist perspective (that is, no Marxist theory), it's a battle on multiple fronts. Gains won on the job that might be considered "reformist" can gain momentum and give workers the confidence to demand more. Although, many shop organizers can tell you about the momentum lost when the boss gives a token raise of ten cents an hour or something similarly pitiful. I think the right way to frame these battles is more in the sense of defending what little worker's have, and staving off the attacks of those things. In this sense, trade unionism is useful. I don't think there's anything reformist about defending attacks on the working-class lifestyle.

One can also approach it as "creating the room to struggle." When labor (or any other sector of the working class) are on the defensive, they don't have time to struggle for the overthrow of everything, they're just trying to stay afloat. However, when the tide is turned and the working class are a little better off, they really have the space to radicalize, self-organize, and create their own self-governing organizations.

Let's remember too that part of the reason labor is so pathetic is because of the management of the unions that often represent the bosses interests over that of their members. But just because labor has lost a lot of ground doesn't mean it can't get it back. There are some radical unions that are becoming more popular now, like the IWW and its organizing in Starbucks.

[Potemkin]

I don't support anything that will degrade the quality of life of the working class, and I don't believe that things necessarily have to get worse before things get better. After all, where does this strategy leave working-class people between an economic downturn and the revolution (or the point where the revolutionary society is able to provide for the needs of the working-class)? It leaves them to starve, which to me is not acceptable.

I believe in the validity and persuasiveness of the anarchist (anarchist-communist) ideal when put against any other form of societal organization. I believe people will see the benefits of such a system, whether just for themselves or for everyone. The main task is to show them that there is an alternative. Noam Chomsky calls this the "threat of a good example."

Additionally, Chomsky says that the working-class are not class conscious because capitalism and the state perpetuate an extreme sense of individuality ("you are a rational, personal wealth maximizer," in Chomsky's terms, "who cares if the lady down the street has enough to eat?, that's not your problem," is basically what this society tells us). Compassion, solidarity, mutual aid, etc., are inherent to human beings and just need to be brought back out. It's not that people need to be taught it, it's just that this society suppresses those feelings that are in us. We need to tap into that, and that is the big challenge. Everything in this society tells us the opposite, and the marketing departments, politicians, and bosses have many more resources than we do.

How we overcome this is addressed by different people with different ideologies. I'm not a Marxist, so I can't say for sure, but I've heard one communist strategy is to create a communist sector of existing society to soften it up for further gains. They call for increases in welfare, social security, a universal health care system, etc., as these are basically socialist programs. Others fight in trade unions, as discussed already.

I think the emphasis should be on creating the good examples, and showing ourselves and the working class that these ideas and alternative economics can work in practice. From an anarchist perspective, this means creating cooperatives and community projects. This can be done at any time, regardless of what the capitalist economy does as these alternatives operate outside of it. It's basically a framework to help the working class survive during economic downturn, and serves as a recruitment tool that people can point to and say, "Hey, here's a working example of a better way to organize ourselves."

What if a working people's credit union was established that gave "loans" out for the creation of worker owned and operated neighborhood cooperatives that served a need in the community? After a few of these cooperatives got going (food, computer, entertainment, clothing coops, etc.) they could federate, allowing the workers (neighbors) to get whatever they needed from any other coop for free. Others from within the community could purchase goods at reduced prices, and those outside of the community could pay full price. You now have the beginnings of an alternative economy, especially if they used a local currency (which the credit union could introduce) to keep the money within the community. Before you know it, you'd have an autonomous, fairly self-sufficient community set up that can easily spread to the next street over and the next street until large chunks of towns are governing themselves. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's an awesome start.

[ZeroNowhere]

They call for increases in welfare, social security, a universal health care system, etc., as these are basically socialist programs.
I wouldn't see how these are at all 'socialist' programs. Sure, socialists can advocate universal, no-payer healthcare under socialism, but under capitalism it's merely a reform, and has nothing to do with socialism.