What's wrong with class collaboration?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Hello Comrades!

A class struggle is suicidal since the bourgeois have the power to starve the masses, to control them, in fact, to do just about anything. At least, class collaboration would help both parties - the bourgeois keeps his power while the workers get their fair share of the pie, so to speak. It seems to be a fair bargain, as both parties get what they want.

For instance, taking over a factory all at once is impossible, but strikes are at least practicable and somewhat easy to organize; and, in doing so, workers benefit greatly. So why can't people do what's practical and beneficial for workers instead of having these sweet hopes about revolution?

I am only asking these questions to learn, so please don't get me wrong. If class collaboration compels the bourgeois to make concessions to the working class, then why go for class struggle at all? Wouldn't the middle path be better?

[Zanthorus]

First of all, you don't seem to understand exactly what a "class struggle" is. A class struggle is precisely that, the struggle between classes. A strike is just as much a part of class struggle as the take over of a factory.

Second of all the bourgeoisie does not have the power to do "just about anything". Capital cannot survive without labour. It needs labourers to create surplus-value to expand itself. If the bourgeoisie really could do whatever it wanted then even strikes would be utterly futile since they could just starve the striking workers.

Thirdly you don't seem to understand what "class collaboration" is. "Class collaboration" is when the political independence of the working class is sacrificed and the workers movement is subordinated to the interests of another class, usually under the pretence of winning "progressive" goals. National liberation is an example. In natlib struggles the political independence of the working class is sacrificed to the interests of the national bourgeoisie in order to fight Imperialist occupation. In your example of a strike, the workers are acting as an independent force in direct antagonism to the bourgeoisie. This is a form of class struggle, not collaboration.

There is no "middle path" between struggle and collaboration. Either the workers and capitalists work together for some common goal or they struggle for antagonistic goals. And for the most part they struggle since everywhere the interests of the workers are in direct conflict with the interests of the capitalists. It's just a matter of how far these struggles are taken.

Most social-democrats and those within the workers movement who refuse to confront the question of the capturing of power by the working class are engaged in a futile sisyphian struggle. Today you might win an immediate victory, but tomorrow the bourgeoisie will have found a way around it and the struggle will continue. Communists link the immediate aims of the workers movement to a greater picture of the historical road the workers will need to take. That is, the abolition of the class struggle by the capturing of power by the workers and expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

[Tifosi]

At least, class collaboration would help both parties

Why the fuck would I want to help the ruling class? What have they ever done for me? Sweat fuck all!

the bourgeois keeps his power while the workers get their fair share of the pie, so to speak.

It's not just about getting a fair deal for the working class. It's about gaining power so we can change our lives for the better. If the ruling class keep power or a new ruling class take it's place nothing will change. Also who ever has the power has the power to decide what is a fair deal.

It seems to be a fair bargain, as both parties get what they want.

It's not a fair bargin and the working class don't get what they want, they are still powerless.

[danyboy27]

class collaboration, humm, i think i have heard that somewhere, hoo right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_collaboration

[Mahatma Gandhi]

class collaboration, humm, i think i have heard that somewhere, hoo right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_collaboration

Obviously, I didn't mean it that way. Besides, not all class collaboration is fascism; it exists even within the capitalist system. It doesn't make capitalism fascism. What I am saying is: is it possible to give capitalism a benign face, as it were, and thus create those conditions under which socialism may blossom later on?

[mikelepore]

the bourgeois keeps his power while the workers get their fair share of the pie, so to speak

The workers produce ALL of the wealth in society. Consistent with that fact, what is the workers' fair share?

[danyboy27]

Obviously, I didn't mean it that way. Besides, not all class collaboration is fascism; it exists even within the capitalist system. It doesn't make capitalism fascism. What I am saying is: is it possible to give capitalism a benign face, as it were, and thus create those conditions under which socialism may blossom later on?

its not really a class collaboration, worker always try to suck more money from their bosses, and bosses always try to keep that money away from worker.

its a phenomenon called class struggle, a gigantic game where everyone fight for their own interrest, and where collaboration is more or less like what you might witness in a SAW horror movie.

if you really want to have class collaboration, you have do fallow mussolini or hitler recipies: has a state, bribe the industrials and bust the union.

that the only credible way to have some kind of collaboration between the worker and the boss in a capitalist system, the state have to satisfy industrial hunger for money, silence worker organisation, and in exchange create organisations that will provide to the worker various service and priviledges.

at the end, you need to kill and arrest a lot of people, bribes those you cant kill and supress freedom.

[it_ain't_me]

Hello Comrades!

A class struggle is suicidal since the bourgeois have the power to starve the masses, to control them, in fact, to do just about anything. At least, class collaboration would help both parties - the bourgeois keeps his power while the workers get their fair share of the pie, so to speak. It seems to be a fair bargain, as both parties get what they want.

For instance, taking over a factory all at once is impossible, but strikes are at least practicable and somewhat easy to organize; and, in doing so, workers benefit greatly. So why can't people do what's practical and beneficial for workers instead of having these sweet hopes about revolution?

I am only asking these questions to learn, so please don't get me wrong. If class collaboration compels the bourgeois to make concessions to the working class, then why go for class struggle at all? Wouldn't the middle path be better?

you need to change your user title to just ''christian''.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello Comrades!

A class struggle is suicidal

Class struggle happens regardless of weather the working class initiates it. In the US, the working class hasn't initiated most of the struggle lately, it's been thrust on them in the forms of mass furloughs and wage cuts and the elimination of job protections, increases in fees for buses and tolls and city services to make up for the gamboling that the ruling class did with the economy.

since the bourgeois have the power to starve the masses, to control them, in fact, to do just about anything.

Well workers also have the ability to stop production and thereby make the machinery and land owned by the rich, effectively useless. It takes organizing and solidarity (and breaking the law, since strikes or sympathy strikes are illegal in places like China or the US respectively) to make actions, that could stop production, effective.

But to take your logic and apply it generally: it was more suicidal for slaves to fight back than for workers - so you are against slave rebellions or slave runaways? You are against people forced into Polish ghettos defending themselves against the NAZIs in Warsaw?

At least, class collaboration would help both parties - the bourgeois keeps his power while the workers get their fair share of the pie, so to speak. It seems to be a fair bargain, as both parties get what they want.

So you are arguing that the best set-up is exactly what we have now? I mean the bourgoise is currently in power and workers currently try and make reforms. So considering the BP spill, wars, the economic crisis, all the people who needlessly starve every day, the potential for nuclear conflict between competing economic powers, the possibility of irreversible climate change, and so on. In your plan you want to see millions and millions of needless deaths! Do you have some kind of blood-lust?

For instance, taking over a factory all at once is impossible, but strikes are at least practicable and somewhat easy to organize; and, in doing so, workers benefit greatly. So why can't people do what's practical and beneficial for workers instead of having these sweet hopes about revolution?

I believe in fighting for short-term goals as a way to both make life a little easier for us while we still have capitalism, but more importantly (as far as trying to win full liberation goes) because the small wins at first train new workers in how to fight for their own demands and interests; it builds the confidence of workers to know that when something is wrong, they can organize together and potentially win; and the short-term goals make ideas like a factory occupation or general strike more tangible in people's minds. IMO, the US workers - teachers, public workers, and so on - are just as angry about cuts as French workers... so why are French workers so militant while US workers are so meek? The short answer is that most French workers have seen or experienced something like a strike-wave, or general strike in their lifetime since one happens on average of once a decade in France. In the US, the last general strike was in Oakland in 1946... most of the organizers and participants are now dead from old age. That makes a difference. So that's why I concentrate on building up the small struggles that will pave the way for bigger struggles and ultimately a "big showdown" between the bosses and workers.

I am only asking these questions to learn, so please don't get me wrong. If class collaboration compels the bourgeois to make concessions to the working class, then why go for class struggle at all? Wouldn't the middle path be better?

It really is the essentail question of "why class politics" so don't sweat it.

The reason class collaboration will only end with one class on top IMO is because the interests of the boss class and the working class are opposed. Periods of collaboration are short-lived because it involves one class having to put its own interests aside.

After WWII, most of the ruling class wanted a more collaborationist approach in order to have time to rebuild after the war and also to end the radicalization that had been happening before the war (1946 was a huge strike-wave in the US, and so the ruling class here would much rather give some concessions to unions than see a repeat of the 1930s strike waves and militancy). On the flip-side the class collaboration of more recent times takes the form of workers sacrificing for the ruling class's interests: so public tax money was taken out of things that help workers like welfare and so on and given to the banks who had gambled and lost! In California, politicians from both parties have spent the last few decades cutting taxes for major industry under the slogan of "lowering penalties on business in order to lure companies her". Now, these politicians are claiming "California spends too much" (when really, it's "California gave too much of it's money to the rich") and so they are cutting jobs, furloughing people, lowering wages, and so on.

With the capitalists and the workers, it's like 2 natural forces - you can sometimes briefly reach a point where they balance eachother out, (like 0g in orbit - gravity is keeping the satellite in orbit, momentum is keeping the satellite moving and not falling down to earth) but this status is unstable and so eventuality one set of interests is going to win out over the other. (eventually a satellite will fall to earth or be flung out into space if the balance of the two forces isn't perfect).

[Mahatma Gandhi]

The workers produce ALL of the wealth in society. Consistent with that fact, what is the workers' fair share?

Most workers do not realize that they produce all the wealth; nor do they care. They're interested in practical matters such as raise/bonus, tv, nice home etc. etc. Taking into account the average worker's mindset, one has to come up with a pragmatic solution. The 'all-or-nothing' attitude does more harm than good.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

What I am trying to say is: would it not be better to focus on the battles you can win? Not all workers are the same; for some of them, low wages may be the problem, and for others, discrimination at the workplace. Fighting for specific (and realistic) goals like this would be much better than fighting for some vague and abstract concept like 'workers' control of the means of production.'

[RGacky3]

Most workers do not realize that they produce all the wealth; nor do they care. They're interested in practical matters such as raise/bonus, tv, nice home etc. etc. Taking into account the average worker's mindset, one has to come up with a pragmatic solution. The 'all-or-nothing' attitude does more harm than good.

How could you possibally know that they don't care? Also how could they care if they don't realize that there is an alternative to wage slavery? Them producing all the wealth and not getting to control it IS practical, because if they COULD control it, they're life would be a hell of a lot better.

Most workers don't ever own a home btw. What do you mean by the average workers mindset? where did you learn about that? (BTW the average worker is not a white first world middle manegement white collar guy).

ALso people could have probably argued that all slaves wanted was to be treated well, have good houses, good food, and enough liesure time.

What I am trying to say is: would it not be better to focus on the battles you can win? Not all workers are the same; for some of them, low wages may be the problem, and for others, discrimination at the workplace. Fighting for specific (and realistic) goals like this would be much better than fighting for some vague and abstract concept like 'workers' control of the means of production.'

Thats what we do, but what we are fighting for is more and more control.

[mikelepore]

Most workers do not realize that they produce all the wealth; nor do they care. They're interested in practical matters such as raise/bonus, tv, nice home etc. etc. Taking into account the average worker's mindset, one has to come up with a pragmatic solution. The 'all-or-nothing' attitude does more harm than good.

I would prefer to teach people what they need most to learn, even if hundreds of years go by without there seeming to be any progress in getting through to them. I believe this will be more constructive in the long run than knowing what people need to learn most, but teaching them something different, merely because they are more likely to listen to the other message. For hundreds of years there was no receptive audience for the few crackpots who wanted to replace monarchy with a republic, abolish slavery, and give women the right to vote. The small number of people who had such ideas kept scattering the seeds although they didn't see any signs of germination. But history is marked by inflection points where the curvature suddenly changes. De Leon observed, "Revolutions triumphed, whenever they did triumph, by asserting themselves and marching straight upon their goal."

But it's not an all-or-nothing attitude, because any individuals who wish to do so can perform volunteer work for revolutionary groups on some days of the week, and also do volunteer work for incremental reform groups on different days of the week. I only recommend keeping the revolutionary message itself clear and direct wherever it is presented. Don't water down with euphemisms the message that capitalism is obsolete and antisocial, and that an improved system is within our reach as soon as the people organize to construct it.