The Working Class Revolution (WCR) Forums v3.0 - All Forums

World Federative Trade Union?: WFTU vs. IWW and WIIU

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:54:00 -0700

Although the current World Federation of Trade Unions has a bit of undue Russian influence (this from its past Soviet influence) and undue ties to Official Communist parties, I'm leaning towards the idea that a World Federative Trade Union might be more effective in organizing workers worldwide on a "red union" basis than either the fledgeling WIIU or the anti-political IWW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Feder...ade_Unions

Quote:In January 2006 it moved its headquarters from Prague, Czech Republic to Athens, Greece and now focuses on organizing regional federations of unions in the Third World, campaigning against imperialism, racism, poverty, environmental degradation and exploitation of workers under capitalism and in defense of full employment, social security, health protection, and trade union rights. The WFTU continues to devote much of its energy to organizing conferences, issuing statements and producing educational materials.

Thoughts?

Hi it's me .. whoever I am

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:06:29 -0700

[/size][/font][font=Arial]Hi everyone this is my first forumn ever. I am a liberal minded anthropologist looking to share ideas and ideals. Much change is coming to this world in the near future. It's important that communities liek this exist to speak the truth and organize. Communism or some hybrid of it is the only solution to the debilitating subjigation of the cash ecomomy lower classes and tribal peoples world wide. UNITE In TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE!

Video of John Pilger @ "Socialism 2009"

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:22:46 -0700

This video that I found recently is about John Pilger's speech at the "Socialism 2009" conference. Hopefully, you all will find it interesting:

Also, as so to add a necessary disclaimer: me posting this video does not mean that I endorse the entirety of the contents of this; it only means that I have endorsed the majority of those contents.

HELLO

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:31:47 -0700

Hello to everyone. Thanks for letting me be a part of the forum. Looking forward to talking with everyone. WCR

fist.gif (Size: 474 bytes / Downloads: 9)

Re-Associate Old Posts

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:04:15 -0700

Is there a way to re-associate my old posts with my account? Mine was deleted when I didn't have any internet access for a few weeks due to moving, and now my old posts are not associated with my username.

Can Cannabis Save the World?

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:29:30 -0700

The title of this thread prob'ly caught your eye pretty quick, didn't it? As ridiculous as this sounds, it really can. The best way to reverse the Greenhouse Effect is to stop the use of fossil fuels and end deforestation immediately. If this is to be brought to fruition, there's only one possible alternative; Industrial Cannabis, proclaims Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes, and his band of hippy cohorts:

Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes Wrote:Our Challenge to the World: Try to Prove Us Wrong

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect, and stop deforestation;

Then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meeting all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time...

And that substance is ― the same one that did it all before ― Cannabis Hemp... Marijuana!

"How is this possible?" you might ask. It's quite simple really; cannabis hurds, the woody core left behind after separating the fiber from the stalk, are 77% cellulose; four times as much as corn stalks, and it can grow to be sixteen to twenty feet high!

Popular Mechanics Magazine, NEW BILLION-DOLLAR CROP, February, 1938 Wrote:Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.

Among these 25,000 products are biodiesel, paper, textiles, plastics of all kinds, paints and varnishes, medicines, oils, food, the list goes on and on! The best part is, after you cut it down, unlike trees, you can grow more!

A single acre of cannabis can produce as much paper as 4.1 acres of trees, and the plant can be processed with all natural solvents, leaving no pollution behind. The paper would have to be bleached, but it can be done with hydrogen peroxide at only one-fifth of the pollution of chlorine bleach, which can easily be cleaned up and safely disposed of. Not only is it cheaper, smarter, and safer to produce, but it has far more durability and longevity than wood pulp.

Using information obtained from the archives of the United States Department of Agriculture, Jack Herer calculates that using only 6% of America's marginal farmlands to raise hemp as an energy crop would produce all 75 quadrillion BTU's needed for all of America's energy needs without disrupting the standard of living while simultaneously restoring the soil and the atmosphere at only a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels!

The most amazing part about this revolutionary plant is that it can be grown easily with little irrigation anywhere in the world outside of the arctic circle. If used in a socialist economy, it could be effectively used to transition from a wage system to a green economy by phasing out paper money in favor of hemp. With 21st century technology, processing hemp would be a cake walk, and small, decentralized communities could use hemp to become self-sustaining.

And of course, this is no pipe dream; hemp was as good as currency in America from the 1600's until the early 1800's, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew cannabis on their plantations, and smoked it too! But with constantly modernized hemp processing, its use as currency would soon disappear with the spread of the general knowledge of its use as a raw material; it would be so easy to grow, harvest and process that one could produce most all of the products one needs in everyday life virtually by themself!

According to a census, sales of hemp and hemp-related products increased fifteen times from 1993 to 1997, and sales are still increasing at this exponential rate. The know is getting out, and like socialism, the demand is growing as it's becoming more necessary and relevant to society.

Much like the revolutionary movement, we must get these methods and ideas moving with the same strict perseverence; by any means necessary! We've gotta get out this know with as much information and word of mouth as possible; pamphletism, mass organization, guerrilla gardening, etc. Not only will it be key in revitalizing the earth, but it will also be the most important resource for defeating capitalism; it is the plant that's going to make our goals a reality:

Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism Wrote:(VII) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation ― all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

Naturally, such a tall, sturdy, tenacious plant has roots that penetrate deeply, enriching the soil tremendously:

Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes Wrote:GREEN ECONOMY

When American farmers grow hemp to supply American industries with the primary feedstocks for fiber, fabric, fuel, food, medicines, plastics and recreational/relaxational herbal products we will see a rapid greening of the land and economy.

The green economy based upon the use of agricultural resources to supply industry will create a diversified locally based system of production. This decentralized green economy will enable everyone to participate and share in the wealth of a truly free market democracy. For there can be no true democracy unless every citizen has the opportunity to share in the wealth of a nation.

LAND AND SOIL RECLAMATION

Land reclamation is another compelling economic and ecological argument for hemp cultivation.

Until [the 20th] century, our pioneers and ordinary American farmers used cannabis to clear fields for planting, as a fallow year crop, and after forest fires to prevent mudslides and loss of watershed.

Hemp seeds put down ten- to twelve-inch root in only 30 days, compared to one-inch root put down by the rye or barley grass presently used by the U.S. Government.

Southern California, Utah and other states used cannabis routinely in this manner until about 1915. It also breaks up compacted, overworked soil.

In the formerly lush Himalayan region of Bangladesh, Nepal and Tibet there is now only light moss covering left as flash floods wash thousands of tons of topsoil away.

Independent Bangladesh, (formerly East Bengal, India) which literally means "cannabis-land-people" (it was formerly called East Bengal province, a name derived from bhang-cannabis, la-land), signed an "anti-drug" agreement with the U.S., promising not to grow hemp in the 1970's. Since that time it has suffered disease, starvation and decimation, due to unrestrained flooding.

Hemp seeds broadcast over eroding soil could reclaim land the world over. The farmed out desert regions can be brought back year after year, not only slowing genocide of starvation but easing threats of war and violent revolution.

With these chilling facts kept in mind, it becomes obvious that all kinds of ecological disasters, like the Dust Bowl, were a direct result of cannabis prohibition! If cannabis had been grown in rotation, instead of forcibly digging up the earth with industrial capital, the lost topsoil of the fertile plains could've been saved!

While that passage is ultimately in defense of reformable capitalism, it is obvious that plutocracy is what allowed this irresponsible environmental genocide to happen in the first place. But the author admits that this crop has the potential to provide the resources to allow socialism, and any region, for that matter, to achieve economic independence from capitalism, and thus the power to destroy it:

Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes Wrote:The green economy based upon [the common ownership of the means of production and] the use of agricultural resources to supply industry will create a diversified locally based system of production. This decentralized green economy will enable everyone to participate and share in the wealth of a truly [democratic, classless society]. For there can be no true democracy unless every citizen has the opportunity to share in the wealth of [the world].

When placed in the right context, not only does this support my argument, but it is now a realistic solution, instead of a pipe dream. Capitalism isn't going to allow this to happen; its plutocratic institutions prevented it from happening in the first place, the only way we can materialize these efforts is through complete unrelenting resistance by any means necessary!

The dawn of true Communism will be fully realized with the grandiose utilization of Cannabis! A very bold statement, I know, but with so many uses for something that grows to be twenty feet tall in the wild, how can we neglect the productive power of this noble plant, especially when the entire world is at stake? The DEA reports that 97% of the Cannabis they seize is found growing wild and uncultivated. Just imagine how much we could grow intentionally!

The earth can't wait for legislation; we've gotta get out there and start guerrilla gardening! We've gotta be the Johnny Appleseeds of this generation! Afterall, it grows wild on its own; if we get out there and broadcast it everywhere it can't be stopped! It may not be used effectively for its industrial purposes, but if it gets growing it's a start; the atmosphere needs to be restored now! If we don't get moving, we're screwed!

It is clear that the revolutionary movement, and socialism, can not survive without using every single means available, especially the most practical, resourceful, renewable, versatile method of them all; Cannabis!

But don't take my word for it, listen to what the Dead Kennedys ex-frontman Jello Biafra has to say:

Jello Biafra, Grow More Pot Wrote:You don't need to smoke pot to realize that the real drug problem in this country is not the drugs, and we can help solve our drug problems, crime problems, environmental problems, even our racial problems, if we say no to George Bush, and get together and grow.. more.. pot!

Don't listen to the yuppies; it's not time to "Live Green, and Go Yellow," it's high time for the revolutionary movement to "Live Red, and Grow Green!"

Announcement: On the Deletion of the "Current Events" Forums

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:21:54 -0700

15 July 2010

Dear fellow members,

As you all may have already noticed, I deleted both the "Current Events" category and the forums that happened to exist under it. The reason why I did it was because, after giving it some thought, I came to the conclusion that the "Current Events" category and the forums that happened to exist under it were actually drawing the attention away from more important forums and this, in turn, was helping to drag down the overall activity of the message board.

And, as so to help satisfy present and future information demand, I will be posting a series of threads under the title "My Perspective" in the forums that are under the "Revolutionary Education and Discussion" category. These threads will have an initial post which consisting of an introduction to the situation that it will address, my perspective of the situation that it will address and a question requesting the response of the rest of you all on the things covered in that post. I also encourage you all to do something similar on the forums that are under the "Revolutionary Education and Discussion" category.

Sincerely,
RedNovember1917,
Primary Administrator of the Working Class Revolution (WCR) Forums.

Workers-only policy: discussion thread

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:39:17 -0700

I suppose this is the thread for discussing the workers-only voting membership policy:

Neon Wrote:For the most part, this is true. With the constant revolutionizing of productive forces -- from industrial to mass production to computerized -- many of the old professions have been proletarianized. Clerks, secretaries, tax preparers, accounts payable/receivable, general office workers, graphic designers, some categories of computer programmers, cooks, teachers, nurses, etc., have all been moved from the "independent professional" to the "skilled worker" category in the last century.

At the same time, some of the old proletarian occupations that were tossed aside in favor of more modern methods of production -- barrel making, woodworking (excluding millwright), smithing (tin and steel), leatherworking, etc. -- have become "boutique" occupations that more or less require one to start a small business in order to do it.

I'd like some more discussion on the latter phenomenon. A lot of trades work, for example, can become petit-bourgeois-fied or unproductive. The talk about labour shortages in trades sorta hints at this.

Neon Wrote:Most workers who are considered "contract workers", like temporary workers, have no more control over what they receive from the capitalist they contract with than a "permanent" employee. They are as much "contract employees" (in the petty-bourgeois sense of the term: "independent contractors") as relatively privileged workers are part of the "middle class".

This is most obvious in the tax treatment of "contract workers"; faux "self-employed" folks aren't entitled to the usual tax deductions enjoyed by the self-employed or the small-business petit-bourgeoisie.

Compensation and Capital Flight

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:43:16 -0700

Compensation and Capital Flight

"The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of 'nationalization' lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues […] who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers […]" (Leon Trotsky)

As elaborated upon earlier, despite the broad economism inherent in that Trotskyist sacred cow known otherwise as The Transitional Program, there are a number of points in that “transitional” approach worth salvaging.

One of those points deals precisely with the question of indemnification. Given the extremely depressed period in which the Trotskyist sacred cow was committed to written form, only the most primitive dimension of the question of indemnification was considered, one not too dissimilar from either the very first accumulations by dispossession that jump-started bourgeois-fied commodity production (most notably land enclosures) or the combined agricultural kolkhozy proliferation, artificial depression of wages, and extensive GULAG labour that made so-called “socialist primitive accumulation.”

As noted by Karl Kautsky in The Social Revolution, however, there are other ways to effect non-compensatory expropriations:

Direct confiscation would complete this quickly, often at one stroke,while confiscation through taxation permits the disappearance of capitalist property through a long drawn out process proceeding in the exact degree in which the new order is established and its benevolent influence made perceptible […] Confiscation in this way loses its harshness, it becomes more acceptable and less painful. The more peaceably the conquest of the political power by the proletariat is attained and the more firmly organized and enlightened it is, the more we can expect that the primitive forms of confiscation will be softened.

In the 1970s, German-born Swedish economist Rudolf Meidner outlined a similarly protracted plan to increase the level of working-class savings and to translate it into social investment for sustaining real wage growth and at least the limited Keynesian definition of “full employment.” Companies with more than fifty employees would have been required to redistribute, on an annual basis, twenty percent of company profits as non-tradable shares to be held by wage-earner funds organized on a regional and not union-level basis. Naturally, the Swedish bourgeoisie mobilized well-funded opposition towards this decades-long plan to peacefully liquidate them as a class within decades.

In September 2008, the market-socialist David Schweickart outlined a more immediate, more direct, yet perfectly legal way to effect non-compensatory expropriations:

Let us imagine a quick transition from the deeply irrational, ultimately unsustainable economic system we presently inhabit to a democratic, socialist economy, one in which enterprises are run democratically, and economic stability no longer requires keeping our capitalists happy. Suppose we do get a financial meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression. And suppose we had a government newly elected, determined to effect this transition.

The first thing would be to assure everyone, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there's nothing to fear but fear itself. I mean, we are not talking about a meteor crashing into the earth, or an incurable plague, or a nuclear war. Pieces of paper have suddenly lost their value. Our resources are still intact. Our skill base is still intact. There's no reason for ordinary people to lose their jobs or see their incomes plummet-no material reason, that is.

What next? Well, since the stock market has tanked, let the government step in and buy up those now near-worthless shares of the publicly-traded non-financial corporations. (The price tag may well be less than Paulson's $700b. The government can print the money, if need be. In a depression it's essential to stimulate the economy by pumping money into it.) Suddenly our government has controlling interest in all the major corporations. (Notice, these assets are not "expropriated" by the government. They are paid for at full market value.)

The more primitive forms of non-compensatory expropriations should not be ruled out, however. The most obvious case comes in the form of confiscatory measures against capital flight, or to quote the Communist Manifesto, “confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”

REFERENCES

The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International by Leon Trotsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/.../index.htm]

The Social Revolution, Volume II: On the Day After the Social Revolution by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/.../pt2-1.htm] [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/.../pt2-2.htm]

Beyond Pension Capital: The Swedish 'Wage-Earner' Funds by Joe Guinan [http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_art...hp?aid=330]

Rudolf Meidner, 1914-2005: A Visionary Pragmatist by Robin Blackburn [http://www.counterpunch.org/blackburn12222005.html]

Bailout!: A Case for Economic Democracy And Clearing the Path to Socialism by David Schweickart [http://www.zcommunications.org/bailout-a...chweickart]

APL Concludes Second Congress

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:24:27 -0700

Comrades, and others:

The American Party of Labor is proud to announce that it has concluded its Second Congress in Atlanta Georgia. We have published an article in our main public organ the Red Phoenix.

The congress had a lot of delegates from the North and the South in the US and much was accomplished.

Y'all can read our public statement on the Red Phoenix here: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/...-congress/

How Can We Restore Active Membership and Participation at WCR?

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:46:39 -0700

I apologize for posting in the Help Forum, but we do happen to need help here at WCR, and I didn't know where this thread should properly go, so I'm asking for help not only with the problem of inactivity here at WCR, but for proper cataloging of this thread.

We all know that ever since the Stalinkiddies made their exodus to Red Stomp that posting activity immediately slumped. To renew interest and get some activity going, I would like to start a discussion with the most active members here to brainstorm for ideas to breathe some life back into WCR, and perhaps even discuss some technical or presentational changes to that end: Does the forum need an upgrade or a facelift, or does it just need to attract a bigger membership? Apparently we get a lot of hits here at WCR; frequently over ninety visits a day. That's a lot of consistent traffic, the kind which doesn't browse superficially, leave and never return, but must be spectating with interest and relying upon our forum as an educational resource. If any such visitors are reading this, I invite you to register an account here and join in the discussions―particularly this one; I think you "long-time-listeners" could give us a vital insight to this problem―and ask questions. But at the very least, please keep coming back.

Come on, people, work with me, here.

Sinceramente,
El Profesor Karlos Marxos PhD.

P.S.: This is my fiftieth post, w00t!

Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:33:22 -0700

http://davidharvey.org/

great stuff, I listened to it all over my ipod throughout the work week. Read the book, but listen to this afterwards when tackling a book like Capital.

The "Economic Calculation" Controversy: Unravelling of a Myth

Wed, 26 May 2010 10:55:40 -0700

The "Economic Calculation" Controversy is a great treatise against the Economic Calculation Argument/Problem by Robin Cox (a.k.a. robbo203 on RevLeft. Status update: he is now also robbo203 here on WCR), and I thought it worthy of sharing here.

Jugoslavijan Pop, Punk and New Wave

Mon, 24 May 2010 14:37:37 -0700

RedNovember1917 has been introducing me to Jugoslavijan Pop, Punk and New Wave music, and there's a YouTube user named hikonline who's been posting a bunch of Pop Music from the Jugoslavijan era. I've compiled two playlists of hikonline's uploads for easy access; the first two are New Wave band Plavi Orkestar (Blue Orchestra)'s first and second albums, Soldatski Bal (Soldier's Ball) and Smrt Fašizmu! (Death to Fascism!), and the last is a compilation album produced by Jugoton, Artistička Radna Akcija (Artistic Work Action), which was the product of an Omladinska Radna Akcija (Youth Work Action); volunteer projects for the Jugoslavijan Youth to do something fun and productive to rebuild postwar Jugoslavija and benefit society, analogous to the Subbotniks of the former Soviet Union. Uživaj (Enjoy)!

An Interview with Seth Moore of the Workers Party in America

Mon, 24 May 2010 08:08:07 -0700

An Interview with Seth Moore of the Workers Party in America (Karlos Marxos of WCR) conducted on Wednesday, May the 19th, 2010 by Fredrik Karlsson:

FK: Can I have an interview with you? a political one?

SM: Ok.

Why do you wish to interview me? and to what end?

FK: I find that you have a certain balance in your radical views which is rare, and maybe you can sort out some questions I have that lead me to question far-left politics.

SM: Why thank you, but what are these dire questions which you so desperately need sorting?

FK: First question: Is not capitalism made just due to the ability for the average worker to travel between classes, as doing this is widely considered easiest in the United States?

SM: Emphatically no. First of all, social mobility is a pretty big myth even in the United States. The lines of demarcation in social classes, even in the petty bourgeoisie, are hard and fast. Yes, many small businesses will be founded in booming periods; but when it comes bust time, the ones that remain have statistically and traditionally been the older, wellfounded ones. This has especially been reconfirmed with the current world crisis; which has seen the greatest "infant mortality rate" of small businesses ever seen before.[* footnote for citation needed here]

And even if social mobility were considerable; the division of labor and income would still be just as arbitrary, and private property would still allow a usurpation of labor which is unjust. And it is made more evident by the fact that it is still just as undemocratic; and even if one could elect their bourgeois, with such powers left intact, it wouldn't be anymore justifiable than if slaves could elect their masters.

And there is yet another thing revealed by this; a slave who can choose their master isn't anymore free. The fact that a worker can quit his job doesn't remove him from the whip of poverty. If he quits, he still has to find another job; in which case he will remain in the proletariat, and since exploitation occurs on, and can only be explained by, a class basis, he remains exploited no matter where in the proletariat he resides. And worse yet, if he can't find another job, he cannot quit without worsening his condition.

The choice which is literally, gravely and unabashedly placed at his feet by the capitalist class is a dire ultimatum: work or starve.

FK: Excellent answer!

SM: Thank you.

You remember the two documents I gave you to read? Value, Price and Profit by Karl Marx, and Socialist Reconstruction of Society by Daniel De Leon? The latter is the document which you must read for further information thereupon. But I highly recommend reading the former first; it is highly invaluable to a proper understanding of the latter.

FK: Well I'll be sure to do that. On to my next question: Would not a free market be a benefit for the common man as opposed to making it harder for him? Considering it's the small-time businesses who have trouble with regulation, where large corporations easily surpass these?

SM: Of course not. This is the biggest lie perpetuated by the libertarians; who of course have never let a lie stop them before. Moreover, most of the lies they perpetuate they think to be truths.

But I digress; government regulation and activity actually saves the petty bourgeoisie from being all but totally annihilated by the grand bourgeoisie and restores it. It prevents monopolies, cartels and trustification, and actively stigmatizes and discourages it with heavy taxation and fines. Moreover, it also gives a significant portion of grants and subsidies to small business to encourage growth and competition. Without this type of state activity, the grand bourgeoisie would've denied it this sort of breathing room for growth and development and destroyed the petty bourgeoisie a long time ago, and this is made very clear by the fact that it cannot completely stop the grand bourgeoisie from doing so. Moreover, the fact that the petty bourgeoisie actively and overwhelmingly campaigns and lobbies for these policies and presents itself as a great consituent obstacle to the coporatists is a huge testament to this fact.

FK: Would you not say that the class-struggle idea is an obsolete idea, since a minimum-wage worker today works for more than merely bread and water?

SM: This relates to your question about the minimum-wage worker, too:

Small businesses usually must charge more for their products for two reasons; one is that they're small, and thus cannot afford to invest as much in the product or service they produce, which is on a considerably smaller scale, and they must realize a profit quickly to stay in business, and the second is that they're overwhelmingly unproductive retailers/middle-men, so they have to charge more than they paid for the product that they're selling in order to make a profit. Since bigger businesses make more money and can constantly invest in newer technologies and machinery on a much greater scale than small businesses; they can produce a greater amount of the product produced, and thus secure a larger market share over a greater distribution, and sell it for much cheaper than their smaller competitors. Moreover, because of their established size and market share and activity, they can even forego a profit for a considerable time, certainly for longer than the petty bourgeois can, which is enough time to obliterate him.

The minimum-wage worker still barely makes enough to survive in today's world, and they still can only realistically pay for their own maintenance and thus spend very little on personal comfort and luxury which would otherwise theoretically distract them from the class struggle. Since they make so little, they have to buy their material goods at the cheapest prices available or they won't be able to afford them at all; and thus they can't help but contribute to the cycle of competition and concentration of capital into fewer hands. Their very consumptive patterns are conditioned to force them to worsen their own position as proletarians by systemically designated necessity. In spite of all the government regulation, the trustification and concentration of capital into fewer hands charges forward seemingly unimpeded and unabated; which would accelerate headlong into a much bigger crisis in less than a year or two if government were to pull out of the market altogether. If the libertarians succeeded in doing just that right now; I have no doubt that they would all be lynched before long.

But as for the class struggle being considered an obsolete idea in and of itself; it is quite well-evidenced that the class struggle is a very real thing, even in the most successful and prosperous capitalist nations with the best social security nets. At no time has it ever ceased completely, achieving what some might call "class peace."

FK: Like in Sweden.

SM: Indeed. Even in Sweden the unions and class conscious workers move forward with great momentum; in fact, the prosperity of the nation and its renowned social services are the very product of the victory of the workers in the class struggle, although this "struggle" is characterized by craft unionism and job trusts based upon "brotherhood between capital and labor," and other expressions of class peace. Which means the true victors are the petty bourgeoisie. However, whenever the workers get aroused; the petty bourgeois union officials, managers and politicians are easily cowed by them and their rank'n'file might.

FK: Studies from 2003 show that 90% of Sweden's population owns merely 2.5% of stocks. The richest 10% owns 97.5%.

SM: I'm not surprised that there's a great disparity, but that's surprisingly great, especially for a country like Sweden, and as compared with statistics in the United States. I think that the U.S. may actually have a more equitable distribution of stock ownership, but in no way could it be significantly better than Sweden, and in no way am I certain. But what I am certain of is that these statistics completely sunder the notion that stock has diversified ownership and brought the working class onto a more equal footing with their capitalist masters (i.e., more nonsense about equal opportunity), and brought with it general improvement upon the condition of the working class.

The other shocking thing is that undoubtedly the overwhelming majority of that stock ownership by 90% of Swedens is through union trust funds; from which purportedly the overwhelming majority of their celebrated "gains" and "benefits" come from: which doesn't say much about the "success" of craft unionism and its associated tactics and strategies. Like Daniel De Leon said, the last thing that we need right now is a union that acts as a rearguard to an immiserated army of the dispossessed which has been sent senselessly divided into small, easily defeated defensive lines, one after the other, before a well-entrenched and -embattled enemy to be crushed like ants before finally coming to its defense. What we need is One Grand Union of all workers in all industries, united into an advance guard capable of mobilizing and ameloriating that army of the dispossessed to stand on a footing advantageous to defeating that enemy.

FK: Excellent!

SM: I thank you for your time, and I'm very glad to hear you asking these questions; it means that your eyes are wide open and you're asking the right questions that go along with class consciousness.

FK: Before we conclude, I would like to thank Seth Moore for participating in today's interview.

Ecstasy posters?

Sat, 15 May 2010 05:08:45 -0700

That no society can exist without institutional structures is transparently clear to anyone who has not been stupefied by Stirner and his kind. By denying institutions and democracy, lifestyle anarchism insulates itself from social reality, so that it can fume all the more with futile rage, thereby remaining a subcultural caper for gullible youth and bored consumers of black garments and ecstasy posters. (bold added)To argue that democracy and anarchism are incompatible because any impediment to the wishes of even 'a minority of one' constitutes a violation of personal autonomy is to advocate not a free society but Brown's 'collection of individuals' -- in short, a herd. No longer would 'imagination' come to 'power.' Power, which always exists, will belong either to the collective in a face-to-face and clearly institutionalized democracy, or to the egos of a few oligarchs who will produce a 'tyranny of structurelessness.'

-Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, Murray Bookchin

The comment about clothing probably refers to Black Blocs, or protesters dressed in black and occasionally dressed in padding and riot gear in order to represent solidarity. What's the ecstasy poster thing about? The first thing that came to my mind is drugs.

A greeting

Fri, 14 May 2010 16:31:22 -0700

Hello, I'm a non-authoritarian collectivist who favors direct democracy. Recently I've been reading about post-Leftism and it strikes a chord with me. I've been banned from RevLeft for supposed trolling, sexism, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Anyway, it isn't true. I was rude and crass in the chat often, but I'm no sexist. I want to get off on a fresh start with people who I identify with, and Marxism Leninism doesn't cut it for me. If you folks here can spare judgement until I've actually done something offensive, I'm willing fly the straight and narrow.

"To Begin With..." [Redefining the minimum program]

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:40:15 -0700

"TO BEGIN WITH..." (original thread)

“Proceeding from these principles, the Social Democratic Party of Germany demands, to begin with [...]” (Eduard Bernstein)

Yes, those words were written by Eduard Bernstein, the official spokesperson and theoretician of “yellow” (non-class-strugglist) tred-iunionisty and equally “yellow” bureaucratic careerists in the international proletariat’s first vanguard party, the then-Marxist Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD). Although many Trotskyists and other “anti-capitalists” prefer the transitional and directional methods, respectively [...] the modern conditions for open class struggle (or the relative lack thereof) are such that Social-Labourists should indeed consider Lenin’s own evaluation, in 1899, of the overly maligned Erfurt Program of the SPD:

We are not in the least afraid to say that we want to imitate the Erfurt Programme: there is nothing bad in imitating what is good, and precisely today, when we so often hear opportunist and equivocal criticism of that programme, we consider it our duty to speak openly in its favour. Imitating, however, must under no circumstances be simply copying.

What was said above was in fact a defense of the minimum-maximum programmatic approach against minimalists like Bernstein (who indeed authored the oppositionist “minimum” section of the Erfurt Program) who in fact rejected this approach (hence minimalism). In my earlier work, however, I deemed this original programmatic approach by Marx, Engels, and Kautsky to be problematic. Minimum programs were historically interpreted as being only on the threshold (that is, the maximum that could possibly be achieved under bourgeois capitalism, or, using the language of game theory, the most rudimentary interpretation of the concept of maximin in regards to programmatic questions), and sometimes included the hard-to-categorize demands for the conquest of specifically political power by the working class (i.e., “the democratic republic,” “soviet power,” and now class-strugglist democracy and the demarchic commonwealth). With the historical development of bourgeois capitalism, the second theoretical founder of “participatory economics,” Robin Hahnel, countered this static programmatic interpretation best:

In sum, any reform can be fought for in ways that diminish the chances of further gains and limit progressive change in other areas, or fought for in ways that make further progress more likely and facilitate other progressive changes as well.

On the other hand, those Trotskyists who adhere to “transitional” sloganeering have abandoned the aforementioned static interpretation and complemented their static “transitional” sloganeering with a vulgar, defensive, and ultimately economistic interpretation of oppositionist “minimum” demands (minimin) taken straight from the Second International minimalists, of whom Kautsky said in The Road to Power:

The reformers dream of the establishment of social peace between the classes, between exploited and exploiters, without abolishing exploitation. They would bring this about by having each class exercise a certain self-restraint toward the other, and by the giving up of all “excesses” and “extreme demands.”

In between the two extremes stands a method that is dynamic (or broadly directional) yet structural and oppositionist. Part of this method coincides with some of the minimax “ideals” of even the most structurally interventionist of “social-democrats,” while a larger part already goes beyond them, but which in its entirety facilitates the issuance of either intermediate or threshold demands later (the “Hahnel criterion,” per the note below) on while simultaneously enabling the basic principles to be “kept consciously in view” (to quote Kautsky, hence the reference to this criterion as the “Kautsky criterion” for the sake of this work) – through the emphasis on transnational class struggle in this method, specifically transnational pressure for legislative implementation (and not regulation by hardly accountable regulators) and politico-ideological independence for the working class.

[Note: For the sake of this work I will refer to the facilitating of the issuance of intermediate and threshold demands as the “Hahnel criterion.” This is due to Hahnel’s criticism of the “non-reformist reforms” precedent established by one Andre Gorz, notwithstanding the pareconist’s own misjudgment on the “full Keynesian program” (in fact “bastard Keynesianism” in the eyes of more radical Neo-Ricardians or Post-Keynesians such as Joan Robinson, Paul Davidson, Hyman Minsky, and Steve Keen) as being reform-enabling.]

Some of these demands are so dynamic that they transcend the political-economic divide of traditional “minimum” demands. The rest of this lengthy chapter will examine, on the basis of the Hahnel and Kautsky criteria provided above, various dynamic oppositionist demands.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/32-hour-workwe...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-struggli...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-bear-arm...?p=1506576
http://www.revleft.com/vb/local-autonomy...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/party-recallab...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/against-person...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-d...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/progress-pover...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolition-indi...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-city-t130974/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/private-sector...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-based-af...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/education-and-...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/worker-buyouts...index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-address-...?p=1476266

(Corporate personhood and intellectual property commentary deliberately omitted)

REFERENCES:

Program of a New Type: Dynamic Minimum-Reformist-Revolutionary [http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-ty...index.html]

Programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany (Erfurt Programme) by Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein [http://www.marxists.org/history/internat...rogram.htm]

A Draft of Our Party Programme by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo.../draft.htm]

Fighting For Reforms Without Becoming Reformist by Robin Hahnel [http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6588]

The Road to Power by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/...r/ch03.htm]

Broad Economism and Mass Strike Strategies Revisited?

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:31:21 -0700

I'm earmarking this paper for discussion:

Global Trade Unionism as the Vanguard of a Non-violent Marxist Revolution

The slippery slope into broad economism (and narrow, more typical economism further down) begins by not recognizing that the "struggle for socialism" is an economic struggle, not a political one.

The majority of left-syndicalists fall into this trap, and so the call for "mass strikes for the socialist revolution" avoids the question of what is truly needed for workers to obtain policy-making and all other ruling-class political power (participatory-democratic parallelism, recallability, average skilled workers' wages, and so on). To quote the paper above:

Quote:Imagine all the workers of the world truly, actually uniting… and then striking. It would be a world-transforming action.

However, does the call for "mass strikes for the socialist revolution" actually become valid after ruling-class political power has been obtained?

I'm not sure how proletarian-not-necessarily-communist elements can accuse "mass strike" communist outlets of conning the workers towards political revolution when that political revolution has already been made. Programmatically speaking, at issue here is the call for "Legally considering all workplaces as being unionized for the purposes of political strikes and even syndicalist strikes, regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace." This is one of the directional roads to "socialist revolution" alongside "Enabling society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans" and "Extending litigation rights to include class-action lawsuits and speedy judgements against all non-workers who appropriate surplus value atop any economic rent applied towards exclusively public purposes."

Discuss.

Whats up

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:02:48 -0700

Same cmoney from revleft. I am here cause I am considering working with the WPA.