Why should communists engage in economic struggles?

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is only true if we recognise that every economic strike is, at the same time, a political action.

You've got your premise wrong here. The notion that only political organization counts is based on the opposite premise, that less than a handful of economic strike action has any semblance of a political character.

Other than that, the idea that only the "political struggle" matters is pure bullshit.

No it's not, and I'll explain why in my immediate response below to Broody:

From chapter two of the Communist Manifesto

You neglected to quote the earlier, more fundamental part: The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a [political] class [for itself], overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy [or hegemony], conquest of [ruling-class] political power by the proletariat.

To subcp, I guess the Bordigist response would be that my democratic theory interpretation reeks of "democratism," and ironically that would be a more informed disagreement.

[The Jay]

You're detatched from reality.

Hu hu hu, good one.

The new deal happened because of general strikes, and through the 30s the CIO only grew throughout the New Deal.

I know that. The whole point of the New Deal was to make concessions to the interests of the working class as a means to avoid an all out revolt. The ruling class knew that if nothing was done they would lose their power. This risk to the power of the capitalists was most visible in the growth of leftist parties as well as the strength of the unions.

These facts do nothing to show my view as false; in fact, they are examples of my very point.

The condition of the working class also rose as a whole due to things like minimum wage laws and tons of safety and health procedures enacted by the federal government, as a result; not a means of avoiding, strikes.

The strikes made the bourgeois scared, yes. What they feared more was a further radicalization of the populous which they thought could pose a massive threat to their domination. It was not out of fear of a few strikes, but a wider action by the working class.

But you think that suffering in some deterministic way raises class consciousness. Left communists generally think of things in this petit bourgeois idealistic notion that "Oh they're in poverty now, they must hate capitalism EVEN MORE!" It doesn't work like that, people don't strike when they're in poverty; they work harder than ever.

I don't speak for anyone but myself so I'll answer your question from my own perspective.

I do not see the idea of historical materialism as something so coarse as you seem to be implying. It is not necessarily the case that poverty causes radicalization, but what it does say is that it increases the likelihood of radical ideas seeming reasonable imo. It isn't such an un-nuanced thing as you seem to be implying.

The first thing that was done when germans gained universal suffrage was the election of August Bebel into the Reichstag. Eventually the Leibnachts was elected as well. I'll trust these mens course of action more than your or anybody on the interent's advice.

This was just pathetic posturing and had nothing to do with anything you were even implying - wrongly - that I was saying.

[The Jay]

As if parliamentary reforms were not always, ultimately, bourgeois reforms, a precaution against the threat (and, most often, reality) of working class insubordination? As if they were achieved against and despite capital, rather than with capital's sufferance- and even, as in your example of the New Deal, its enthusiasm? As if social democracy was a weapon wielded by the working class, and not against it?

If you want to make a point you should try making some complete and declarative sentences. You should also read what I wrote again because you are all wrong about what I said and I do not feel like re-writing what I have just wrote a page before this.

[subcp]

I don't know what to make of the inconsistency in your post. The "clear distinction" points to a conclusion against growing political struggles out of economic disputes and against harboring any notion that "the economic is political." The "clear distinction" means, in fact, to start with blatantly political struggles from the get-go, and spillovers into economic issues should be welcomed as a bonus.

My post to you included examples where workers begin going beyond wage demands and begin to transcend the divisions of capitalist society. Until the movement for communism begins- and I completely agree with the communisation characterization on this, that the movement for communism starts with the generalization and the linking up of such struggles that begin striving to go beyond the limits of economic struggle, the division between the political and economic is affirmed in daily life of all of us. Unless anyone is arguing that we are right now living through the movement for communism.

the revolutionary dynamic of present struggles, which in several cases brings to the surface the drastic refusal of the proletarian condition (struggles without demands, and struggles with demands that develop into violent conflicts without a prospect of a compromise).

- Blaumachen

The base on which these possibilities rest, imho, is on the structural shift in world capital with the transition to decadence. That is why capital cannot provide durable reforms; it's why generalized state capitalism came into existence; it's the foundation for the environment of crisis which has become more acute since 2008- all of which is how we get to the place, today, where pitched battles with the state, mass action and mass strikes, riots, etc. begin with 'economic demands'- the inability of capital to meet human needs and desires, or in many cases even mediocre wage demands. It's what makes communism a material necessity and not an ideology. But until the generalization and linking up of the kinds of struggles that have begun to claw out of recidivism (Honda, Hyundai, Misr Spinning & Weaving, etc.), the laws of capitalism still govern life. I don't think it matters whether generalization of open struggle occurs from mass demonstrations against food prices, against police and military repression, or in public or private sector workplaces over wage demands- whats important is that the movement of the working-class to transform all things is underway and linking together.

[Anti-Traditional]

Well, some would argue the role of the vanguard is to guide the struggle from potential revolt into revolution...

To show that simply fighting for reforms will get nowhere in the end and to use historical materialism as a guide to illuminate the need for a totally new system.I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do.

But isn't this exactly what happens when communists ''intervene'' in the struggle? In any case much of the time workers just want to raise their wage and could do without communists preaching at them that their struggle is pointless.

While I'd love to go to work and say to everyone, "Tomorrow, we takeover!" odds are that nobody would take me seriously - and why would they? What have I done to demonstrate meaningful political leadership?.

Yes, but why should we want them to put their faith into our ''leadership''? To me that would indicate a certain passiveness and unawareness of their own abilities.

The focus isn't so much on the ends in themselves. Rather, the focus is on — despite my personal distaste for the phrase — building the Party (i.e. strengthening and developing — through solidarity — the organic community of proletarians, which is immanent to communism: "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things").

Is this not somewhat manipulative? Using their struggle to further your ends.

[Fionnagáin]

But you think that suffering in some deterministic way raises class consciousness. Left communists generally think of things in this petit bourgeois idealistic notion that "Oh they're in poverty now, they must hate capitalism EVEN MORE!" It doesn't work like that, people don't strike when they're in poverty; they work harder than ever.

You cant just call something an "economic struggle," in the way left communists do. There is only class struggle which manifests itself into specific demands which may or may not correspond with the conscious goals of the rest of the working class.

I'm going to have to ask, have you actually ever read any left communists text, or are you going purely by the impressions you've formed on this site? What you're saying here doesn't seem at odds with anything I've read from that tradition, and in fact gels with it a lot more easily than anything coming out of conventional Trotskyism.

That in fact is orthodox Marxist analysis, not a weird combination of Marxian analysis and syndicalism.

You'll have to forgive me for declining to accept the automatic equation of "orthodox" and "authentic". The division of struggles, as far as I can see, is nothing more than the division of labour between union and party functionaries- a division of labour no doubt much-loved by the "Orthodox Marxists" who staff or aspire to staff such roles, but of precious little consequence to the working class.

[Geiseric]

I'm going to have to ask, have you actually ever read any left communists text, or are you going purely by the impressions you've formed on this site? What you're saying here doesn't seem at odds with anything I've read from that tradition, and in fact gels with it a lot more easily than anything coming out of conventional Trotskyism.


You'll have to forgive me for declining to accept the automatic equation of "orthodox" and "authentic". The division of struggles, as far as I can see, is nothing more than the division of labour between union and party functionaries- a division of labour no doubt much-loved by the "Orthodox Marxists" who staff or aspire to staff such roles, but of precious little consequence to the working class.

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.

[subcp]

'Third periodism' was rejected by the communist left at the time and there aren't any proponents of it today.

[Fionnagáin]

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.

So you haven't read any left communist texts. That is what you're saying, yes?

[Geiseric]

'Third periodism' was rejected by the communist left at the time and there aren't any proponents of it today.

Not true ask any left com on this forum about third periodism and none of them will historically support a united front with the KPD and the SPD. I can directly quote Ghost Bebel and the other "Bordigaists" on the forum about this because we've argued this for months.

So you haven't read any left communist texts. That is what you're saying, yes?

sure I have. I started a bordiga essay and it struck me as basic Leninism, but to me what they did in real life, historically as a result of their theory, is more important. The Italian left communists ill fated work in Red Unions was tried in the U.S. with William Z. Foster which had the same results. That along with the rejection of the united front with "reformists" no matter what you're working on are the main tenents of Left Communism, which are mimicked by other sectarian groups such as the Spartacist league.

Bordiga led a sizable amount of people who were against Stalinism not to join the official left opposition. I do not like him for that.

[Fionnagáin]

Half a Bordiga essay doesn't really constitute "reading left communist texts" in any really meaningful sense.

[Devrim]

I've argued and talked with left communists, and know what their conclusions are. They're on a different plane, one which is completely sectarian. Historically they support moves that have failed, such as Third Periodism, so there isn't much to be gained from reading their reasoning.

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

yeah you guys are probably right. It could of been the revolutionary marxist bunch and I got them mixed up somehow.

[black magick hustla]

I have been a left communist since the 80s, and have been involved in political work in various countries. I have never met or even heard about a single left communist who supported Stalin's third period.

You on the other hand, have talked to a few people on the Internet, and have read part of an article by Bordiga, so obviously based on that wealth of knowledge you must be right.

Devrim

trots confuse the "anti anti fascism" argument of some leftcoms with third period stalinism. ive heard tht before

[Geiseric]

trots confuse the "anti anti fascism" argument of some leftcoms with third period stalinism. ive heard tht before

Both are sectarian positions which i guess was my point

[Fionnagáin]

Both are sectarian positions which i guess was my point

What do you think "sectarianism" actually refers to?

[Geiseric]

What do you think "sectarianism" actually refers to?

I'm the context of the rise of Nazism it means denying to form a United front with working class people who voted for the SPD, and insanely marching against their demonstrations, whilst accompanied by Nazis. That's what sectarianism is.

Imagine if the Bolsheviks let the white army kill and imprison any menshevik or provisional government supporters, who are still working class, at the start of the civil war. That's sectarianism, the KPD was more concerned with their own organization than the whole working class.

[Fionnagáin]

You're jumping back and forth between two very different things, there. On the one hand, you say that sectarianism is a concern for political organisations over the working class. Fair enough. But then you flip that around and say that sectarianism is a concern for the working class over political organisations, asserting working class autonomy in opposition to alliance with the bourgeois left. How can it be both?

The answer, I think, is that it isn't both, and is in fact neither: that "sectarianism", in your hands, means one who prefers their narrow organisation to your broad organisation; their little sect to your front-of-the-week. Class only really comes into it as a rationalisation, and even then only barely, as a preferred constituency rather than as the basis for any political agency.