Startinf from where the working-class is

In this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/ilwu-shut-...468/index.html

Devrim criticized the Trotskyists for believing the workers were strong enough to confront the state to end the war; among other things.

I think that we have to start from where the working class is, not where we would like it to be.

So I sent him a p/m asking:

What methods do we use?

Is there an article or a book on the subject?

He replied:
Hi, this is a big question, and needs a big answer. I would rather answer it as a post if you don't mind. I will get back to it after the weekend 5/6th Nisan. As I will be a bit busy until then.

I will get back to it after the weekend 5/6th Nisan.

Did I write that? Sorry. Nisan is April so I still have a few days.

Devrim

My thought is that right now we should seek to unify workers struggles into one before challenging the state.

My thought is that right now we should seek to unify workers struggles into one before challenging the state.

Ironically, as gilhyle implied here, there is an inverse relationship between the success of workers' struggles and the appeal of left-communist politics.

That is why I have this thread:

Radical or revolutionary social democracy: bring it back???

I've also been looking into "socioeconomic democracy" as a minimum or "reformist" demand (minimum-reformist-revolutionary):

http://www.centersds.com/verybrief.htm

[Why? Because this is a modern take on Marx's minimum demand for progressive income taxation - and goes beyond that archaic call!]

Ironically, as gilhyle implied here, there is an inverse relationship between the success of workers' struggles and the appeal of left-communist politics.

That is why I have this thread:

Radical or revolutionary social democracy: bring it back???

I've also been looking into "socioeconomic democracy" as a minimum or "reformist" demand (minimum-reformist-revolutionary):

http://www.centersds.com/verybrief.htm

[Why? Because this is a modern take on Marx's minimum demand for progressive income taxation - and goes beyond that archaic call!]

Actually, the left wing of the COmmunist Parties dominated where countries were neared to revolution. (The Italian red weeks, germany, etc.)

What do you mean by 'into one'? Into one what?

Union/Workers Assocation/whatever?

Political party?

I don't see how either of those are feasible or desireable.

One struggle.

Sorry JR but I don't wish to join you're group. If you're going to debate something don't link to a thread, I'm not going to spend hours digging through your files when you can rebute arguments by using the [quote] option.

^^^ Hehe, the very first post in the "radical social democracy" thread has quite a bit of links.

Comrades, in spite of what I said on RevLeft regarding the problems of classical social democracy (parliamentary reductionism, the ambiguousness of the word "democracy" in terms of class relations, and even who is a proletarian):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...92&postcount=7

And what I said regarding the mass organization of "United Social Labour":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-soc...056/index.html



Is there a possibility of bringing back at least "radical" social democracy in terms of labelling the pre-revolutionary mass organization or a platform within? Some North American eyebrows might be raised at reading the abbreviation RSDLP/RSDWP (Radical Social-Democratic Labour/Workers' Party/Platform) in referring to the pre-revolutionary mass organization or platform within, and the words "social" and "labour" are there ("united" not being necessary because of the word "radical"):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/716/whatsort.html
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/648/russia.htm

From the latter (written by THE Boris Kagarlitsky):

The next question is whether this should be a reformist socialist project or a revolutionary one. My view is that one cannot overcome capitalism in one country. This is impossible. What is possible is a programme which involves social and economic transitional measures going beyond the current capitalist system. That would allow other countries to start their own revolutionary changes, so that these processes interact and feed on each other. The world is composed of different units which have different levels of development, different political configurations, etc. So it is not possible to attempt everything at once.

The important thing is that the socialist goal should be inseparable from democratic goals and that the programme adopted should be not BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATIC, but, to use a phrase, SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC in character.

However, I also see a very real problem with even "revolutionary social democracy," even if it's proletarian-oriented: most Trots, for example, are indeed only "revolutionary social-democratic" in their approach to the socialist mode of production itself!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-err...487/index.html

In the same work (State and Revolution), Lenin, while paraphrasing Marx, also gives hints of his still-Social-Democratic equation of the socialist mode of production with what he called later on "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people" (what I call proletocratic capitalism)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scientific...293/index.html

For, despite his monumental efforts since grappling with the Philosophical notebooks in 1914, Lenin still clung to some of the revolutionary social democratic views of the pre-World War I Second International. In particular, he shared the view of socialism as the culmination of the 'objective' concentration and centralisation of production undertaken by monopoly capitalism. This looked to the state to continue the centralising process until production was fully nationalised and hence ripe for socialisation. Viewing society as would-be socialist administrators running a centralised system of production, revolutionary social democrats rejected Marx's lower phase of communism, organised as 'freely associated labour' abolishing wage slavery.

This is exactly why, in my "Language" thread, I use "proletocracy" by itself only in reference to the old DOTP, and not to revolutionary-Marxist movements in the present or in the future. "Proletocracy" is implicitly "revolutionary social-democratic" for the working class (no authoritarian exploitation, and a very explicit stance on class), but the prefix "social" (itself merely an abbreviation for "socialist," as per my sig) implies the merger formula (between Marxism and the workers' movement) in another form: the abolition of wage slavery and exploitation.



Thoughts? Suggestions?

The link on "socioeconomic democracy" is interesting. Its basic premise is "minimum income, maximum wealth," but the theorists behind it say that this basic premise is just that, and that "socioeconomic democracy" can be extended to other areas. Indeed, since this term is more accurate than "social democracy," you should read the quote above as referring to "socioeconomic democracy" and not modern so-called "social democracy."

In other words you wish to go back into time, without considering that capitalism is no longer in its stage of ascendency.

^^^ I don't believe in a reductionist arbitrary point in time wherein everything becomes decadent right there and then. There is an uneven development of decadence, and there are also things - both "good" and "bad" - that globalized capitalism is capable of compared to "national capitalisms" (namely the breaking down of "patriotism" but also the increased mobility of both labour and capital).

Anyways.
I know that in the long run that we don't have much choice between Socialism or Barbarism. In the short run capitalism can try to put a bandaid on the ever bleeding wound of the tendency of that rate of profit to fall by encouraging booms.

Now, really I'm cynical about the organizations of revolutionaries-- we're trying to get a greater circulation for our newspapers, while commercial newspapers are declining in circulation and are trying despirately to adapt to the world wide web.

Yes, publications are important, but they no longer need to be the crux of building the organization. Websites and messageboards help Communists come into contact with eachother and develop arguements, and thicken the gravy of theory.

As that that less energy has to be expended in priniting litterature, I think that more energy should be excerted on building debate and arguments. Especially for Highschool and Community College students, here in these institutions are where ideology of todays society is very prominant; in Commuinity College most students are there to learn a skill-- like welding. Very blue collar. Another thing about these places is that when they argue against Communism they use very basic arguments, aswell as ones founded on false pretense. For every Sociology, History and Hummanities class (you always have to take electives) if you had atleast two students taught in argument, it's possible they could be a force to be reckoned wth. I'm saying have atleast two students for every class on those subjects schedualed, but together in the same class.

I'll go on later if you're interested.

^^^ I don't believe in a reductionist arbitrary point in time wherein everything becomes decadent right there and then. There is an uneven development of decadence, and there are also things - both "good" and "bad" - that globalized capitalism is capable of compared to "national capitalisms" (namely the breaking down of "patriotism" but also the increased mobility of both labour and capital).

I'm not sifting through dinosaur poo, and carbon-dating it in nice cardboard boxes. What did Luxemburg say about the premise of Capitalisms existence?

Now, really I'm cynical about the organizations of revolutionaries-- we're trying to get a greater circulation for our newspapers, while commercial newspapers are declining in circulation and are trying despirately to adapt to the world wide web.

Yes, publications are important, but they no longer need to be the crux of building the organization. Websites and messageboards help Communists come into contact with eachother and develop arguements, and thicken the gravy of theory.

My article submission on "United Social Labour" addresses this shift to the Internet. Indeed, newspapers, magazines, and TV news media are in decline (because of the blatant Big Media bias).