On the Consciousness of the People and Revolution

[Rawthentic]

These here are two posts I made a while back.


As I said, isn't everything a reflection of oppression? From the way teachers talk to students, to what textbooks say, to wage struggles, anti-war; from racism in employment, to the relationship between a heterosexal couple. These are things we can all identify as wrong and oppressive.

But, we can't be everywhere. And, in fact, (as i stated), there are certain struggles that by their nature "raise the sights" (sorry for using RCP terms, I dont support them but I "came up" through that organization) of the masses because they moved beyond the framework of more narrow and immediate demands, and can serve as a means to political education and more developed forms of resistance and organization (as I said - and this depends on conditions and country - anti war, police brutality, immigrant rights, gentrification, and many others).

Economism (and Im not labeling you anything, it is something that ties into this deeply) is the belief that we need to focus the struggles we lead based on what the people percieve to be their own immediate needs at a particular juncture. And, leading from this, the masses will come to "trust us" because we won them over by appealing to such things - assuming that this is how the people will then come to us and be won over to a revolutionary view of society and the world.

For example, if we increasingly focus on the oppression of a particular police dept or individual, landlord, boss, etc., that eventually the people will come to see the "larger system" and be won over to revolution.

And these sorts of struggles have a natural tendency towards reformism and being channeled into bourgeois politics (ie arranging an agreement with a particular employer, negotiations, etc.).

As Lenin correctly stated, communist consciousness comes from WITHOUT. It comes throught studying history, economics, society, etc. And we need to focus on struggles that break from the framework of what is immediate for the people and focus on events that reveal the nature and interplay of all the forces in society (and how they react to events). And it is our responsibility to take this to the people in a creative and scientific manner.

After all, I don't think the people just want to learn how to battle their own oppression. They want to make a new revolutionary society (which would require writing laws, making social and economic transformations in all spheres) and this cant be done if we focus on shitty wages or what are basically factory floor complaints.

And last but not least:

we aren't living 100 years ago. We are living in the highest stage of capitalism - and that radically changes everything, including communists' political work. Would I support then? Of course. Would I support it today? of course. So, it isn't about "support", because it should be a given that communists support these things, it is about which struggles can build a revolutionary movement - and understanding What is to Be Done?


Reformism. Such a complex question, particularly in our times.

Daily, hourly, minutely, there are manifestations of capitalist oppression.

The key question for communists is: what struggles do we concentrate our efforts on on learning from and leading from?

Are communists union hacks that fight for higher wages for workers, or are they "tribunes of the people" as Lenin said?

I think it is legitimate to fight for reforms under a revolutionary context in capitalist society. But that of course depends on conditions.

Communists existence is based on the need to lead the people (whilst learning from them) while raising their sights towards revolution and communist society. We don't exist to demand higher wages, or whatever (although not that they arent important). What I mean to say is that we shouldn't be part of a movement that has lowered sights, which is unfortunately what dominates in the Left today.

So, as I stated above, there many manifestations of oppression. But, do we choose the small ones that are easily funneled into reformist traps and bourgeois elections and really dont put need for revolution (and the nature of this system) on the table? i think we need to focus on mass faultline struggles that are deeply polarizing yet have the ability to unite the masses as well as expose the nature of the system.

In other words, do we choose fighting for higher wages, or leading the immigrant rights struggle (which brings in crucial questions of imperialism and racism), do we fight for unionization or against police brutality?

Keep in mind, ALL the struggles I mentioned are legitimate. BUT, for those who have read What is to Be Done and have a basic understanding of how the consciousness of the people is transformed, there are struggles such as those over unions and wages that focus on narrow demands which are essentially reformist, and there are those that really are "faultine" in that they expose capitalism and its nature, as well as setting the sights of the masses on a higher platform than a narrow movement for wages or unions, such as the anti-war movement or police brutality.

Consciousness does come from without.

I want to also chime into something Reclaimed said. Revolution is about politics, not intentions. So, if there is a self-described communist who focuses his struggles on wages with the belief that this can lead to a revolutionary consciousness or movement, we need to analyze his reformist tendencies and where his politics can lead - not judge based on his revolutionary intentions.

This is a bit of a ramble. And I've been hella sick for a few days so I've got nothing better to do.

Feel free to critique.


Let's discuss.

[casper]

couldn't we do both? the small and the large, gain their trust and raise their heights, they seem complementary, we shouldn't overly neglect one for the other should we?

[Rawthentic]

casper: I don't mean to paint a crude line between the day to day struggles of the masses and broader political struggles in society.

What I am referring to is to what communists should strive for and focus on.

Of course there may be instances when it will be necessary and important to focus on such day to day struggles for whatever particular reason.

But history has shown time and time again how revolutionary possibilities have been literally abandoned and thrown away while using revolutionary and communist phraseology, but in reality sterile and narrow politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have to disagree with the OP's emphasis on identity politics. For far too long the issue of class politics (NOT to be confused with "worker struggles") has been downplayed or ignored. Since you've read my thread on "Broad Economism" (in Article Submissions, in this forum, my current blog, and over at Kasama), you know what I'm talking about with my emphasis on the democracy question.

[Rawthentic]

Can you elaborate a bit, Jacob? How do I downplay class politics?

And btw, I have not read any of your articles, no offense.

[Rawthentic]

*ok I just read your article. But I don't want this to become a discussion about that. Let's focus on what I posted, please.

[davidasearles]

Rawthentic I appreciated the opening post of this thread. I think that it faily laid out the dominant thinking that underlies the tactics of at least some of the left.

There are a few words in the vocabulary of the left that I woud simply ban if I had the power. "Consciousness" is one of them. To me, as it is often used by the left it is the rough equivilent of the word "soul" in religion.

We have programs to raise consciousness as religions have to win souls for the lord.

And religion has all kinds if ideas of just what the best way to win soulds just as the left has to raise consciousness - and religion like the left splits itself into denominations over differnces over questions such as the winning of souls and the raising of consciousness.

I have told this story elesewhere - but my father used to put food on the table by being a sales agent for various things - concrete blocks, water softeners, hearing aids, life insurance polices, bottled soda and more.

I think that I learned this through him - that although you would like to be able to direclty control people who have discretionary wealth so that they would buy your product - you can't do that. The only thing that you can control is your own behaviour. You have to figure out the things that may work that are within your capacity to do, then you have to figure out which of thse might be the most effective considering your resources and expected result and do that. And if you didn't find that what ever you decded was not as effective as you thohgt that it suld be, modify the approach based upon your expereince.

We don't do that on the left too much. We look to our holy texts, put on the blinders and run til we drop. Are the workers behind us? consult the holy texts again, particularly as to precise phraseology and continue runnijng with the blinders on.

As Doctor Phil on US TV might ask: "And how's that working out for you?"

I especially liked this part of the opening post , it is very clear:

"Economism (and Im not labeling you anything, it is something that ties into this deeply) is the belief that we need to focus the struggles we lead based on what the people percieve to be their own immediate needs at a particular juncture. And, leading from this, the masses will come to "trust us" because we won them over by appealing to such things..."

especilly the next part:

"... ASSUMING that this is how the people will then come to us and be won over to a revolutionary view of society and the world." (emphasis my own)

[Rawthentic]

david:

thanks for the reply.

While I understand why you have reasons for not using the word consciousness (and indeed there is a lot of dogma surrounding this question), I personally (and I think most people) don't have a problem with using it. It all depends in what context and what we intend by it.

In terms of consciousness, I mean the understanding, in broad terms, of society as a whole and the need for the proletariat to emancipate humanity (more or less, to put it crudely). I also don't intend to forge some dogmatic vision of what we need to use to get to that consciousness. This post only aims at an overview of how the consciousness of the people moves in relation to how capitalist society works and what we need to actually make revolution.

Does this mean that it is the communists that just go and elevate their consciousness? No, we need a dialectical and dynamic use of what maoists call the "mass line", and who's meaning is encapsulated in Mao's words: "from the masses, to the masses."

[davidasearles]

thank you, that is not objectionale usage at all. Too often I think that folks use it in almost a magical sense. It works great in literture but nit in reality.

In the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck Preacher Casey gives his idea of the collective unconscious. It feels an awfult much like how "consciouness" is too often (for me) employed concerning the workers determining to exercise their human right to benefit from that which they have labored for.

I'll dig up the quote if any are unfamiliar with this wonderful work.

[Rawthentic]

david said in another thread:


That's just it, I don't think the Back Panthers was a revolutionary movement.

And of course you and I might differ on what revolution or revolutionary is or isn't So I will not assert that what I am advocating is in fact revolutionary - in fact I don't think that the concept of worker control is very much a revolutionary concept at all.

To me it's the demand of the workers by the workers that their collective may in the word of the declaration of independence assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.

At one point I imagine that was pretty revolutionary stuff, it's downright conservative now in my mind I must admit. But that's all that I'm after. If we can all agree that much should happen, that would be a pretty big thing. Let us have that and then we can figure out where we need to go from there.

(And sometimes you do have to lower your sites in order to hit something.) First, I do believe that the Black Panther Party was a revolutionary movement. During the 60s and 70s here in the US, there was an upsurge of radical and revolutionary movement amongst broad sectors in society.

The BPP represented the most advanced revolutionary expression of the times, particularly in its popularization of certain elements of maoism (such as the mass line), and in the way it was able to organize urban Black people to defend themselves from police brutality.

The Panthers struggled to meet many daily needs that Black people were in need of, such as food, healthcare, and basic education, and this was done as a means for Black people to be involved in the political struggle.

The BPP did have many shortcomings, such as its eclecticism, particular views on women, reformist tendencies, etc. It was a very complex organization. I certainly don't do justice to it with this post.

Second, you clearly stated that what you are after is conservative.

This is precisely the type of view that is at odds with the revolutionary and sweeping vision that needs to characterize communists.

Let's make this crystal clear: if our sights are lowered (and you admit yours are) and we focus and achieve some sort of "workers collective", we will never get to communism, and will always lose.

Not only because "workers collective" and "workers control" is itself a very narrow way of describing a future society, but because if a revolutionary movement and even socialist society don't aim for the Four Alls (ie communism), then WE WILL NEVER GET THERE.

Why aim for a workers collective, david? What does that even mean?

Why not instead aim for what we CAN achieve, and for what has a real chance of winning? Why consciously lower your sights?

Also, imbedded within the idea of "workers collective" and other such theories is the idea that workers somehow and spontaneously know what they want and inherently represent the interests of their class simply by being a part of that class. It is a skewed view of consciousness and does not appreciate how the consciousness of the people can be transformed, which is, after all, the point of this thread.

We don't need identity politics (what I described above), but do we need for the workers and the people to become conscious emancipators of humanity, with the highest interests of their class in mind (which cannot be achieved by advocating for a 'workers collective' - there is need for communist leadership).

This is a good discussion. I'm looking forward to your response, and I'd be happy to clarify anything that you don't understand.

[Rawthentic]

gilhyle posted this in another thread:


Arguably, the transitional method ceased to be correct in the wake of the major defeats of the working class between 1978 and 1991 under the leadership of Thatcher and Reagan. At that point, the objective reality changed its constitution and the transitional method needed once again to be supplemented by a method aimed at building the labour movement, rather than placing a revolutionary leadership in the leading positions of an existing labour movement. This reinstates the minimum programme as a valid programme, because the task of creating a labour movement has been reinstated as an imperative.

This is EXACTLY the type of thing that needs to be broken away from.

Trotskyism is a movement that focuses on "building the labor movement", a movement that I have shown to be based around the immediate interests of the workers; NOT a movement aiming for revolution, but one focused around obtaining higher wages.

As a parallel to what gilhyle wrote above, I STRONGLY recommend reading Mike Ely's,
Slipping Into Darkness: “Left Economism,” the CPUSA, and the Trade Union Unity League (1929-1935) (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/cpusa-in-30s-slipping-into-darkness/)


It is a long work, but it exposes the concepts behind the CPUSA's reformist tendencies, and how it threw away revolutionary possibilities under the pretense that focusing on the immediate interests of workers was the primary task, and how political discussion of revolution and beyond was abstract and had no place in the movement (during the Depression, after WW1, during such a volatile time!).

If we cannot make revolution by communists focusing on the labor movement, what makes anyone think that it can be done by simply building that labor movement without any revolutionary leadership?

The people won't come to a higher understanding of society if we first cater to their immediate interests AND THEN in the distant maybe bring up issues of revolution and communism.

And I think revolution and communism need to be a part of EVERYTHING we do. Why wouldn't it be? And I don't mean this in a crude sense, as if we drill this into the masses, but as a methodology and goal that guides all the work we do as revolutionaries, while building and aiming for a politics that can really build a revolutionary movement that aims for communism (and nothing less).

[davidasearles]

First, I do believe that the Black Panther Party was a revolutionary movement. During the 60s and 70s here in the US, there was an upsurge of radical and revolutionary movement amongst broad sectors in society.


The BPP represented the most advanced revolutionary expression of the times, particularly in its popularization of certain elements of maoism (such as the mass line), and in the way it was able to organize urban Black people to defend themselves from police brutality.




The Panthers struggled to meet many daily needs that Black people were in need of, such as food, healthcare, and basic education, and this was done as a means for Black people to be involved in the political struggle.

The BPP did have many shortcomings, such as its eclecticism, particular views on women, reformist tendencies, etc. It was a very complex organization. I certainly don't do justice to it with this post.

Everything factual about the Black Panther Party above is granted. I didn’t think that it was revolutionary then and I don’t think that it was now. But that’s nether here nor there.

But for the last 43 years I’ve had both the benefit and the curse of continuously having almost the same basic political outlook. The revolutionary standard then as now to me was collective ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution. The Panthers, if they advocated it in someplace I never knew about it. I do not think that it was a basic tenant of the party although it may have been on some piece of paper somewhere.



Second, you clearly stated that what you are after is conservative. This is precisely the type of view that is at odds with the revolutionary and sweeping vision that needs to characterize communists.

I will warn you of a revelation that will eventually strike you on your own personal road to Tarsus – revolutions are driven by basic conservative ideas.


Let's make this crystal clear: if our sights are lowered (and you admit yours are) and we focus and achieve some sort of "workers collective", we will never get to communism, and will always lose.

You have made it crystal clear if only to yourself, and I have no doubt that you believe it. I don’t happen to. The materialist conception of history suggests to me that the workers' collective is or ought to be the next stop along the way to wherever humanity is heading. The workers collective would resolve the class struggle in favor of the workers. Moreover, for myself my family and every one that I know or I can conceive of we would all be a lot better off with the workers collective, including all of those who either are or consider themselves capitalists now. When collective control has ended class rule and society wants to continue on to what some people call communism, fine. See who wants to go there. There won’t be the complication of class rule or poverty that I can see so we’d be in a better position to decide.


Not only because "workers collective" and "workers control" is itself a very narrow way of describing a future society, but because if a revolutionary movement and even socialist society don't aim for the Four Alls (ie communism), then WE WILL NEVER GET THERE.

That’s just it, I’m not looking to describe future society. A lot of that is slowing us down. My goal is purposefully stated very narrowly.


Why aim for a workers collective, david? What does that even mean?

There are about three main considerations:

#1 Where the workers decide to collectivize the workplace ceases to exist as private property. Just as the 13th amendment simply dissolved private property in the chattel slave. And just as importantly the collective may not alienate (sell or transfer) the workplace away from the collective.

#2 The workers democratically determine how to, and to whom to distribute the products of the workers based upon formulas that make sense to them.

#3 (and this part might be a bit controversial to some) The workers collective IS NOT the sovereign political expression of the people. While the workers may constitute probably a majority of the people the power of the collective vis a vis the people or the government of the people is essentially in the same position the owners of private property are today with regard to political control. (they have a good deal of influence but they can ultimately be outvoted by enough people who get pissed off from time to time.


Why not instead aim for what we CAN achieve, and for what has a real chance of winning? Why consciously lower your sights?

There is not a doubt in my mind that this can be achieved easily, not by one person of course. I do what I can do. The rest is not up to me.


Also, imbedded within the idea of "workers collective" and other such theories is the idea that workers somehow and spontaneously know what they want and inherently represent the interests of their class simply by being a part of that class.

Not quite. Perhaps I don’t dwell on this part as much as I could or ought to. The collective will organize much like any membership organization would organize. Probably along industrial lines for the most part. There was a chart drawn up many years ago by a person I was very friendly with Walter Steinhilbur of the Brooklyn Socialist Labor Party. He told me that he came up with the chart so that he could better understand the concept. Ultimately the party essentially adopted it as a possible representation of its Socialist Industrial Union idea. The difference between what I am proposing and what he SLP now proposes (although it is currently on its deathbed) is that the SLP thought along with Engels that the political government would disappear and its functions taken over by the administration of things. In the last two years that idea has been rejected by a small number of which I am one.

Here is a link to the chart:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4Pd0SYVgY3d9cTDQnJlFoO2mmomP1zjraxqCsWwVjhhtikm8Og tgysWizn1nDWBfY0A34YFWHhlaO0beJsQwx-SE2cUIY93QRbCiXA/SIU%20govt.%20supplanting%20state/siu_chart.pdf (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4Pd0SYVgY3d9cTDQnJlFoO2mmomP1zjraxqCsWwVjhhtikm8Og tgysWizn1nDWBfY0A34YFWHhlaO0beJsQwx-SE2cUIY93QRbCiXA/SIU%20govt.%20supplanting%20state/siu_chart.pdf)

If that is to long go to the homepage yahoo group deleonism-list -> files -> siu folder -> Steinhilbur chart


We don't need identity politics (what I described above), but do we need for the workers and the people to become conscious emancipators of humanity, with the highest interests of their class in mind (which cannot be achieved by advocating for a 'workers collective' - there is need for communist leadership).

We believe what we want for the most part


This is a good discussion. I'm looking forward to your response, and I'd be happy to clarify anything that you don't understand.

Thank you.

[Rawthentic]

Wow, ok. There is a lot to dig into here.

The revolutionary standard of the BPP was definitely not worker ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, there are of course elements of this, BUT it is not the defining element of socialism.

The Black Panthers were an organization that in some ways was a response to the tired reformist methods that had characterized the Civil Rights Movement, embodied by the outlook of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. They had a broader and deeper understanding of the plight of Black people and what it would take to overcome racism, oppression, and the overall system that was victimizing them.

By your narrow definition, neither Marx, Lenin, Mao, or any other revolutionary was...revolutionary at all. Why? Well the movements they led did not aim for "worker's collectives", and although no doubt they knew these elements were important, their movements always had in mind the highest interests of their class: communism.

****

Revolutions are NOT driven by conservative ideas. I don't know why you even say this. It is against the entire theoretical framework that revolutions are bound by (and our communist revolution will have to embrace this as well. That is, a daring, radical, and creative movement.

The people, in making revolution, want to BREAK AWAY from the old society, ideas, values, and attitudes. It is by its nature deeply radical and daring.

******

If you believe that the materialist conception of history "tells us" that a workers collective is the next stage on our road, then you have a very mechanical and incorrect view of how society progresses.

For one, it it teleological. Marx was not a prophet or a conspiracy theorist. He did not say that materialism would inevitably lead to a workers collective.

This is not a matter of what would simply leave us "better off." Yeah, a "workers collective" might leave us better off then now. But, regardless it a narrow (in a negative and profoundly reactionary sense) that will fall back to the old society if doesn't strive to stay on the road towards communism. Society is not static. It is always moving.

There is something else within your thinking. Tailism. When you say, "When collective control has ended class rule and society wants to continue on to what some people call communism, fine. See who wants to go there. There won’t be the complication of class rule or poverty that I can see so we’d be in a better position to decide.", the deeper meaning behind it is that we should tail and conform to what the masses want, to "see who wants to go there."

No. No. No. Communists are leaders (and students as well).We need to present to the people a sweeping view of society and allow them to take up their role as emancipators of humanity, and nothing less.

Anything less effectively means giving up on revolution. This is where your politics would lead us.



That’s just it, I’m not looking to describe future society. A lot of that is slowing us down. My goal is purposefully stated very narrowly.

Yeah, it is narrow. And it isn't a good thing at all.

What slows us down is precisely your sterile and dead-end politics that lead to NOWHERE.

You want to pander to narrow interests in hopes that it "can lead somewhere" because you doubt that a revolutionary vision can do that.

What can you do? You can get down with revolution, to put it crudely. Read Lenin's "What is to Be Done". Ask questions. Study. Join into the high-level discussions (compared to RL) on the Kasama Project site (link is on my sig).


The difference between what I am proposing and what he SLP now proposes (although it is currently on its deathbed) is that the SLP thought along with Engels that the political government would disappear and its functions taken over by the administration of things. In the last two years that idea has been rejected by a small number of which I am one.

You realize that you are rejecting communism right? That is what Engels meant with "the political government would disappear and its functions taken over by the administration of things".

Let's get into this deeper. Socialism is a very dynamic society. The forces of revolution and counterrevolution battle each other in every sphere, but particularly in the ideological one. Because socialism is a system that is attempting to overcome all the elements that capitalism has left behind, there is the dangerous possibility of counterrevolution.

Within the ruling communist vanguard and higher sectors of socialism, particular officials and politicians begin to take up and implement policies that reflect the emergence of a new bourgeois class under socialism and objectively lead back to the old society.

Mao said in production, there was needed a "politics in command." Certain officials in China wanted production to be based on capitalist principles; they said workers should recieve monetary incentives to motivate them. It completely negated the role of CONSCIOUSNESS to transform production and the wider society.

Once production is geared for the sake of production rather than for socialist transformation, if it becomes about administering and controlling, then you are taking the capitalist road.

So, where do I want to get with all this?

Basically, that your view of socialism as a static system (that doesn't move towards communism) will not stay static. It will fall back to the old society. Honestly, what is the point of getting to socialism without working for communism?

As I've shown, socialism is very dynamic, with all its class forces and struggle. In order to STAY on the socialist road, there need to be waves and waves of communist political struggle to stay on the road and enable the masses to take these questions up themselves. And if you don't do this, then you aren't going forward. You will go back. You will demoralize the people. And it objectively makes you counterrevolutionary.

***

and, finally, we don't "believe what we want." This is about line struggle. Don't write off my politics with that sort of comment. Engage the politics.

[davidasearles]

Thank you for the reply I wanted to repond to this part first, and then to the rest later.




Revolutions are NOT driven by conservative ideas. I don't know why you even say this. It is against the entire theoretical framework that revolutions are bound by (and our communist revolution will have to embrace this as well. That is, a daring, radical, and creative movement.

The people, in making revolution, want to BREAK AWAY from the old society, ideas, values, and attitudes. It is by its nature deeply radical and daring.



Maybe if I give you some examples of what I think that basic conservative thought means to me.

Not that this is controlling but there is a quotation from Marx somewhere that the bourgeois is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery.

To me this is a conservative idea. And of course the politics of "conservatism" gets in the way - I'm not talking about the need of the bourgeoisie to conserve the existing social order - I'm talking about the the need of the proletarian to be able to maintain survival of self/family/community.

In the words of another conservative:

"all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

again by the same author:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

In short revolutions may go north or south but (in my mind at least) they all will be driven by the masses yearning for survival when that is plainly in iminent peril, in the best way AT THE MOMENT they may see or intuit how.

[davidasearles]

If you believe that the materialist conception of history "tells us" that a workers collective is the next stage on our road, then you have a very mechanical and incorrect view of how society progresses.

For one, it it teleological. Marx was not a prophet or a conspiracy theorist. He did not say that materialism would inevitably lead to a workers collective.

Heck, do you mean we can't use it to predict the future? Darn, that makes things so difficult.:-)

Actually I used different words than you thought I did, or at least I used them in a way that I thought one thing and you understood another.

I wrote:

The materialist conception of history suggests to me that the workers' collective is or ought to be the next stop along the way to wherever humanity is heading.

"Suggests that the workers collective is or ought to be the next step" isn't too teleological at all, is it?

And in the next part I give reasons why I support it, (not why I think that it will necessarily ever be established. I have faith that it will be established but I urge no one to accept anything based upon my faith. That would be just plain crazy.)

The workers collective would resolve the class struggle in favor of the workers. Moreover, for myself my family and every one that I know or I can conceive of we would all be a lot better off with the workers collective, including all of those who either are or consider themselves capitalists now.

These are the reasons of why I choose to support the idea of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution. (I am sure that there are other reasons for, as well as reasons against but no matter) The reasons that impel me to support worker collective control to me are conservative, and it is my personal opinion that when people do start to support the idea en mass - that the same basic ideas will occur to most of them as well and that they will also view their support as merely an extension of conservative thought.

Again, just my two cents.

[Rawthentic]

I've already responded to everything you've said in these past two posts, and I don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over.

[davidasearles]

There is something else within your thinking. Tailism. When you say, "When collective control has ended class rule and society wants to continue on to what some people call communism, fine. See who wants to go there. There won’t be the complication of class rule or poverty that I can see so we’d be in a better position to decide.", the deeper meaning behind it is that we should tail and conform to what the masses want, to "see who wants to go there."

No. No. No. Communists are leaders (and students as well).We need to present to the people a sweeping view of society and allow them to take up their role as emancipators of humanity, and nothing less.


Don't respond if you don't want to but I just wanted to comment on the above:

The abolition (of chattel slavery) movement had all types as well. There is plenty of room in the movement for people who advocate collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution even though they may disagree on pratically everything else. You have taken on a "communist" identity - and I am sure that having all of those ideas and outlooks that you are certain that everyone just must have in order to be a true "communist " must give you endless hours of self satisfaction knowing that you have made it into the club. The movement has room, even for the growlies who think that types like me are just plain reactionary scum.

[Rawthentic]

Ok.

Look, I'm not saying that I am part of some "club" that "gets it" in terms of that we hold all the key issues and correct politics.

Thats actually contrary to what I believe. I believe this world needs a new revolutionary movement based on the slogan "reconceive as we regroup". That is, reconceive the entire communist project of the 20th century with all its theoretical baggage, learn from all fields of scientific thought even when they aren't marxists themselves, and unite with radicals and revolutionaries on a new, communist basis (not on a left-refoundationist sense).

But I do believe that part of this process means upholding COMMUNIST politics, and it means struggling the very politics that have played a pivotal role in the corpse that the communist movement is today: lowered sights, dogmatism, sectarianism, reformism/economism, idenitity politics, and sorts of lines and politics that cannot forge a new movement with deep roots amongst the people with a chance of winning.

The abolition of chattel slavery is for another thread. But your basic method is that all kinds of politics can lead a movement, which is erroneous. How can different tendencies lead the proletarian movement? There needs to be COMMUNIST leadership of that, and we aren't gonna get it with your politics or eclecticism.

[davidasearles]

Thank you for the above remarks but this one point you might reconsider:

"The abolition of chattel slavery is for another thread.
But your basic method is that all kinds of politics can
lead a movement, which is erroneous. How can different
tendencies lead the proletarian movement? There needs
to be COMMUNIST leadership of that, and we aren't
gonna get it with your politics or eclecticism."

The reference by me to the abolitionst movement was becuase it had a definite agreed upon ultimate practical goal - the freeing of chattle slaves. It did not matter how one intellectually arrived at the goal - religious, radical, conservative - everyone's effort toward the goal counted.

We could look at a movement for abolition of wage slavery in the same light - as working toward a definite agreed upon ultimate practical goal - but learning from the shortcomings of the chattle slave abolitionist movement we might make part of our goal the thing that workers can replace the wages system with - worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

So whether there is something that you might suggest that should substitue for the amendment proposal below or to work in tandem with the amamedmemt proposal below, perhaps similar to the IWW movement, but openly and unreservedly having the stated goal of worker collective cotrol of the industrial means of production and distribution, I would be happy to see it.

[peaccenicked]

I think we have to move from the abstract to the concrete. We have been on the sidelines
while the economy in the Anglosphere was deregulated. In Iceland we are seeing the parliament under siege (http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/01/21/icelands-parliament-under-siege/). All they want is new elections. This indicates that the pattern there is about getting rid of the old and failed. Perhaps they will need another general election soon after that.
Iceland has snapped. The US and the UK are still media managing the crisis but that is under threat. In the UK,
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/01/22/gordon-brown-brings-britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy/

In the US,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46ib-wiXUs&eurl=http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/01/22/obama-afshin-rattansi-talks-to-cindy-sheehan/

The proverbial shit will hit the fan and both the US and the UK are prepared for martial law. Yet we are still on the sidelines.
The working class is ill prepared, and the left is stuck while the media management of the crisis is only on the verge of breaking.
We have no control over the historical process as such. It is more likely to overtake us.
Obama and Brown are the captain's of sinking ships, unlike previous crisis
which led to the piecemeal destruction of western productive industry, we are moving towards a generalized crisis, that threatens the economic security of the vast majority of people.

This year will be interesting as the penny is dropping.
Jim Rodgers , a buddy of Soros is advising young people in the UK to learn Chinese and immigrate.

The dollar is artificially high against the fundamentals of the US economy.


The media hype about Obama will die like Brown's pledge to "save the world", I mean banks.
I suppose we have to wait and see.
Wait for the tipping point to emerge.
Even someone like myself embittered by the experience of the great miners
strike of 84, can see that the agenda of neoliberalism is at a dead end and has ran out of options. Watch the economic implosion, explode as hyperinflation erupts There will be a point when the people just get sick of it.
Theory needs practice, and at least some movement.
We have time to prepare.

[Rawthentic]

david:

I still strongly disagree with your last post.

There may be many tendencies that say they want communism for example, but as Ive said before, we need to analyze politics, NOT intentions.

Can you imagine if the proletarian movement was led by religious, conservative, liberal, and communist forces? Where would that lead us? To defeat. It would lead nowhere.

A movement that aims for revolution and communism needs to have a clear LINE (a politics and road) that guides all of its political work. Without it, this movement would not have the ability or vision to even get to socialism (much less communism).

A liberal line cannot lead to this. A reformist or economist one cannot either, no matter how much they profess to want revolution and communism. This is about politics, and all politics serve interests and lead to places based on them.

[davidasearles]

Can you imagine if the proletarian movement was led by religious, conservative, liberal, and communist forces? Where would that lead us? To defeat. It would lead nowhere.

That's your problem - you think that there must be a leader or leaders. The whole course has been laid out. No one has to be a socialist, anarchist, communist, religionist or any "ist" adhering to any "ism". No one has to lead. No one has to follow.

I know that sits hard with a lot of people who have kind of scripted in a part for themselves in some imagined upcoming reality based morality play.

As the Earth spins on its axis, revolving around the sun, as the sun generally moves further out into the universe - is there a point or a group of points on or in the Earth that leads the way?