Poll: United Social Labour or Social-Labour Democracy?

“United Social Labour”: The Merger of Political Socialism and the Workers’ Labour Movement

Program of a New Type: Minimum-Reformist-Revolutionary



Comrades, this afternoon I was pondering about possibly editing the two sections of Chapter 4 up above to mention "Social-Labour Democracy" - either as an alternative in parentheses or instead of "United Social Labour."

When I conceptualized "United Social Labour," I had semi-Bordigist reservations about the word "democracy":

Problems with "Social Democracy"

However, as time passed and organizational conversations went by, I then made a theoretical compromise in regards to the class make-up of the mass organization. The USL article quotes Engels' emphasis on a workers-only organization (which I agree with in principle), however I decided to add the word "democracy" to indicate the inclusion of self-employed folks and "coordinators" (as defined NOT by the French-socialist pareconist Michael Albert, but by myself in Chapter 2).

Shortly afterwards, I realized that adding the word "democracy" implied a more significant addition: that of labour democracy. Indeed, as it stands right now, Social-Labour Democracy combines three concepts:

1) (United) Social Labour - "the union of the labor movement and socialism" (Karl Kautsky)
2) Labour Democracy (Full worker ownership and control over the economy...)
3) Social-Labour Democracy (... as a means to end the exploitation of labour)

[In any event, "Social-Labourists" should be the descriptive term for members of the organization, since "democrats" and "democratic" sound too mainstream.]



Thoughts?

I would say democracy since not everyone will be in union.

I personally favour the inclusion of the term “democracy” largely because it needs to be reclaimed from the bourgeoisie. “Democracy”, rightly or wrong, is one of those politically fluffy words, that make everyone feel all fuzzy inside, and that is suppose to lend an air of legitimacy to a regime or movement if it is democracy. Given the force that it has we cannot simply abandon the term and concede it to the bourgeoisie (not to mention that their ‘democracy’ is simply class democracy, i.e. plutocracy).

Moreover, even in the technical sense of the term ‘democracy’ (i.e. rule by the people) this represents our ideas better than it does those of the bourgeoisie. After all, the proletariat make up a considerable percentage of the population in the advanced industrial states, so rule by workers would, in effect, be democratic.

Not to mention, I think that even if we wish to exclude the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie from organs of power under socialism it is still the case that we wish to emphasize the democratic nature of these organs from within. I think this is what you have in mind when you use the term “labour democracy”.

I voted for united social labor. it was a though choice, and I honestly made it just based on the fact that for me united social labor already implies workers democracy.

We advocate democracy (DotP) in the socialist stage of production, so I am all in favor of democracy.

[FONT=Verdana]

Just a question here: how can the bourgeois be excluded in socialism? I mean, the bourgeoisie should be owerthrown before that, during the revolution, meaning that there wont be any of the bourgeoisie to exclude from anything, except if we are talking about the former bourgeoisie.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]While we would have by that point abolished the capitalist mode of production, I would imagine still that there might be some reactionary elements remaining. So yes, the former bourgeoisie was what I had in mind. [/FONT]

Comrades may be interested in this topic:

Republicanism, Democracy, and Populism: changing language

My only beef with "social-labour populism" is that "labour populism" is too broad; it may encompass labour democracy and social-labour democracy, but it could just as easily encompass cheap economism.

I honestly made it just based on the fact that for me united social labor already implies workers democracy.

Hmmm, you've got a point there; the concept of "social labour," although broad like "labour populism," means a lot more than cheap Labourite BS as practiced by the UK Labour Party.

Honestly, comrades, I was inspired to cough up "social labour" as a concept more by the thoroughly populist "Social Credit" concept than by Kautsky's merger formula.

USL is conceived of as an explicitly class mass organization/movement. By definition, it is democratic; our class (defined broadly as the IWW, for example, does) is the VAST majority in all countries. Adding democracy in the title seems redundant or worse, confusing, or worst, dishonest (given the word's misuse by various "people's states" historically). Neither are euphonic.

Cross posted from Kasama thread on How to Build the Party of the Working Class at http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/03.../#comment-4517:
For minimal unity (of USL! not any future "tighter" party!), one could do worse than accepting some parts of the preamble of the IWW: the working class and the employing class have nothing in common; wage slavery and all institutions that maintain it must be overthrown; solidarity toward workers in struggle against capital, including those belonging to tendencies I myself think are mostly wrong. Obviously this is just a first shot. Apologies for the USA-centric viewpoint, hopefully others can broaden it out.

USL is conceived of as an explicitly class mass organization/movement. By definition, it is democratic; our class (defined broadly as the IWW, for example, does) is the VAST majority in all countries. Adding democracy in the title seems redundant or worse, confusing, or worst, dishonest (given the word's misuse by various "people's states" historically). Neither are euphonic.

Notwithstanding the class ambiguities of the word "democracy," there was a particular type of "democracy" that I had in mind: participatory democracy. "Labour democracy" sounds too focused on economic issues, without the balance on political issues.

Keeping in mind that this "participatory democracy" advocated by more radical political liberals (as opposed to modern representative democracy) is one of the features of social proletocracy, I thought of "Social Labour and Participatory Democracy" (SLPD).

Again, maybe it's just me thinking too much about words, but I'd like some input on this. Unlike "social-labour democracy," which obscures the concept of "social labour" (in turn inspired word-wise by the populist "social credit" concept), Social Labour and Participatory Democracy (SLPD) could indeed incorporate at least three concepts:

1) "The union of the labour movement and socialism";
2) "Labour and Participatory democracy" (economic and political democracy, including full worker ownership and control over the economy); and
3) Social labour: the need to end the exploitation of labour.

Keep note that I didn't move the hyphen to the next word; "social labour-participatory democracy" also obscures the "social labour" concept.



Thoughts? [I know it isn't a poll question, but...]

Continued from previous poll...

USL: Zeitgeist, hekmatista, josefrancisco
SLD: Hyacinth, Black Rifle, Red_or_Dead, Rakunin

USL - "democracy" has too deep and sad a history of a sheep and two wolves voting for what should be for dinner.

Voted for USL. I'm not a particular fan of the word democracy since the word is so vague.

SLPD since it sound specific on democracy and in my opinion. it will make people wonder what it is.

Since my work was complete awhile back, comrades, I have decided to self-critically stick with USL. This past weekend I have pondered about the degeneration of so many "socialist" (France and Spain), "social-democratic" (Germany and Austria), "labour" (Britain), and "workers'" (Brazil and Kurdistan) parties time and again. This pondering was made possible due to Comrade Luis Henrique's post and my reply here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-optio...32/index3.html

Start building a working class party.

LuÃ*s Henrique

I have problems with the ambiguity of your words, but don't worry, comrade, since it's a self-criticism of my work, too. Such "working-class party" should be a class-strugglist labour party. According to your view, such party doesn't yet have to be a "communist" party," but the term class-strugglist indicates something definitely in the middle without flirting with bourgeois "socialism" ("Socialist" International style).

[The self-criticism is in regards to "Social Labour" as a name, when the full name should be "Class-Strugglist Social Labour" or "Class Strugglists for Social Labour." Also, the two merger formulas that I used may not have been clear enough ("political socialism" and "workers' movement"). ]

In each instance, the concept of class struggle was under-emphasized from the outset, and the "democratic" aspect was not pushed beyond bourgeois electoralism, much less representative democracy itself.

It's too late to edit my work now to suggest terms like those in the above self-quotation or like "Class-Strugglist [Social-]Labour Democracy [organization]" (yeah, too long, but at least "class-strugglist democracy" should imply participatory democracy, while "class-strugglist labour" indicates a class-conscious workers' movement), but at least I've developed self-criticism.

There's no getting away from having to explain ourselves. These words have been used to death.

For too long communists have ignored democracy and counterposed it to dictatorship (otP) or revolution. Too many parties today are still not democratic, and the struggle for democracy - directed against the capitalist system - has been ignored in favor of struggle for higher wages or revolution.
If a new mass workers' party arises it should place great emphasis on democracy.

Party for Participatory Democracy (PPD), or Party for Economic Democracy (PED)