Members

Indeed, there was room enough in entities like the late 19th century SPD for a spectacularly wide variety of view points that I think reflects a certain pragmatism that can only be inspired by an earnest commitment to the socialist vision. My own views are that the movement as a whole is best served by systematically integrating the economic struggle ("worker's movement") with the political (of which voting is actually an after thought), but I also understand and respect comrades who disagree.

Comrade, you're definitely using the wrong words here! Wrong words can lead to others supporting economism!

"Workers movement" is political, not economic. It's about the merger of socialism-as-maximum-economic-struggle with the worker-class-for-itself-as-political-movement, not the other way around!

Die Neue Zeit, Thanks for the welcome and the group. I'm still pissed at the snide manner in which you were summarily banned from *******.

Now I gotta disagree with you. At least, you appear to split economics from politics, and I believe they are a unity that needs to be approached in the integrated or serial manner suggested by MarxSchmarx. Isn't economism the separation of economics from other social relations, or the exclusive focus on economic conditions and issues?

I have a rather fully worked-out "red-green theory of life, community, and revolution" that creates and employs a dialectical unity of economics and politics. I really can't think of any other way to approach revolutionary organizing.

My red-green best.

Economism is a strategy that revolves around focusing on the workers' spontaneous economic struggles: strikes and the like; while ignoring political struggle. This in effect leads the workers' movement to become co-opted by liberalism. In words, most self-described communist organizations support political struggle, but in practice most put an extreme emphasis on strikes and things like this.. it cannot really be considered a serious departure from bakuninism.

Part of the problem with this is that genuine class struggle is a political struggle in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is counterposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. There is nothing political about spontaneous economic struggles(as opposed to strikes that may be tactically employed by the party).

@GhostBebel Yes, the idea that strikes are going to change workers into revolutionaries without having ever confronted scientific socialist ideas, is a dream. I do not remember where Engels writes that 'Only through the struggle do workers become class conscious', but there is a definite logic to it. When workers strike, they strike against their employer, but are confronted today by brutal Police. I think supporting strikes through articles and agitations in beginning crisis situations where employers brutalize workers' rights is a vital part to building a sense of collective workers consciousness (as opposed to class consciousness). I think strikes make workers aware that there is a connection between their employer that they are striking against and the existing State. Of course the connection that it is not their employer, but capital, and that it is not them individually, but them as workers in this picture; has to be and can only be transmitted through larger, superstructure ways: Politics.

Why isn't this group called Orthodox Marxists or Second International? It might make it clearer to members than the broad definition of Revolutionary Marxists.

Why isn't this group called Orthodox Marxists or Second International? It might make it clearer to members than the broad definition of Revolutionary Marxists.

That is because we seek to turn traditional Marxist ideas into a broad following. I mean, who would join an "Orthodox Marxist" group? Doesn't sound too cool to me.

Revolutionary Marxists sounds cooler than Orthodox Marxists, even if they are the same