Where Does That Leave Us? Plotting, Acting, Changing, Moving…
Posted by Mike E on December 22, 2008
photo: Brett Cole
We have gained much (imho) from the continuing debate between Carl Davidson and revolutionary politics — and part of it has involved debunking Carl’s argument that those who advocate revolutionary politics are simply deluded, immature, and completely out of touch.
Carl writes in a revealing passage:
“[I assume], of course, that socialism isn’t the order of the day right now, as in the immediate possibility of ‘Disperse the Congress and White House, All Power to the Workers Councils! But it’s silly, in the meantime, to avoid contracts or structural reform because it leaves intact the bosses ‘right to exploit.’ Under capitalism, there’s a worse fate than being exploited, which to simply to be oppressed, ie, shoved completely out of the labor market and not exploited.”
Carl’s opponents are always portrayed as making silly arguments. The idea that your views are obviously true (and the views of your opponents are obviously “silly”) is an argument for quick and easy dismissal.
But let’s make some of arguments around revolution and reform. and let’s break down where Carl’s worldview would lead.
Carl says it is silly to “avoid contracts or structural reform because it leaves intact the bosses ‘right to exploit.’”
Is that the issue? Does anyone demand avoiding contracts?
Well, we should hope to overthrow the whole apparatus that “leaves intact the bosses ‘right to exploit.’” After such an overthrow the very nature of future “contracts and structural reform” will be marked by the radically new society and context.
But if we expose and oppose the “bosses right to exploit” (and we should!) does that mean we are arguing for “avoiding contracts or structural reform” under capitalism?
Uh, no.
But the purpose of communists in the fights for reforms goes beyond the goal of avoiding being driven down to “broke wretches” (Marx’s phrase). We understand that the rise of new popular struggles for change can (potentially) play an important role in the gathering of forces and the preparing of minds for revolution. Such struggles, such new networks of struggle built among the people, such experiences are at times a part of the larger landscape upon which a revolutionary people can possibly emerge.
Sucked into the System’s Schisms
Eddy Laing exposes the bailouts, and the capitalist system. He reveals that the capitalists want to “solve the crisis” in ways that serve and intensify their ability to exploit.
And Carl responds curtly,
“This is a strange piece. Where does it leave us?”
And of course, the answer is implicit in Eddy’s work: It leaves us needing a revolution.
It leaves us needing to energetically promote a very radical vision of socialism as an alternative to capitalism. It leaves us seeing the renewed opening for such political educational work (in the midst of huge events and, hopefully, a complex array of popular responses and struggles.)
But for Carl, such answers are (well) silly.
Because in Carl’s politics, the whole point is to discern WHICH OF THE EXISTING BOURGEOIS PROGRAMS to support. And exposing the liberal program (in his mind) leaves us nowhere. Or worse, it leaves us neutralized when it comes to opposing the supposedly more sinister free market republican program.
Over and over Carl writes on this site, that the really interesting thing, to him, about analyzing Obama’s cabinet picks, or the removal of neocons from office or whatever) is the impact electoral changes have on micro-details of bourgeois politics.
I remember when I was a teenager, reading the radical newspaper “The Guardian” in the late 60s and 70s — where Carl wrote as a columnist about inner-bourgeois politics and factions of the ruling. One of my high school friends used to joke that Carl was like Gulliver in the land of the giants, tiptoeing around their dinner table like a tiny voyeur, coming back breathless, wide-eyed and utterly fixated by his glimpses of this-or-that dispute and this-or-that reallignment…. with a whole tone that suggested we (the people and the revolution) were permanently the little puny bystanders and they (the imperialists) were permanently the Big Tectonic Players.
Sure, we need (in the large and strategic sense) some ongoing (and accurate!) sense of major schisms and realignments among our oppressors. There are times when those divisions are particularly significant for the emergence and traction of revolutionary politics. (And the 2004 heyday of Bush was such a time, and such divisions may enflame again in important ways soon.)
They (the “ruling class”) are not some unified committee, or conspiracy — they are a factious, dog-eat-dog, self-cannibalizing structure-and-stratum of oppressors often more engaged in fighting each other (both domestically and internationally) than in fighting the people. (They are ALWAYS about EXPLOITING the people — but, unfortunately, the oppressed are only occasionally “on the stage” in a way that can actually contend, on battlefields, in geopolitics, in political programs for power etc.)
But really, the micro-adjustments among these oppressors is hardly the really interesting thing (for us as revolutionaries) because THE FULCRUM OF OUR POLITICS is not alligning ourselve with this or that faction, or pressing this or that faction “to the left.”
There will be times (especially once we have a movement of real social weight, of millions, like the German KPD of the 1930s) when we may seek (for our own, COMMUNIST advantage) to undermine this or that particular bourgeois force — but (again) that is not the fulcrum of our politics (and certainly not now, when such a fixation just means to give up on the very fight to develop, for ourselves, a revolutionary movement of real social weight.)
How Do the Oppressed Become Conscious and Fit to Rule?
Keith writes:
“RW Harvey asks “what makes the masses ready to run a new society?” I think that this is a good question. I assume we all agree that the working class is currently not ready (this is self evident, I think. As Carl pointed out the demands that the Republic workers never approached anything beyond re-distributional liberalism). Can U.S. auto workers run those factories without managers? I am mean really, today right now. I doubt they have even thought about it (so there is a partial answer to the question of what would make the masses ready). But I don’t know maybe they have.”
Another good question “what makes the masses ready to run a society?”
And yes, the masses of people (in the U.S.) are not ready — in part because they have never seriously considered this as a possibility, and therefore have never seriously organized themselves politically for that possibility.
I have always cherished the remarks by Karl Marx (quoted in his essay on the Communist trial in Cologne):
“Whereas we say to the workers: ‘You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles not only to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves, and prepare yourselves for the exercise of political power’, you say on the contrary: ‘Either we seize power at once, or else we might as well just take to our beds.’
In other words, if you look at history — people become fit to rule by waging struggles, especially actual struggles for power.
It’s not like it just happens — suddenly we wake up in our beds and the people are either ready or not. It not like the workers suddenly don’t need managers to run their factories or else socialism is irrelevent.
The emergence of a revolutionary people, of a conscious militant revolutionary core is a concrete, specific, real, historical, visible process. It requires many things (some of which we need to scramble to provide, some of which the system provides through real events). Part of what revolutionaries need to provide (as a practical and immediate matter) is the promotion of revolutionary politics and demands (even when, in non-revolutionary time<s when their realization is not yet a practical or immediate matter.)
As for the Republic workers, the contrast between their willingness to sacrifice and their very limited, even paltry official demands was stark and sad.
To merely demand compensation but not the jobs themselves (let alone broader demands!) is a sign of a series of decisions in that particular struggle. (And I don’t pretend to know the story of why things unfolded that way, and why the demands were confined in that way.)
But certainly, in other moments of the people’s struggle it will be far harder to confine the demands of the workers in this way. (I remember the demands of the Attica uprising, in the New York State prison, where the prisoners demanded a series of reforms, but also demanded an airlift to liberation in a non-capitalist country.) The emergence of broader demands and “non-negotiable demands” is something to look forward to (even if Carl may find that too troubling, ultra-left and silly.)
As for victory…. well, it is, of course, a victory when you meet your demands. When the whole world has seen the justice of your cause, and your oppressors are humiliated.
But it is less of a victory if your demands are so modest that you walk away with little, and your opponents have lost only public image.
And ultimately, “victory” under capitalism is always mixed.
In the wake of the 1960s, I was (as people on this site know) involved in helping organize a series of illegal wildcat strikes in the coalfields. And in some cases, we won astonishing victories. (I am writing a piece now on the Gas Protest of 1973). But I have to say, it struck me hard after our first giddy victory, after forcing the courts to spring some brothers from prison and making the government back down on a major plan….
That after this victory, we picked up lunch buckets and climbed back into a deep hole in the ground — while our enemies and tormentors gathered in boardrooms in Charleston, Boston and New York City, surrounded by the instruments of wealth and power, to plot on our lives some more.
Yes, precisely “where does that leave us?”
Choosing Our Poison?
Carl says (in a remarkable and revealing phrase):
“There’s a worse fate than being exploited, which to simply to be oppressed, ie, shoved completely out of the labor market and not exploited.”
Think about the implications of that argument, a worldview that focus on which capitalist fate we should contemplate (and choose between).
After all, in this narrow view of what is possible, the only real alternative to capitalist exploitation is not socialism, but something worse — non-exploitation, marginalization, and unemployment. And precisely, “where does that leave us?”
It is a worldview that thinks we should be fixated with shades of oppression, with different arrangements and personnel of capitalism. We shold be caught up deeply in the multilateral imperialist policies of Obama vs. the potentially neocon policies of McCain. In have this contract or reform over that one.
If we follow that advice we will be like a prisoner on death row so broken that he spends his time agonizing over whether to choose hanging or the quick cyanide gas (and perhaps fantasizing about the last meal he will get from the fucking guards).
No. Where does it all leave us? It leaves us here:
Without revolution, without socialism, the people have nothing but more suffering, and a future of horrors. Without a fierce and bold revolutionary movement, the people have no way of even thinking about a future beyond this.
It leaves us needing, with some haste and urgency to develop a creative, militant, uncompromising revolutionary current that can find its voice in these times, and then find its footing on the political stage.
One sister said recently to a Midwest gathering of Kasama supporters:
“We have written the letters to our comrades, now we’ve got to be writing our letters to the people.”
seven said
I think Carl’s comments are distinguished from others on this site not because of his insight into what the ruling class is thinking, but because of his connection to what working class people are thinking. I know the working class in the US is very diverse and cannot be generalized to have one perspective, but my experience in the blue collar working class outside major metropolitan areas makes me relate to Carl’s comments, and appreciate their counterbalance against a perspective that seems to come from within a small and inward-looking left subculture.
While I sympathize broadly with the political perspective of other postings on Kasama, I realize that there are many big steps to take before these are mass opinions, and that it’s a complicated process, trying to make that happen. I believe strongly that you have to meet people where they’re at and be with them in their struggles in order to influence peoples’ ideas. I also believe that the learning process is a two-way street, and that we should be mindful of the process that produced the EZLN in Chiapas, and the humility that it required.
RW Harvey said
I think this is an important essay on an issue close to my heart in terms of what processes are unleashed in the creation of revolutionary consciousness.
I am a bit skeptical of phrases like “meeting people where they are at,” unless this is severely limited to empathy and solidarity. If, on the other hand, it means “meeting” people at their particular level of consciousness then it is simply too one-dimensional because, frankly, no one is ever “where they are at” because human life and consciousness is completely unstable fluidly dynamic, and informed by a multitude of streams of experience.
I can recall way too many times of waiting (hoping, really) for the “right time” to introduce some more radical, revolutionary concept in a discussion only to find that either the perfect time never arriving or worse, the people in the discussion were way beyond my assessment of where they were at.
Can it really be so-called “left phrase-mongering” to talk about socialism today when in the wake of all the bailouts news headlines and a variety of politicians were decrying it all as a form of socialism? In a post-9/11 world, with all that this has meant to the people of the world, do we really have the luxury of being terrified to insult or alienate someone because we have a vision of another way of living in relation to each other and to our ecosystem?
Frankly, in contrast to Carl’s points about structural reforms being bridges to socialism, I would say that the society some of us envision is so radically different from this one we are currently living in America, that even our own conceptions will fall far short and therefore we had better start getting wildly poetic in what constitutes our rallying cries in the organization and unleashing of revolutionary transformation.
Mechanical notions of social evolution (bridges) are far different than revolution (stasis punctuated by radical ruptures). How, then, returning to Badiou, will we make ourselves and as many people as possible fit for revolutionary upheaval and realize the potential for a revolutionary seizure of society that we may be unable to see until it is upon us and we are in the midst of it?
Carl Davidson said
I think we’re coming full circle here, once again, and the differences are coming to the fore.
Let me try to get at it this way.
There’s a very real class struggle going on in our country, in front of our noses. MikeE, however (and I’m putting words in his mouth here, and if they don’t fit, I’ll apologize and try again), MikeE isn’t happy. It’s too narrow, and the workers are too narrow in their outlook, too. He wants it to be a ‘revolutionary struggle’, and he wants the workers involved not to be what they are, but to be a ‘revolutionary people’. But how can he transform THIS struggle into revolution; how can he transform THESE workers into revolutionary people? Moreover, he really believes IT’S UP TO HIM, (not as an individual, but up to his revolutionary group), armed with the correct revolutionary line and vision, to MAKE the struggle and MAKE the people transform.
My point is class struggle does not unfold this way, nor does mass consciousness change this way.
I’d call Mike’s perspective here a ‘left’ voluntarist deviation, and it’s very much linked to his wider views of the GPCR in China which, among other things, was prey to the same problem. Mike, of course, doesn’t see it as a deviation at all, but as the revolutionary path.
Not that Mike should be responsible for his supporters, but you can also see it in RW Harvey above. He’s dubious about ‘meeting people where they’re at.’ He’d really rather meet with a different people, a ‘revolutionary people.’ These people are too ‘one-dimensional’, as if meeting them ‘where they’re at’ might get you sucked into flatland. So he has to armour himself, and take the revolution ‘to them,’ and be very, very careful with the ‘from them’ part of ‘from the masses, to the masses.’ One might get infected with the dreaded ‘economism’ virus. What I find amusing is that when it gets done to concretely talking about socialism, to his antidote to economism, he finds my structural reform ‘bridges to socialism’ way too dull, but he he has no alternative in mere words, and offers up only ‘wild poetry.’!
Here’s the irony.
The Republic Windows struggle gets mentioned. Here’s an actual unfolding class struggle in front of our noses. But who was the one here pointing out its limitations, and laying out how it could go further, not as ‘revolution’ or ‘wild poetry,’ but as structural reform with the workers taking ownership of the factory, in whole or in part, and tying it to a broader Green Jobs program with Obamabucks funding a huge purchase order from the city for Green Energy windows for the low-income homes all over town?
It’s not ‘wild poetry’, to be sure, but it is at the outer limits of bourgeois right, and it seems I was the one putting it out there. I’m all for raising socialism any time–the question is to whom and in what way? That I take very seriously, and if you want to raise socialism TODAY, this is one of the ways you do it, not with wild poetry or GPPR nostalgia.
(Not that I’m against wild poetry; I’m a guy who had Ginsberg’s Howl put in my hands in an Aliquippa pool hall by a beatnik steelworker back in 1959, and still love every line of it!).
Even so, I think that’s still not good enough for Mike. Why? Because it’s still in the realm of bourgeois right. The workers would still be exploited, working for profit–either of the owners, part-owners, or even themselves, since they would still be making windows in a market economy. It still wouldn’t be his ‘socialism’ and they still wouldn’t be his ‘revolutionary people’. They would only be stronger and more class conscious ‘under capitalism,’ albeit with a new situation pointing to the future. To be sure, they’d also have to find some ‘high road’ allies in the upper crust and work with them, however tactically–there’s those dreaded ‘splits in the ruling class’ again! But who knows? The struggle continues They may still get a decent structural reform yet or, if not them, the next occupation. But right now, when their severance money runs out, they’ll have something I also said was worse than being exploited. They’ll only be oppressed, but not exploited, ie, unemployed in hard times. From their current struggle, however, even with its limitations, they’ll still be better equipped to deal with that situation, when it comes.
Yes, I’ll agree, my point was very revealing. The question is, of what? And of whom?
Keith said
Mike, if Carl doesn’t count as a revolutionary in your view what is revolutionary? I asked this many times but never get an answer.
What is revolutionary right now in the United States. Selling newspapers and protesting?
RW Harvey said
I am happy to see the beatnik Steelworker appear here since he/she illustrates my point about NOT meeting people simply where they are at. It is not that I desire (or demand) people be revolutionary; what I am saying is that consciousness, class consciousness, revolutionary consciousness develops within a complex matrix of experiences. So, where do I “meet” the Beatnik Steelworker? As a Beatnik, steelworker, single mother, person of color, transsexual? How do all these streams color and shape the development of revolutionary consciousness? So, let’s not fetishize “meeting people where they are at.”
Sadly, Carl (despite thumbing through “Howl”) must denigrate poetry — especially wild poetry — without even a moment’s pause at the use of poetry as metaphor for painting a vision of a society free of capitalist exploitation.
I still cannot fathom how workers owning the Republic factory — even with infusions of ObamaGreenBucks — is somehow a structural reform, a harbinger of the socialist future to come? does that mean that each time I fly Southwest Airlines, or admire a Harley-Davidson, that I am witnessing the tender sprouts of revolutionary transformation in these worker-owned franchises?
Running an enterprise — even owning it — is not all that revolutionary. As Mike wrote elsewhere, workers essentially run the factories they work in already. What is truly radical, what will take truly transform the world, is when the people consciously move to end exploitation and, on that basis, usher in as yet unseen revolutionary relationships amongst themselves.
Now that is some wild poetry.
Seven said
Sure, that stuff sounds good to me too. But it’s not on the agenda of most people right now, whether they’re beatniks or not. To be clear: I was not trying to suggest a least common denominator-style, homogenizing unity of culture. When I say meet people where they’re at, I mean as the complicated individuals they are. But neither the ex-deadhead nor the Larry the Cable Guy fan nor the kid with rims and big bass speakers pumping Lil Wayne, all of whom I work with, none of them are actively preparing for wild transformations and revolutionary relationships. I don’t want to wait idly by until they are, and I don’t want to be self-congratulatingly complaining in the corner that they’re not. I want to be conversing with them as friends and helping us all move to the point where we can do that.
Carl Davidson said
My beatnik steelworker buddy from back then when I was a youngster, was an alienated Korean war vet, an original beat generation ‘rebel without a cause.’ And a pretty good nine-ball player. Our rebellion was cultural; we got heavy into jazz, and in doing so, crossed the color line. Our favored bar was the only integrated one in Aliquippa, with mainly classic jazz on the jukebox. They set me on a path than took me to the 1960 riot at the Newport Jazz Festival and Friends of SNCC in college, where the rebellion became political.
As I said, I’m not down on ‘wild poetry.’ I’ve dabbled in it myself, and you can find some of mine printed in old issues of The Call/El Clarin.
But I’m wise enough to know that it only overlaps slightly with what we need to describe socialism–as in structural reforms that point that way–and if you can’t see how worker ownership and/or control of a factories direction, not just it’s day-to-day humming, alters power relations, even if limited and local, and points to a socialist future, there’s nothing much else I can say to convince you–or as the more intense theoretical and propaganda work we need to be doing NOW among the advanced. Once again, if you’re serious about working on socialist tasks in the present nonrevolutionary conditions, this is where it it’s done and this is what needs to be done, in addition to building revolutionary organization.
It’s not ‘whether’ but ‘how.’
Keith said
Seven sd real stuff. Seven, you don’t have to “wait” for your co-workers to have an epiphany. Just organize something with them, a party, a reading group, a get a decent lunch truck committee, whatever. Start organizing together and making decisions together. That is how you get people out of passivity. Whatever you organize always include a party (a fun party not a party where jokers creep around with the the new edition of “Workers Vanguard”). Once you do that you find out what’s up with them and you start organizing around things that effect their lives. Do their kids schools suck? Does their landlord suck? Do they get water in their basement? etc. “apply the mass line!”
But that is all reformist crap. You should just get them a subscription to “RRRREVOLUTION” and a poster of Chairman Mao (both are wonderful holiday gifts).
Instead of Mike just posting pieces criticizing Carl, why don’t Mike and Carl each lay out a vision, strategy, and tactics. Answering the questions: What is revolutionary in the United States? How do we start? What should we do? It doesn’t have to be perfect or the statement for the ages, we can edit it out of your collected works. But it’s be a good way to start the new year.
I think that this is necessary for a lot of reasons but one reason is that we are not even working with the same lexicon. for example in #5 RW Harvey says:
“Running an enterprise — even owning it — is not all that revolutionary. As Mike wrote elsewhere, workers essentially run the factories they work in already. What is truly radical, what will take truly transform the world, is when the people consciously move to end exploitation and, on that basis, usher in as yet unseen revolutionary relationships amongst themselves.”
Actually RW if the workers own the factory, sit on the board of directors, and run the day to day operations then they are NOT exploited. Truly radical.
Exploitation occurs when someone other than the worker controls the production, appropriation, and distribution of the surplus created by the worker. If you are intimidated by Marx’s Kapital check out “Wage Labor and Capital” and “Value, Price and Profit” they are both relatively short summaries.
Worker co-operatives are better than “wild poetry” they are wild “wild reality” –a new reality is better than a new movie! The great poetry and revolutionary Amiri Baraka always sd that the trnasfromation of the world is the highest form of artistic activity.
At the individual level a workers co-operative is not “revolutionary” in the sense that the capital social relation has not been abolished entirely but Marx argued that the complete abolition of capital would take a long transitional period. The transition can begin and probably must begin, in an advanced capitalist country immediately, before workers control any significant portion of the state apparatus. So worker-cops will play an important role in the revolutionary process in the United States by breaking up the capital social relation step by step, and by creating networks necessary for decentralized economic planning. (Centralized planning sucks for a bunch of reasons that are not important for this discussion), the current economic crisis is a tremendous opportunity to advance that process.
Tell No Lies said
“If the workers own the factory, sit on the board of directors, and run the day to day operations then they are NOT exploited.”
That of course depends on them owning the factory outright (no mortgage), not needing credit, and having a plant that produces at or above average efficiency, conditions unlikely to be present in most cases. There are tons of producer cooperatives in Chiapas, some of which enable the Zapatistas to do some interesting things. But this is really a form of self-managed exploitation given the actual conditions of production. That doesn’t mean there aren’t very good reasons to sometimes pursue such projects. I think there are. But we should not imagine that self-management automatically eliminates the extraction of surplus value.
The role of such projects in the development of a revolutionary people in Chiapas was not insignificant. But the Zapatistas are absolutely clear that in and of themselves such projects can not deliver real liberation. Indeed the roots of the EZLN are very much in a struggle against the fetishization of such projects (which they labelled “economist”) to the exclusion of the project of the political, ideological and military preparation of forces for a confrontation with the capitalist state.
Keith said
TNL, I think that you would agree that the danger of fetishizing working co-ops in this least of our worries in the U.S.
There is still the technical question of exploitation. Exploitation, in my reading of Marx, occurs at the point of production. It is the “productive capitalist” who extracts surplus value. Merchant and bank capital get a cut of the extracted surplus but they do not produce any themselves (technically workers working for merchants and money capital directly are not exploited either as they produce no surplus value and are actually paid out of the surplus produced elsewhere in the circuit… this is not important in this discussion, but it is immensely important for a class analysis of the U.S.)
So even if a workers co-op is paying interest or rent that is not really exploitation (which doesn’t mean it is “good” it is just not exploitation which has a technical definition that it behooves Marxists to keep in mind).
In a co-op workers are still producing surplus value but they control the process. Until machines do everything, we will always have to produce surpluses (but the difference will be that the surplus won’t take the value form. The value form is necessary if markets regulate production and distribution). We need surpluses to take care of the old, the sick and the young, and others who can’t work (Who will feed Bob Avakian after the revolution if we don’t all do a little extra work! Priest need to eat too).
To say that workers in a co-operative shop are exploited is like saying that wal-mart exploits Nike. There is class struggle between wal-mart (a merchant capital) and the productive capitals who supply them. They struggle over the distribution of the surplus value but it is not exploitation. And that struggle is around the price.
It is important to understand exactly what exploitation is if we are going to abolish it.
mr.face said
I would say that that the form of unionism we allow in the usa is not a revolutionary one, that is the unions do not give themselves any political agency (as current usa laws dictate). This is the historic legacy of pre-ww1 gompers. In my opinion, that is THE major roadblock to any revolution; if this legacy remains intact, revolution is not possible. There are any number of other issues to contemplate, but this problem of unions is restricted by that usa “right” to capitalize and I don’t see that value freedom being transvalued anytime soon. MrFc
RedDali said
Perhaps the process of evolving from “scattered, unsystematic” ideas is out of our hands. It seems that it only becomes natural to join as a participant in class struggle when it becomes NECESSARY to do so.
The thing is that there are many ‘applying’ the mass line – with some success – but evangelizing socialism with the hopes of drawing people into engaging problems that are tied to private ownership of the productive forces is no way of engaging people in everyday alternatives to the shit they see everyday. It’s not like there isn’t enough people out there working for social revolution.
As Lenin said, “…politics begin where millions of men and women are; where there are not thousands, but millions.” It’s certainly productive to engage people in ‘what could be’, but if their collective consciousness is not geared towards knowing that it ‘MUST be this NOW’, then revolutionary organization would be ineffective in facilitating concepts of managing a new world based on worker’s control. It should be the tasks of activists to make it easier for workers to organize from a point of production by fighting against ‘corporate property’ laws that bar unions from encompassing the masses in a ‘school’ that’ allow such collective consciousness to build up.
Eddy said
Quite so.
And if your co-op operates within a capitalist economy, competing with other capitals (because it is a capital formation, despite the intentions of whomever controls it today), not only does the surplus-value created daily by the workers employed by the co-op represent expropriation, but all of the various inputs, fixed assets, buildings, transport systems, and other components utilized by the co-op to realize its own daily production are in fact congealed surplus-value created by other workers being exploited within other capital formations.
Further, your co-op must realize its surplus-value via commodity exchange, in which the value created by your co-op is realized in exchange with other commodities, produced by workers selling their labor-power and creating surplus-value within other formations. And thus your co-op becomes further enmeshed within capital relations of production.
Quite simply, you cannot pluck out ‘your’ surplus-value, no matter how you try to slice it. There really is no such thing.
In his study, Marx purposefully isolated the various components of capital in order to examine them in-themselves. (Much like an anatomist dissects animal tissue organ by organ.)
But he never lost sight of the fact that capital is a process of the society as a whole. It is a set of social relationships, it is not confined to a single workshop or a single worker or a single capitalist. Nor can you create a sub-set of economic relationships within it that can be unconnected to the the extensive matrix of oppressive and exploitative social relationships of capitalism.
That’s fundamentally why revolution is necessary.
(and now, the citation — or ‘quote throwing’:)
“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.
“But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was, pro tempore, the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor).
“When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.” (Engels. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)
carldavidson said
The Mondragon Coops in Spain are a case in point for some of the issues raised here. There are more than 200 of them, with more than 100,000 worker-owners involved.
Each coop is owned by the workers–one worker, one share. The firm produced products for the market, and they do rather well. The workers each receive a portion of the profit. Strictly speaking, they are not wage-labor. They get a monthly payment that is a draw on the annual profit of the firm. The payment fluctuates with the amount of the profit each year, and adjustments are made.
To argue that the Mondragon workers are exploited, ie, used for the profit of another, you’d have to stretch, bringing any factory owner who contributes to production into the scope of exploitation, albeit of the self-exploitation variety. In any case, the point is they have abolished themselves as wage-labor.
The Spanish state refuses to recognize them as wage-workers because of this and excludes them from benefits paid other workers in Spain. So the coops have established their own social benefit agencies, also run as coops, and their own bank, also run as a coop, as well as their own schools and university, again coops. These take up the slack. In fact the combination of worker-owned bank, school and factory was required from the very beginning, before they started their first small shop of 10 worker-owners. Part of their profit, they save for reinvestment in plant, training and equipment; another part they pay to their social welfare agency; and the third part of the profit they take for themselves.
The MCC workers at each factory hold a yearly factory council where they set policy and hire or fire any managers. They set the differentials in payment from new workers to older and more skilled workers, and well as the payment to managers. The ratio among workers is usually three-to-one from lowest to highest. Between the lowest work and the top manager, it varies. It has gone as high as ten to one in some years, but is currently around four-to-one. In addition to their yearly councils, the workers have their own social organization in each plant to deal with day-to-day issues with management.
One restriction is that a worker can leave the coop and cash out, but they are not allowed to sell their share on the open market. It can only be taken by a new worker, who will be lent the money from the worker-owned bank to pay for it, if need be.
Mondragon’s quality products lead in the Spanish economy–they make everything from household appliances to motor buses–and they also out-perform their regular capitalist rivals in profit-taking. One reason they have an advantage is that there supervisory costs are far lower, or non-existent, since they self-supervise to a great degree.
They have had problems and rough spots, but none they haven’t solved. They’ve grown and thrived steadily for 50 years.
Sshweickart’s book, ‘After Capitalism,’ is largely based on a deep study on Mondragon, as well as other coops around the world, in the context of both socialism and capitalism. If you want my ‘vision’ about what an emerging socialism would look like, read the book for the theory and look to Mondragon for a limited but still very practical example, one being studied widely around the world.
I would agree with the Zapatistas about not making a fetish here. The Mondragon Coops are a radical experiment refuting once and for all any notion that the workers can’t manage factories and do well at it, and they did it starting from scratch in conditions or dire market failure under Franco, and without state assistance, since they are largely Basque and their region was historically ignored or short-changed.
They exist as one secured strong point is the wider war of position of the working class, one than points to far wider possibilities for any that would add this tactic to their arsenal.
There’ a number of books on them–some for, some against–and it’s possible to organize study tours, or even to take a degree in cooperative management at their worker-owned coop of a university. I have a video made of the MCC back in 1980, when they where at 60,000 workers that’s available for anyone seriously interested. Maybe some will find some ‘wild poetry’ in their story!
Keith said
Eddy, the quotes you chose do not speak to the question of exploitation. They only point out the truism that if capitalism exists exploitation exists.
That a worker co-operative will purchase inputs that were produced with exploited labor doesn’t have anything to do with the question of whether or not the workers in the co=operative are exploited.
We agree that worker co-ops do not end capitalism. But the production of a surplus (more than the productive workers themselves need) has been a necessary feature of all human society, and will probably be a feature for some time to come until we have complete automation.
So a surplus is not evidence of exploitation. Exploitation occurs when the appropriators and distributors of the surplus are DIFFERENT then the producers. Particpation in market exchange is not constitute of exploitation. Exploitation occurs at the point of production.
In any event, the question at hand, I think, is whether or not worker co-operatives have a role in the revolutionary process. I think so. Carl has discusses them at length but this thread has been set up as Carl vs. the revolutionaries.
I think that it is, frankly, a dumb (as in not intelligent) way of framing the discussion. But so far, Carl is advocating for at least one revolutionary project.
What have the soi disant “revolutionaries” put forward? Newspapers and protest. The anti-Carl line is left in appearance and right in essence.
Eddy said
Keith, mull over Engels’ key point above: the proletariat needs political power. Why is that so?
Let’s not confuse surplus with surplus-value. One object of every human society is the production or capture of a surplus; not just today’s need but tomorrow’s as well. (And indeed predictive logic is a human faculty.)
Your co-op is creating surplus-value within a capitalist economy and that surplus-value presupposes commodification and exchange. Your co-op members are acting within the extensive matrices of capital social relations (which include specific economic relations). The fact that they are (initially) voluntarily exploiting themselves (selling their labor-power to the co-op) should not be overlooked. The fact that they have a scheme for dividing the profits is irrelevant.
And then at least some of your co-op members will adopt the outlook of small capitalists; indeed, they will need to in order to run the co-op at a profit. They will find their place within the larger economy. Their co-op matures not as a bridge to the future, but a shackle to the past.
future's ours said
I would like to take part in this interesting debate.
There are many things I don’t agree with Mike, but here Mike focuses on the very differences between a reformist and a revolutionary. So we should pay attention to all the points he is making.
First of all, a worker’s a coop, or a factory run or owned by workers, a mutual, is just a relief from the capitalist system, and not something outside the system. If it is not outside, it is actually part of the capitalist system, and not a definite answer or solution to the problems of the workers.
We must know that a crisis is a vicious circle, I think Marx said that. We can move around and around that vicious circle, struggling for the some better conditions, that’s what the working class usually do. But after the crisis is over, we find ourselves within the capitalist system. We haven’t done anything to surpass it, to overcome it. It’s a circle game, like the song.
Mike points out two very important things here:
1. When we struggle, we have to aim at surpassing that circle. And that means not to tail this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. We should not focus our energy just in “broke wretches”. Mike describes the factions of the bourgeoisie very well:
They (the “ruling class”) are not some unified committee, or conspiracy — they are a factious, dog-eat-dog, self-cannibalizing structure-and-stratum of oppressors often more engaged in fighting each other (both domestically and internationally) than in fighting the people. (They are ALWAYS about EXPLOITING the people — but, unfortunately, the oppressed are only occasionally “on the stage” in a way that can actually contend, on battlefields, in geopolitics, in political programs for power etc.)
That is, as revolutionaries we have the obligation to tell the people that both Obama and McCain are reactionaries.
2. Yes, Mike is right when he says that people will learn to rule, to run a factory, to solve the milliard problems on their way to power. Of course the Russian people learned during their revolution, as the Chinese, and now the Nepalese.
Keith and Carl keep saying: No we can’t. But they even have to learn from Obama, because he says (actually lying, in my point of view): Yes, we can.
Yes, the working class can. But they have to dare.
And it is us revolutionaries who have to infuse this confidence to them. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to do so. And it is totally wrong for Carl to wait and see, to wait until that revolutionary idea would emerge in the people without he saying it. He is so scared about this word socialism.
I just read an article two weeks ago in Counterpunch by ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH about the crisis. Roughly what I understood is that during the 1930′s the working class in the US protested and the atmosphere was very wild, then FDR came along, made some relief policies (but that the bourgeoisie could agree to, to calm down the people), and well, the capitalist system came out undamaged. The bourgeoisie continued and continue reining as before.
As I understand Carl Davidson has worked very hard for decades on the workers’ behalf. But his work, qualitatively (not quantitatively because he may have lots and lots of workers following him), will not have achieved anything unless he dares to make the jump, the dash actually into the unknown. He will never find out what the working class is capable of unless he tries.
If not, he will be following the vicious circle for another couple of decades.
Eddy said
addendum to post #16.
Let’s say your co-op produces bicycles; an inexpensive and less-polluting method of transport, perhaps nicely designed as well.
The co-op purchases steel or molybdenum for machining into various parts, it purchases leather and rubber for making the seats and hand-grips. (or does it sub-contract those parts from a supplier?)
And let’s assume that your co-op sells its products not to end-users, but to retail stores that sell to end users in various towns. (but perhaps you decide to only sell at the factory, to reduce the circulation.)
You bought materials from various suppliers, steel bar and sheet from a steel mill, for example. That steel was produced by workers who sell their labor-power to the steel mill owners (exploitation). They make steel from iron ore, coal and other minerals/chemicals that are in turn produced by iron and coal miners who sell their labor-power to mine owners (exploitation). The iron and coal ores are transported to the steel mill by rail, and those railroad workers sell their labor-power to the railroad company (exploitation).
If, the finished bicycles are shipped to retail stores by truck drivers who might be contracted labor. The workers at the retail store are certainly selling their labor-power and, if they work at Wal-Mart, are probably selling their labor-power below its value.
and on and on. Your co-op is exploiting workers all over the place.
Carl Davidson said
Eddy, what’s your point? Even if you’re right about ‘exploitation via the cash register rather than at the point of production, (which you’re not), we all agree that making a profit from labor, ie, exploitation, is part of capitalism. People don’t go into business, or work for one, in order to go broke, even though many do anyway, because they’re not very good at running a business, or a bigger crisis does them in.
We’re also all socialists here (save for a few anarchists) and even under socialism, firms still have to make a profit, generally speaking, even if it means something different. If I thought the basic problems of the working class could be solved under capitalism, why would I bother with socialism?
I make no claims that coops solve the basic problem. But like Marx, I also agree they have a role to play in defending the workers, and training them for the future, as strong points, among many others, like a workers press, from which to grow in power and wage wider struggle.
I don’t tell people to ‘wait’, but I will argue with them about what is the best thing TO DO RIGHT NOW to further the class struggle AND the struggle for socialism–and certain structural reforms do both.
What WE DO now is the issue, not what WE WAIT for.
As I noted earlier, the IWW and the SLP ultimatists long ago tried their hand at opposing any agreements, laws or contracts with capital that left the wage system intact. They ended up in a cul de sac, a dead end, and passed into history because of it. Do you really want to go there?
Ironically, you end up telling people to wait. None of this stuff can help them, only the revolutionary onslaught for socialism! OK, where is it? Where are the barricades? Well, we can’t do that today, so that has to wait a bit. In the meantime, wear orange, come to a big rally, sell this paper and watch these cool DVDs. Please.
If you can’t see this, you end up as an advocate of what we used to call ‘fire hydrant socialism.’ You take the immediate demand of the day, whatever it is, more fire hydrants in your neighborhood, demand them and tack ‘that’s why we need socialism!’ on the bottom of your leaflet or agitational speech. You can’t get away from immediate demands, so you have to tip your hat to them, but only the ultimate demand is what counts, so you have to raise it, anywhere and everywhere, to everyone, whether it makes sense in a given context or not. And most of all, you have to aim your main fire at the dreaded revisionism of structural reform or any bridge demand or program that’s less than the ‘D of the P’.
The above applies to ‘Future’s Ours’ as well. He’s the one saying ‘No we can’t,’ as in ‘no we can’t own and run that factory, because that’s the trap of reformism, it won’t solve all your problems.’
No one ever claimed that it did, but as a tool for moving forward, a bridge to a new order, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than dressing up in different colors.
Sometimes I wonder how many here know how a factory or business actually works, in this system or any other, rather than a few revolutionary phrases you’ve picked up here and there. A good number of workers do, and if you want to replace the current order with something better, it’s past time to get your ducks all in a row. They’ll expect answers that are very concrete and well defined. Dazzling phrases may get over at a WCW rally, but here you need a little more.
N3wDay said
My main concern here is not whether fighting for a co-op is valuable or not. Sure, I see no reason why that is any different from any other reform struggle that revolutionaries engage in, such as impeachment, anti-war, union struggles, etc.
My question is how that acts as a bridge to socialism. More so than any other reform struggle. Is there greater potential for creating class consciousness? Do you think greater economic power for workers in a co-op will enable them to gain more political power, so they can buy the favor of bourgeois politicians and in doing so create these deep structural reforms that will somehow end capitalism?
The thing to ask here isn’t whether co-ops exist within the matrices of capitalist exploitation. They clearly do. Even if every worker in the US was employed by a co-op it would still be capitalism. With certain blocks of worker controlled capital exploiting others.
How does that make a much better tactic than other reform struggles? How can that help develop class consciousness (leading to revolution) in much more thorough way than other struggles?
Carl Davidson said
Because in worker-owned and/or controlled factories, someone other than a once-removed capitalist class is running and benefiting from a piece of the means of production, even if a small one. In this limited arena, if it’s a full coop, wage-labor is abolished and power relations altered. As it succeeds, it raises the question, ‘Why just here? Why not go further? If we workers can do well here, run things here, why not everywhere?’
There’s much more to be said for there, of course, but if you can’t see how a structural reform like this differs from a 6 percent pay hike or easier voter registration, there’s not much more I can say that will help.
Dare 2 Dream said
Future’s Ours states,” As I understand Carl Davidson has worked very hard for decades on the workers’ behalf. But his work, qualitatively (not quantitatively because he may have lots and lots of workers following him), will not have achieved anything unless he dares to make the jump, the dash actually into the unknown.”
Dare to jump Carl! Dare to jump! You *CAN* do it. Don’t be afraid of the dark. We’ll hold your hand. A whole new world awaits!
Carl Davidson said
No need to jump ‘into the dark.’ I’ve a whole new world waiting for you. It’s that big blue marble teeming with contradictions MikeE talks about.
Right here in Beaver County, I’ve got workers with visions of modern superbarges carrying wind turbines through reconstructed local and dams on the rivers, some see new mills open up to make the stuff of green energy, and are willing the fight for it. I’ve got a rural working-class preacher down the road with 500 low-income older whites, retired and unemployed, in need of food and a place to meet and socialize for older folks trapped in their run-down trailers; I’ve got young Black kids in town tired of poisoning themselves and their neighbors to survive, then being busted to prison or the army. Not everyone can be a football star.
All of the above have good ideas on how to move forward, and can organize and work with other organizers willing to share weal and woe, as well as share new and practical ideas on the next steps and how to do it better. Some of them want to do more, to figure out how the whole thing works, and what might work better in a new order.
But they want no condescending saviors. So yes, a new world awaits. But you best leave some old semi-anarchist baggage behind if you’re going to be able to make the jump.
N3wDay said
Haha, I actually thought Dare 2 Dreams post was sarcasm aimed at Future’s Ours… Perhaps s/he would be interested in posting something of substance next time to avoid such confusion?
I working on writing a response right now.. But I need to think through this stuff a lot more. It will suffice to say right now that, my main contention is not whether there is a difference between fighting for a coop, or a wage raise. Duh, that obviously is a big one. Some reforms are much bigger than others, and some change power (not social) relations (temporarily) in a much bigger way than others.
The main thing that stands out to me is the gradualist language that you (Carl) use. It seems to say in the absence of a revolutionary situation (that will probably never happen), we should fight for coops, and put socialism on the back burner, except among the very advanced, because no one wants to hear about it. and it’s really a waste of time accept among those who based on their immediately occurring actions appear most drawn to C/S (which varies greatly from my personal experience and how I became a Communist! That’s part of what makes me so skeptical). Then, in absence of a revolutionary situation coops will act as a bridge to socialism. They will inspire a growing movement which slowly over many years (100? or more, taking the mondragon coops as an example) seize more and more power until the bourgeoise has no choice but to inact deep structural reforms that will finally usher in a socialist society in the united states.
Once again, it’s not that I don’t think at certain junctures coops wouldn’t be important things to fight for. It’s not that I don’t see any PRACTICAL difference between them and other reforms. It’s more about strategy and class consciousness.
If i’ve painted your view incorrectly please respond. In the mean time I’ll work on articulating why I don’t find that realistic.
Carl Davidson said
Just to make it harder for you, ‘N3wday,’ I don’t see nonrevolutionary conditions stretching out for a hundred years. They might, but if past history is any indicator, not very likely. Try thinking of a revolutionary upsurge every three or four decades or so. But really, it could happen anytime. The future is open and full of wild cards. Revolutionary work in nonrevolutionary conditions is preparing strongholds and building revolutionary organization, Gramsci’s ‘war of position’ primarily, so as to be prepared when it does come. No slacking and waiting in the meantime needed or wanted. The idea isn’t to gradually replicate Mondragon over and over for a century or so until we have some sort of peaceful transition. It’s to use structural reforms like this, as what Lenin and Marx called ‘strong points,’ and as a kind of non-anarchist ‘propaganda of the deed’, ie, as a tactic for wider struggle and revolutionary education for the working class to become the masters of society.
So if you want to take on my position, that’s what it really is about on this matter.
Eddy said
Carl, I have no idea what you mean by exploitation via the cash register, but I don’t think you understand Marx very well.
Exploitation happens when people sell their labor-power; the circulation of commodities is a necessary part of that process (indeed labor-power is a commodity too). Even if the capitalist fails to realize a profit, the exploitation has already taken place and it involves an entire web of socio-economic relationships.
It doesn’t happen workshop-by-workshop. The important point here is that it is impossible to reform exploitation out of capitalism. By helping to make this clear (in agitation and propaganda about how capitalism really works, for example), we help the proletariat take up and then to lead the revolutionary struggle against capitalism as a whole.
Carl Davidson said
I’m agreeing with you, Eddy. Under capitalism, you’re exploited when you sell your labor power; at the cash register, at the point of consumption, you’re part of the realization of profit.
It’s fine to tell people businesses are all about making profits from their labor, and in fact must do so if the businesses are to stay in business and the workers are to stay employed. I just don’t think they’ll be all that surprised.
It’s when people come up against the inability of capitalism to deliver something they desperately need, or its inability to overcome a wrenching crisis, that people become more interested in alternatives. For example, people are becoming more interested in the idea of socialism at the prospect of GM shutting down, with its ripple effect, than they are at the notion that GM profits from the labor of auto workers. The latter is rather ho-hum.
Eddy said
Exploitation is anything but ho-hum for the textile worker in Guatemala or the electronic scrap recycling worker in Vietnam, or the chemical worker in Ankleshwar. Based on my experience, I’d argue that it is not all ho-hum for an autoworker, either. (One reason that health benefits are so important to retirees.)
We cannot leave it at that statement of ‘fact’. (“you are exploited!”) We need to reveal and enable others to analyze and reveal further that each act of exploitation is many acts, mutually dependent, serially and radially, across time and geography.
Each act of exploitation is compounded by the next. Exploitation is simultaneously specific and a ‘universal’ to the society. We cannot abolish it without uprooting every social relationship attached to it. That is surely not ‘ho-hum’, nor is it commonly understood (including by left activists).
More than that, It has tremendous significance for the strategic struggle against capital in the present (e.g. for this revolution) and for the continuing struggle ‘under socialism’ where many of the supports of capital will persist. (wages, for example)
Keith said
Carl is right when he says that exploitation does not occur at the “cash register.” What that means is that exploitation does not occur in circulation it occurs in production. Circulation or market exchange is a necessary condition for capitalist exploitation to occur. I am not exploited through the contract where I agree to sell my labor power at some wage rate. I am exploited when I work; when I produce value. That I must sell my labor power in order to live is a condition that make the exploitation of labor of possible but it is still something different.
Eddy if you say everything is exploitation then you ender the concept meaningless. A worker co-operative does not end exploitation. It does end the direct exploitation of the particular workers in the co-operative. Marx’s distinction between productive and unproductive labor may be instructive here. I.I. Rubin’s chapter on Marx’s distinction is the best I know:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch19.htm
Anyway, Marx explains that the determination of whether or not exploitation has occurred depends on the social relationships within which an labor process takes place. (It does not depend on the type of activity. Thus the “service worker” distinction is not a Marxian distinction because service workers may or may not produce surplus value for capital).
For example, take a car mechanic. If a car mechanic fixes her friends car on the curb for free there is no exploitation. (despite the fact that inputs for the repair may have been produced with exploited labor). If she does the exact same repair on an neighbors car but is paid for her time there is still NO Exploitation. If she buys a garage and repairs cars far and wide there is still no exploitation.
It is only when she sells her labor power to a boss who wons the garage and who employs her to fix cars for a wage that exploitation occurs. But it is not the fact of her wage which is teh basis of the determination. The fact that the mechanic in this last example has no control over the product of her work, the surplus she produces that determines this relationship as exploitation.
In each example the mechanic does the same activity. In each case except the last she is NOT a productive worker (productive workers produce surplus value for capital) and hence not exploited.
The way Eddy is trying to expand the definition of exploitation renders the distinction between productive and non-productive labor impossible. Eddy’s definition is a moral definition.
This does not mean that a workers co-op is mark the end of capitalism but it does show how the capital relation can be broken and so co-ops are a pat of the revolutionary process.
Once again, the so-called “revolutionaries” offer no path to revolution other than protests and newspapers. The line of the so-called “revolutionaries” that Mike sets up in opposition to Carl is let in appearance and right in essence (Right because it is a do-nothing line that argues no possible activity is revolutionary enough).
Eddy said
The sale of labor-power and the resulting creation of surplus-value IS exploitation, regardless of who you sell it to.
Keith ignores surplus-value that is not the result of an immediate act, and imagines that every other act is not likewise ‘productive’, and that capitalism can be abolished not just ‘in one country’ but ‘in one workshop’. (a syndicalist orientation, which has also taken the form of trade unionism in the past.)
Marx, however, recognized the web of events that comprise an economy — the many social relationships involved in the creation of the social surplus — and described these as the ‘organic composition’ of capital processes. All of the ‘inputs’ to production represent either live labor-power or ‘congealed’ (already-exploited) labor. All of the past labor is part of the productive process (and not just the most immediate act). (and by the way, ‘consumption’ by the seller of labor-power is also a productive act if it creates more labor-power)
“by incorporating living labour with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies.” (Capital, Chapter 7)
Carl Davidson said
Again, Eddy, what’s the point?
That businesses make profits by employing wage labor? That we live in a market economy? All that is rather ho-hum.
That at some point down the road we’ll have full cybernation, where the amount of labor-time in any product approaches zero, and the length of the working day approaches zero, thereby making the withering away of states, markets and classes possible?
That’s not so ho-hum, but not in the cards anytime soon.
In the meantime, there’s socialism, a class society and a economy with markets that serves as a bridge between the former and the latter. And in our case, we have the tasks of finding the forms of struggle, the bridges, that get us from here to there.
In that regard, while I’m not usually a quote monger, here’s one for you to chew on, from Karl Marx himself:
“The co-operative factories run by workers themselves are, within the old form, the first examples of the emergence of a new form, even though they naturally reproduce in all cases, in their present organization, all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them. But the opposition between capital and labour is abolished there, even if at first only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalists, i.e. they use the means of production to valorise their labour. These factories show how, at a certain stage of development of the material forces of production, and of the social forms of production corresponding to them, a new mode of production develops and is formed naturally out of the old” [...] “Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way” (Marx, Capital, 1894, pp. 571-72).
N3wDay said
“Revolutionary work in nonrevolutionary conditions is preparing strongholds and building revolutionary organization, Gramsci’s ‘war of position’ primarily, so as to be prepared when it does come. No slacking and waiting in the meantime needed or wanted. The idea isn’t to gradually replicate Mondragon over and over for a century or so until we have some sort of peaceful transition. It’s to use structural reforms like this, as what Lenin and Marx called ’strong points,’ and as a kind of non-anarchist ‘propaganda of the deed’, ie, as a tactic for wider struggle and revolutionary education for the working class to become the masters of society.”
I don’t think we’ll find our differences here, but rather in the methods we employ to engage in these tactics.
For example, I don’t think “buy out, not bailout” would be a bad slogan, or goal, if it was more along the lines of, “buy out, not bailout – this system has got to go”. In other words the slogan was used as agitation, not only for immediate reform, but also for revolution within an explicitly socialist/communist context.
In fact I see no reason not to raise the idea of communism in fighting for such a reform, broadly, considering the nature of the crisis and what brought about the demand for a buy-out in the first place.
I suppose this brings us back to our previous discussion on what is the best way to fight for socialism (what crowds to aim for, the nature of our agitation, who to conduct socialist agitation/propaganda among). Also, what this thread started as. Because, the post Mike made, never really said anything about not struggling for reforms, it was more about context.
More later.
Carl Davidson said
Yes, one difference between us here is that I see our socialist tasks at this time mainly in the work of propaganda, policy development and theoretical work. It can enter mass agitation in the form of proposals for various structural reforms, ie, ‘Buy Out, Not Bailout!’ You seem, however, to want mainly to stress agitation in the course of mass actions of various sorts, not only for socialism, but for communism as well.
I’m not an advocate of the old ‘propaganda only’ line of some ‘left’ groups back in the 1970s. Propaganda work can be combined with agitation to a limited degree as the work of ‘revolutionary education,’ which is what I advocate. But it’s still not what you’re talking about.
But I’m curious. What exactly do you think you’re accomplishing by doing mass agitation for ‘communism’ as distinct from ‘socialism’? You know as well as I do that the classless society of the future isn’t on any practical agenda anywhere, so what’s the point? I talk about it rather frequently in propaganda work, or theoretical debates, but that’s another matter.
Or do these distinctions, which I use in rather orthodox Leninist ways, not mean that much to you?
Eddy said
As Marx wrote, they reproduce all the defects of the existing system. Thus, ‘buy out, not bail-out’ is not a call for socialism, it is a reinforcement of capital.
The abolition of ‘states, markets and classes’ is not predicated on some future cyber-world, but it is predicated on the abolition of exploitation of people by other people; abolishing the means and methods by which society is divided into classes and whereby one section of society is compelled to sell its labor-power to another section and as that ruling section directs. Furthermore, the most radical rupture with traditional property relations requires a radical rupture with traditional ideas.
The objective reality of the current period presents many opportunities (‘teachable moments’) for overturning traditional thinking (in every sphere).
And without those objectives in mind the proletariat will never lead a revolution to socialism, much less continue the revolution through the entire socialist period. (The 20th C. illustrates that problem in many specifics.)
I would think that the need for a clear socialist objective in mind would be self-evident to someone as practical as yourself.
Carl Davidson said
You’re in a tangle here, Eddy
First, you take the half of the quote from Marx where he notes, rather obviously, that worker coops under capitalism suffer from all the traits of, well, capitalism, but you leave out or simple ignore his views on the upside of workers coops, which he notes in many places, not just here. This may get you over in some quarters, but not here. You’ll have to do a little better than that if you want to debate serious people about serious things.
Second, your other point is a total jumble. You dismiss a critical point of Marxism regarding how states and classes can wither away, then totally confuse a period of socialism, which has a variety of classes, including a working class, with classless society, and the ‘D of the P’, which certainly is a state, wherein one class rules other classes, with a condition where the state has withered away. And since you dismiss the means to an economy of abundance, just how do you decide distribution under the conditions of scarcity in your version of socialism? How does it work?
I don’t think you have any idea, but if I’m wrong, I’m all ears.
Jose M said
Carl:
is it wrong for revolutionaries to have communism on “our agenda”?
If we do not, then what is the point of anything we do?
And I think your comment reveals your politics (once again) as the type of reformism and lowered sights that we need to avoid.
When we go out in political struggle to lead and organize the masses, communism, as a stateless and classless society should be, and needs to be, brought up as the only viable solution for humanity.
So, if this isn’t on our agenda, then nothing else matters.
Jose M said
In addition to what I wrote above, I want to bring up the slogan that Kasama has used before:
“Communist revolution changes everything.”
And thats what we need to bring to the political table, to the discourse in the broader society. It simply isnt enough and it doesnt make you a revolutionary if you mention communism in debates or conversations. It needs to be the freaking reason why communists exist in the first place.
So, what can be achieved by using communism as an integral piece of agitation?
A revolutionary people. And this can’t be forged with anything less than using communist revolution and communist society as our ‘raison de etre”.
Carl Davidson said
It been on my agenda for decades. Same with some other folks I know, so that makes it our agenda.
But who is ‘our’ referring to?
Unless your into metaphysical realities of some sort, ‘our agenda’ is the agenda of the revolutionaries, but is not yet the agenda of the broad masses of activities seeking change, let alone the broad masses generally.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think if you insist on your agenda as the agenda of the masses long enough and persistently enough and loudly enough, anywhere and everywhere there are ears, your agenda will transform the people we meet everyday into ‘revolutionary people,’ and our agenda and theirs will be the same.
I don’t think this is the way people and society work. You can try it, but I think you’ll just burn out.
Generally speaking, people learn from their experience, from finding solutions to the problems they face, day-to-day and overall, step by step, through social practice, rooted in the conditions of the day; they learn through producing, through class struggle and through scientific experiment and learning.
At any give time, you can divide people into three, and they will hold three different agendas, if you like. Some want change and are willing to do something; some want security in private life, and don’t see themselves as makers of history; and some like the current order, and want to defend it. Call them the progressive, the middle and the backward. There’s other ways to put it as well, but it’s best based on an actual assessment. That means you can’t be a lazy-bones. You have to investigate and discover their agenda. You have to learn a few things from them, not just push your agenda. You have to work hard at finding the appropriate ways to move forward, and also the best ways to link the agenda of the revolutionaries with the masses agenda.
If the two were the same, we’d be in a revolutionary situation, but we’re not. And you can’t make it into one by the sheer force of will and mass agitation of a small group, I don’t care what Chairman Bob says or what the GPCR was or wasn’t. That is an anarchist notion that needs to be ferreted out of the thinking of many people if they are ever to make a decent contribution to what really needs to be done, and stop spinning their wheels. Just stomping down more on the accelerator won’t do.
Do you see the implicit disdain you have for the masses, as they are, with your concept of ‘revolutionary people’ that you are going to somehow remold them into? Better to study the mass line a bit more, and take it to heart.
Jose M said
Carl:
awesome job of making a straw man out of what I said.
If you want to come to the conclusion that I have disdain for the people because I call for revolution and communism to be on our agenda, hell it’s your choice. That is fine.
But nowhere is it even implicit that I have a disdain for either the mass line or the masses, I simply stated that revolution and communism need to be everywhere we are agitating and organizing.
My concept of “revolutionary people” might not be the same as yours, but it is to that of the communists’ conception. I didnt explain HOW these people would be forged, or that they would be remolded through insistent agitation, but that, as I said, communism needs to be put forward everywhere as the solution.
Carl Davidson said
‘No straw men’ works both ways.
Communism has always been part of my agenda, too, I just don’t substitute my agenda for the masses’ agenda. The two are linked, but far from the same.
I was really aiming at your ‘revolutionary people’ concept, which I think is metaphysical. I’ll take people as they are, practice the mass line, and use it to develop the progressive forces, win over the middle, and divide and isolate the backward. Those are fluid categories, and change with time and struggle–but it always takes people as they are, not as we might wish they were.
Putting forward communism EVERYWHERE as a SOLUTION is just silly on two counts. First, there’s plenty of places you’d want to keep it to a few; otherwise you won’t be there very long, and won’t be taken seriously by anyone. Making this assertion just shows you’d have a hard time organizing among workers who just have to keep union organizing efforts as closed to the bosses as possible, let alone flying the red flag everywhere, not to mention even more difficult projects in the military. Second, solution to what? And when? Unless you want to be taken as a preacher prattling about the coming rapture, you better find some more immediate and practical solutions for problems the masses face. Otherwise, they’ll set you aside and talk with someone who does. Spinning stories about the GPCR decades back doesn’t count for all that much.
Eddy said
You would be better served if you paid attention to what you’re reading.
I will re-emphasize here that the essential quality of socialism is as a socio-political transition to classless society.
How that happens is not primarily in the realm of ‘production’ and your apparent insistence that it does represents a historically-persistent mechanical interpretation of Marx. But wasn’t that (‘advancing production’) the justification for Teng’s modernization campaign to restore capitalism in China (and of which you were an early adopter, if I recall correctly).
So, yes, I want to emphasize the essential activities to eliminate class and other divisions in society, and promote that as the goal we should fight for.
As most people recognize, every society is organized around ‘economic’ social relationships. And, as I’ve already stated elsewhere, the current crisis within the capitalist economy demonstrates not simply that capitalism can’t ‘deliver the goods’ (but which all revisionists consider to be the acme of their agitation). It calls into question nearly everything that just a year ago seemed immutable and normative. Most importantly, it calls into question ‘why do we live in a world based on the exploitation of the majority by a minority?’
The proletariat doesn’t need to invent the means to an economy of abundance; that possibility already exists in human culture (e.g. the proletariat already invented it). What the proletariat needs is to liberate humanity from the exploitation, oppression and imbalances of capitalism and class society. Strategically, it can do this because ‘it has nothing to lose but its chains.’
The struggle for subsistence within this society will persist independently of what any Marxists might say or do. A feature of capital is the constant push and pull between dead and living labor, so don’t think that any workers are waiting for you to tell them when or whether to push or pull.
If that’s all you bring to the discussion you are either underestimating yourself or everyone else.
Keith said
Eddy writes:
“I will re-emphasize here that the essential quality of socialism is as a socio-political transition to classless society.
How that happens is not primarily in the realm of ‘production’ ….”
The idea that the construction of a classless society is not primarily a question of production is Maoist idealism.
The kinds of social relationships possible are determined by the level of development of the productive forces. (The productive forces include not only the means of production but the people as well). That is not a mechanical reading of Marx, it is Marx’s view, which he explains over and over again and it is the essence of the materialist conception of history. In other words, the kinds of classes and class relations in any given social formation are determined by the level of development of the productive forces.
The task for revolutionaries is to determine ways to develop the productive forces to transform the class relations. That task is both theoretical and practical. Revolutionaries must start taking over cities (as a first step) via electoral politics and experimenting with social and economic development projects designed to transform social relations. At the same time we must organize worker co-operatives and independent unions which have taking over the board of directors as their goal. This work must be connected to cultural and social projects that build independent vehicles for theory, propaganda, and agitation and which also can organize the infiltration of capitalist institutions and win over individuals within those institutions. This local work will be linked with other local work through a website (in the manner that Lenin describes in Where to Begin).
But that is just a bunch of reformist crap. Real revolutionaries know that we should organize solidarity with third world revolutions in Nepal and Peru, protest Israel, and publish newspapers.
Jose M said
Carl:
once again, I don’t know if you want to imply that I want to substitute my agenda for the masses’ agenda, but that certainly isn’t the case for me.
You don’t understand what I mean. Developing a “revolutionary people” means using the maoist concept of advanced, intermediate, and backward. It means using the mass line. Revolutionary people means the advanced section of the masses that are at the vanguard of the revolutionary movement. Nowhere is it even implied that I don’t want to start of with how people are and move from there. What I’ve been saying is focusing on communism as the solution, and yes, everywhere. Hiding that from the people and assuming that they will “trust us” because we helped them in union organizing or day to day struggles is a false concept, that is not how the consciousness of the people is transformed (as Lenin correctly stated).
Sure, there are practical problems the masses face that we should dive into. But the question is: with what orientation? If we aren’t doing it to win them over the need for revolution, then we are essentially reformists.
“Solution to what”?
^ Is this a serious question? It is the solution to oppression. What is wrong with “spinning stories” about the Cultural Revolution? There are profound lessons that need to be unearthed and be part of dialectical back and forth dynamic that we have with the masses. Not only that, but as a means to unearth what the Cultural Revolution was really about, as opposed to what the ruling classes claim it to be. Do workers only want to hear about their wages or unions? Is the capacity of the people that narrow to you? Or is it possible that there are things to learn from the CR, such as how workers organized themselves in the 3-in-1 committees, exercised power through mass organizations, and were working towards socialist transformation?
Communists do not conceal their views.
Eddy said
Here is how Marx & Engels posed things in 1848, when the level of technology and its application within industry and agriculture was much less developed than it is today. Note that the principal focus is on social relationships, not technology (emphasis added):
********
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party
zerohour said
Keith says:
“Real revolutionaries know that we should organize solidarity with third world revolutions in Nepal and Peru, protest Israel, and publish newspapers.”
Why do you counterpose internationalist solidarity to revolutionary work in the US? Is it wrong to emphasize and reinforce the notion that the proletariat are in international class? Should US workers not oppose imperialism and support struggles against exploitation and oppression elsewhere, especially where “their” government is responsible? Does the old slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all” end at national borders?
Carl said: “Generally speaking, people learn from their experience, from finding solutions to the problems they face, day-to-day and overall, step by step, through social practice, rooted in the conditions of the day; they learn through producing, through class struggle and through scientific experiment and learning.” People are also capable of empathy in situations beyond their immediate experience. They read newspapers and not only for horoscopes or the sports pages. Witness the surge of pro-Tibet sentiment, not to mention the myriad of personal blogs and websites that comment on world events – not all of these people are part of the organized left. If your starting point is that people are only interested in their immediate surroundings, you are abandoning the field of internationalism to the bourgeosie who are more than happy to mobilize it for their own uses.
It seems that you and Carl believe that the main transformation that needs to occur is purely administrative. Rather than address your concrete tasks, none of which requires revolutionary politics, I’d posit that a political task is revolutionary insofar as it challenges not only individualism and identification with the ideology of capital, but must also deeply challenge homophobia, racism, sexism, a purely instrumental view of nature, nationalism. Not only do we have to insist that resolving these problems requires a new society based on a more cooperative and humane mode of production, but.. and here’s the kicker – to get there, we will need a revolution. A strategy in which one accumulates victories in a gradual manner and eventually overcomes the system somehow has historically shown itself to be seriously problematic. Carl likes to portray this as “thinking out of the box” but really, it’s been around as long as the idea of a revolution based on rutpure.
So how does a war of position transition to a war of maneuver? Do you even think it should?
The danger of this gradualism is that it becomes the dominant view through which social change is defined so that when ruptures occur that may contain new possibilities, they are not perceived as such and may even be opposed by so-called revolutionaries.
Taking over and building institutions can be part of revolutionary strategy, but I think it’s not inherently revolutionary to administer things, even collectively. That requires a radical political ideology.
You brought up Mondragon in the past as proof of how workers can run society successfully. No argument against that principle, but in this case, the real questions are: why hasn’t this been taken up all over Spain? Why does the Spanish bourgeois state still exist? Why does Mondragon still exist – are the Spanish bourgeoisie too stupid to recognize the revolutionary threat within? In addition to proving that workers coops can be successful, I would suggest it also proves that capital can tolerate enclaves of autonomous activity, as long as it can limit the scope of their impact.
Keith said: “The kinds of social relationships possible are determined by the level of development of the productive forces. (The productive forces include not only the means of production but the people as well). That is not a mechanical reading of Marx, it is Marx’s view, which he explains over and over again and it is the essence of the materialist conception of history.” Unfortunately Marx did write such evolutionist and mechanical formulations. This doesn’t mainly characterize his work, but we can’t let it slide just because it’s Marx. It’s materialist, but it’s also mechanical. A more empirically accurate formulation would be that level of productive forces provide the basis for social formations. If social relationships are determined by productive forces, then the US is socialist, right? The US is not socialist because the people here have not taken on a revolutionary worldview and put it into action. How is it voluntarist to stress the pivotal role of popular consciousness in the creation of a new society? Are you assuming that material resources speak for themselves and that people are just there to realize their [resources] aims? Of course we can’t just do whatever we want regardless of material conditions but material conditions don’t have a necessary path of development. A hammer, nails and planks of wood can become a doghouse, a shack or a farm. The greater one’s resources, the greater one’s options. Or one can leave it alone and all that’s left is a hammer, nails and wood.
Also is your strategy for revolution based on a linear notion that material contexts must change before ideology does? That people’s thinking can’t supersede their immediate situations? This carries the danger of turning from descriptive to prescriptive. In addition to being wrong about how people think [ask a "non-political" person about Israel/Palestine and you'll find that many have strong opinions about it regardless of their degree of knowledge], if it becomes a premise of political work, it can only be defended as dogma and used to dismiss those who demonstrate the capacity to truly think outside the pragmatic box by exceeding the norms of acceptable protest – as in Greece.
All said, you do raise important points and I want to keep thinking about them but I’d like to get a sense from you about some of the serious pitfalls of “gradualist” politics and why you don’t think you’ll fall into them.
Carl Davidson said
Eddy, I can post for you a long article surveying all sorts of comments by Marx on workers coops and many other battles, but as I said, I’m not a quote monger. You can find it for yourself if you like.
I don’t conceal my views either. I’ve got books out of socialism, communism and many other things, not to mention other work. But when I’m working in a united front for single-payer health care or sessions to mobilize against the war, I see no need to seize the floor and lecture the room on communism, when and if I get the floor. But I will invite some, the more advanced, to study groups on the topic.
Here’s a puzzle for you. When I was in China, I attended a lecture, actually several of them, on communists in united front work. We learned about three types of organizations–red, pink and grey. The red organizations were the party and its committees, and the task was to keep it as open as necessary to the masses, while as closed as possible to the enemy. Save in the liberated zones, almost all its work was done in secret. The pink organizations were mass democratic, but were led by a combination of party and others in the front. The grey were led by the rightists and other adversaries. Here the communists were totally secret, only did what was best about what the group required in its terms, bided their time, kept completely closed, and only gave suggestions to other party members outside the grey group as to who might be approached outside the sphere of this group.
So yes, the communists disdain to conceal their views. They have a strategic program and announce it to the world, along with transitional and immediate programs, not unlike the Manifesto. But if you think that means each and every party member has to lecture on communism to the masses openly in each and every struggle, or they’re a reformist or revisionist, then what can one say? Only that Lenin had the right idea when he called it an ‘infantile disorder.’ Please, meditate on that a while.
If ‘revolutionary people’ is simply another term for the advanced, then that’s what you should use. It’s less ambiguous.
As for ZeroHour, tell me how raising the banner of communism in, say, the Republic Windows strike, solved the problems of the workers there, which was to win what was due them and to save their jobs.
I offered a program of structural reform and green jobs public works inn discussing that struggle at the time, posted here and many other places, that could probably have worked, with more preparation and political will from the union, alongside some wider alliances. It was a program that would conceivably unite a progressive majority, not only among the workers, but across the whole city.
Now take the same situation and tell us how your agitation for communism here would work to solve the workers pressing problems and where it would lead next.
The class struggle is very concrete and very practical when you’re engaged in it. If you can’t succeed here, you’re not even going to be in a position for the bigger tasks rising on the horizon.
Jose M said
I don’t understand how your analogy to what happened in China is so relevant.
We don’t live in a civil war situation. We don’t carry the fear of raising communism in a broad way since we aren’t surrounded by immediate enemies that can physically harm us or even eliminate us. If this is your reasoning, then hell, maybe we should never raise revolution or communism, since revolution itself is an illegal act. Maybe I am putting words in your mouth, but it seems that this is where your irrelevant comment leads.
Do conditions and context determine HOW we should raise revolution as the solution? Of course it does. You make it seem as if communists are preachers who would speak about communism as those freaky priests on TV do. Nah man, nothing like that. I mean it needs to be our orientation in everything we do, from structural reforms to everything. Like I said before, communists exist to lead the masses in making revolution (and dont take this in a one sided manner, you know what I mean).
When I say, “it has to be part of everything we do”, it does not mean that if we don’t “lecture the masses” (note that I don’t use such condescending terms), it means that it needs to be our orientation during these struggles, and it can be manifested in manifestos, slogans, discussions, chants, study groups, newspapers, websites, articles, etc., as a form of tying the current struggle with the nature of the system and the need for revolution. Not only that, but certain struggles themselves can and do serve as catalysts in the political education of the masses, particularly the “faultine struggles” that raise the sights of the masses beyond more narrow, immediate struggles.
My man zero is right: it is a false idea that we can win gradual victories then hope that the masses will come to trust us and be won over the socialism. Its false. And it seems like what you advocate, since your “structural reforms” were clearly concerned with the daily interests and needs of the masses rather than their attempted fusion with revolutionary politics.
Your quote here shows this perfectly:
“The class struggle is very concrete and very practical when you’re engaged in it. If you can’t succeed here, you’re not even going to be in a position for the bigger tasks rising on the horizon.”
zerohour said
Carl said: “As for ZeroHour, tell me how raising the banner of communism in, say, the Republic Windows strike, solved the problems of the workers there, which was to win what was due them and to save their jobs.”
The point I was raising, and I may not have been clear, was one of orientation, not concrete tactics. N3wday above raised a possible alternative slogan, which could have raised the level of understanding while allowing for concrete measures, including those you suggested, as necessary for immediate survival. You shouldn’t confuse slogans for analysis, or tactics for strategy. The Republic Windows and Doors strike didn’t have revolutionary potential in and of itself but it was a reflection of the degree of anger among working people and was worth supporting. I think it would have been inappropriate to throw in a laundry list of radical demands, but you’re saying there was no way to talk to the workers about the nature or capitalism, and the need for communism while working with them devise a means to take care of themselves in the present?
You’re assuming a sort of ultimatist, all-or-nothing politics that I’m not advocating. Concrete tactics have to be figured out in the mix, no argument about that. In the present context, I can’t conceive of any tactics that would lead to the proverbial storming of the Winter Palace but the main task is finding ways to transform political thinking. The ideological implications of structural reforms, whatever those reforms may be, are not self-evident. A revolutionary approach might be to fight for such reforms while pointing out that this is a constant problem while we live under capitalism – that we have to fight for decent living and working conditions, things like healthcare. From here we can have a discussion about why this is and start talking about a new kind of society. But it’s not enough to say that capitalism is fucked and socialism is feasible and more desirable. We will have to talk about how to get there. Such talk should include broader issues about imperialism and different oppressions but how that plays out will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Still, your approach is based on winning support for socialism based on effective reform strategies and, it seems, not talking about revolution. Winning “here” may put you in a better institutional position to fight larger battles but the the history of gradual accumulation has shown that when such battles are the order of the day, they signify a rupture in the historical context and require a rupture in political outlook and strategy. A revolutionary politics should be working towards this point. It’s almost axiomatic in science that stability is exceptional and disequilibrium is the norm. This is where gradualism tends to fail. As Trotsky once said in another context, such politics are like “raincoats which “leak” only when it rains, i.e., in “exceptional” circumstances, but during dry weather they remain “leak-proof” with complete success.”
Eddy said
To borrow a phrase from Ernst Mayr, the debate over historical materialism is one long argument. But if we are going to debate what Marx did or did not advance, it helps to be specific. We are not ‘trading’ in Marx, we are struggling toward the truth.
Yes, the social structure of any society exists in relation to how that society functions as a population group, and the basis of that function is ‘economic’ in the sense of how the group and the individuals within the group produce and reproduce themselves. Population groups are the sine qua non of all human activities. (But this is true of all primates, for example, and most mammals.)
But to argue that we are only extensions of those ‘economic’ activities, that in fact our societies are not much more than that, is simply neither drawn from facts nor is it Marxist. (But please show me where, if you think it is!)
to wit (not for sale or trade):
“The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator needs educating. Hence this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionizing practice.” (Karl Marx. Theses on Feuerbach, #3.)
We need to promote more of this revolutionizing practice in our daily work, all around. Essential to that is both a critique of the present and advancing hypotheses for the future. The real debate in this thread seems to be more about what constitutes that ‘future’: either ‘structural reforms’ and ‘adding a kopek to a ruble’ or radically re-envisioning and remaking of the way society operates in every sphere — and whether or not ‘the masses’ are ‘ready’ to comprehend that discussion.
Given the current global dysfunction of imperialism and an escalating impoverishment, given two major expeditionary wars and several more localized ones, given the reemerging inter-imperial rivalries as it all goes to shit for them, the ‘normalcy’ and ‘reasonableness’ of how Capital runs things is open to fundamental and deeply serious questioning very broadly. If not now, when?
Carl Davidson said
Zero, no definite struggle ‘in and of itself’ has revolutionary potential.
And it’s fascinating to me that Jan Schakowsky could raise the key questions related to keeping Republic Windows open, on TV yet, and any number of the workers talked about it among themselves, yet the fact of the matter is that they weren’t prepared, not because they couldn’t be, but because they lacked revolutionaries among them, and in their union, with an understanding of how to do it, and how the conditions could be set for it. So they stuck to traditional redistributionist approaches they were comfortable with, and now the future is uncertain, if not bleak.
I agree that it would be difficult, if not inappropriate, for revolutionary without an organic connection to the workforce, to come on like gangbusters with the ‘correct solution.’ Your instinct here is right, but later you miss the point of it in your dismissal of my closing point about ‘positioning’ in the class struggle.
Winning structural reforms is not about making capitalism work better, or even ‘gradually’ winning enough of them that quantity turns into quality and all of a sudden we have socialism. Instead, think of them as schools of struggle where workers learn the skills of becoming masters of all society, and these schools in turn become positioned as strongholds, dugout positions in the battlefields of class struggle, what we need to acquire in the ‘war of position,’ so when the times arrives to go ‘over the top,’ in a period of dual power and insurrection, ie, the ‘war of maneuver,’ we’ll be able to do so with some accumulated strength.
Knowing when to go ‘over the top’ is both a science and an art, but its rooted in knowing non-revolutionary conditions from a revolutionary situation, and when there’s a revolutionary upsurge linking the two. More important, it’s knowing that the tools you use in preparation are not exactly the same as those deployed when you’re organizing in the midst of insurrection. If you haven’t trained well beforehand, you’re disarmed and helpless at that point.
Jose just doesn’t get the point of open and secret work at all. Again, I find it amusing that I’m the one accused of having illusions about our bourgeois democracy, but the illusions here about how open and free we supposedly are borders on the bizarre. I’d suggest that Jose get a job at Wal-Mart, then just try to organize a union, let alone demand communism, and see how far he gets and how much his freedom of speech and assembly with his fellow workers is respected. We could even run a pool here on how many days he’d last,
Yes, our upper crust will permit you to wear orange and black, fly red flags, and gather in the city plaza to give speeches, drawing other alienated youth, and often to good, if limited, effect.
But every one of these I go to, hardly a few minutes pass before I pick out the agent videotaping it all, and his helpers, taking the names, figuring out who’s who. What do you think they do this for? Just to get cushy grants from Homeland Security? My point is just as they prepare, so should we be preparing, and we should neither be intimidated nor hand them anything on a silver platter or walk around with the equivalent of ‘Kick Me!’ signs on our back. With proper organization and skill, their measures can be defeated. One answer to their taking names at actions of 500 or so, is to do your work differently and come back with 10,000, saying OK, suckers, let’s see you count and tag all of THEM in the next hour or so…
What I’m getting out of this is an overview of the odd jargon and phrases most of you have picked up in the RCP under Avakian, drawn in turn from the GPCR–radical ruptures, anti-economism (meaning something quite different from Lenin), ‘revolutionary people’, utter disdain for any treatment of the importance of the productive forces, viewing the mass line as mainly one side, ‘to the masses’ with ‘communism’, disdain for any practical discussion of how a socialist economy might work, and so on.
Keith hit the nail on the head: Marxism is not Maoist idealism. I appreciate a good deal of Mao’s work, and his contributions to China’s revolution. But I also appreciate Liu Shao-chi, Chou En-lai, Deng and many more–and all of them had their strong and weak points. But my primary task is developing a revolutionary movement here–not separate from the global struggle and that in other countries, but certainly distinct from those, and with our own tasks and priorities. I certainly don’t consider myself anti-Maoist, but these days, I’m happy just to call myself a Marxist who studies all of Marx’s successors, not with the idea of rendering verdicts, but with the view of figuring out the path forward here, in this time and place.
Jose M said
Carl:
no, I guess I didn’t get your point about secret struggles. That is fine. My bad.
If you attempted and succeeded to organize a union at wal-mart, sure, that is fine, but how this help create a revolutionary movement? Sure, if you DON’T do it as a revolutionary, and do it from the standpoint of a worker who wants higher wages and job security, then I suppose the preoccupations aren’t the same. But we are revolutionaries, and we aim to create such a movement. Lenin was correct in that economists are those who focus on the day to day demands of the people, hoping that one day they will “come over to us.” But that isn’t how people come to a communist undestanding of society. It is through events and political education that reveal how the larger forces in society act and react, and how we maneuver and create alliances based on the struggles we are keen on leading.
And, like I said, you will need to prove where I either have “disdain for the masses” or view the mass line in a one-sided manner. Sure, you can keep saying it over and over again. But it won’t make it true. And it wont phase me much. Because I know that it isn’t how I view things, either explicitly or implicitly.
You’ve interpreted the communist need to raise revolution as the solution in everything we do as the idea that we should do it in infantile and clearly dangerous ways. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth, things that cannot be nitpicked at all from what I’ve said. I’ve never particularly articulated HOW this can be done (although I did suggest some obvious ways). I have no illusions about how “free we are.” I’m starting to get disgusted by how you like to make sweeping conclusions based on comments that do not point to what YOU THINK they mean. I meant to say that we aren’t in a civil war situation. Its one thing to undertand the nature of bourgeois right, but it is another to find similar pararells by what certainly is a repressive state apparatus, and a highly violent civil war.
Also: what do you appreciate of Deng? He represents capitalist counter-revolution.
Where have you decided that any of us have a “disdain” for conversing about a socialist economy? Once again, with the sweeping conclusions (your weaker political points wont get better if you keep attemtping to frame using such methods). If there was a post or a debate emerged about the socialist economy, hell, it is something I would like to dive into.
Marxism is not Maoist idealism. Maoism IS living Marxism.
Jose M said
On the charge of “maoist idealism”:
I think people should read Zhang Chunquiao’s work titled “On-Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie.” He was a communist, member of the Gang of Four, and one of the leading CCP officials during the Cultural Revolution.
I think this particular paragraph stands out:
“As early as 1920, Lenin, basing himself on practical experience in leading the Great October Socialist Revolution and directing the first state of proletarian dictatorship, pointed out sharply, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against amore powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in theforce of habit , in the strength ofsmall production . For unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.”Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society, that it means all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Lenin stressed time and again that it is impossible to triumph over the bourgeoisie without exercising a protracted, all-round dictatorship over it. These words of Lenin’s, especially those he underscored, have been confirmed by practice in subsequent years.”
This is the crux of what the Cultural Revolution set out to do.
If we want do some “back to Marx” (yet I wont ignore later crucial developments) it is fair to say that K.Marx was the comrade who came with the orientation of the Four Alls. But, those four alls can only be achieved through “all around dictatorship over the overthrown ruling class” which means BEYOND simply developing the productive forces. It isn’t enough to do this if the consciousness of the people is being continuosly challenged and transformed through revolutionary political struggles. “Politics in command” as Mao said.
But I dont want to derail this thread.
Carl Davidson said
Jose, our differences are clear enough.
I simply disagree that we have to ‘raise revolution in everything we do.’ I raise it in some things, but not in others, depending on what is appropriate. And in non-revolutionary conditions, in mass democratic activities, there are many situations were raising it is an inappropriate diversion. There are others, doing revolutionary education with the advanced, preparing the revolutionary organization, and still others were it is quite appropriate.
I also hold a rather orthodox view of economism and how to deal with it; yours inputs some sort of new and special meaning to the term picked up among the Maoists.
My view on China is much more circumspect than yours. I think the main summaries are still to be written by them, and that process is still underway. I know a few things from my own experience there on three trips. The communist party is still in charge there, and has several schools of thought within it. At the time of the overthrow of the Gang, China suffered from stagnation economically and political ossification of a ‘left’ variety that was harmful in many ways. Deng, leading a majority of the party, put an end to it, which adds to the credit he earned in the earlier days of the revolution.
The reason I view Deng differently than you is that I view the importance of the productive forces, and what is and what isn’t possible in a socialist economy, in a very different way from you. The people make history, but not just as they chose. The reason for that qualification is that you don’t ignore of transcend matters like the productive force by sheer acts of will or consciousness. You do not only have to take them into account; you have to have a plan to develop them, and gain the knowledge to run an economy successfully.
All this makes me a revisionist, as in ‘the revisionist, hidden traitor and scab (fill in the name of your choice)’ in the views of many here. Fine, that doesn’t bother me or cut any ice in my circles. We’ll counter by asking you very pointed questions on any number of important matters.
I’ve read the essay above, on ‘all-round dictatorship,’ many times. It cause me to re-read all of Lenin on the topic. I find myself in large agreement with him, but with one important exception. I don’t believe any party should have ‘unrestricted’ power over anyone. The long list of ‘mistakes’ in the communist movement are not just errors in judgment, but have a root, and this is one on them. I’m one who believes sovereignty and human rights reside in people themselves, and are naturally there, having evolved over time as part of the process that makes us human, and are only conferred on states and parties with limits, the limits being our humanity and our rights and sovereignty, individually and collectively.
From the viewpoint of many in your trend, that’s also crass revisionism and liberalism. Fine, again, you can call it whatever you like. But I’m going to stick to it anyway because of the deeper, value-centered politics and philosophy that I’ve concluded rests on a good number of truths and is important to moving forward. The labels don’t bother me, but you should be bothered by the ‘mistakes’ that are often dismissed or otherwise set aside by these labels.
So this discussion has been helpful to me at seeing where the differences are. Whether and how they might be overcome is another matter.
future's ours said
I’ve just finished reading “The Battle for China’s Past” by Mobo Gao (I got it 2 weeks ago) and I think many people should read it in order to think once again about some prejudices like that in Mao’s era everything was going wrong, the communes were a disaster, and so Deng had to come to do some healing process.
That includes me, of course, and Carl Davidson and Red/Green Rev too.
Page 87. “The increase of life expectancy in the era of Mao alone, in the words of Williems (2005) has given an estimated 35 billion extra collective years of life to the Chinese people… It is plain truth that except for the Great Leap Forward years of 1959 and 1960 and the Cultural Revolution years of 1967 and 1968, Chinese economic growth was not only steady but also outpaced most developing countries…”
Page 144. Under the subtitle A chronicle of achievements. Mobo mentions this list of achievements circling in the e media in China. You know everything positive about Mao is banned there, but the reactionary Chinese government cannot control that media totally yet, so a lot of pearls appear: “…scientific achievements from 1966 to 1976… first Red Flag car… atom bomb… integrated circuit computer… three dimensional camera… railways… oilfields…”
Page 152. “In 2001 Chen Meixia wrote an essay in praise of the healthcare system during the era of Mao… primarily directed to serving workers and farmers… focus was on preventive medicine… However, the post-Mao regime abandoned all of these…”
Carl says about the communist party in China retaining too much power. Let me just say that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat, and in Mr Gao’s book that will show you how democratic Deng was:
page 196: “Deng saw clearly what problems would be. So in 1980 he ordered the abolition of the Four Big Freedoms. In 1982 when the Chinese Constitution was ammended, the clause of the Four Big Freedoms, together with the freedom to strike, was striken out…”
future's ours said
I’ve just read Mobo Gao’s “The Battle for China’s Past” and I hope you all read it too.
For many many people, me included, but also Carl and Green/Red Rev also, who think that Mao’s era was a catastrohe, the cultural revolution’s economy was a disaster, and thanks Deng who came along and somehow had to fix it, please pay attention to:
page 10 and 87, where he says that life expectancy during that period actually lengthened (from 35 in 1949 to 63 in 1975);
page 144, where he lists a chronicle of economic achievements, and well in somewhere else he says about the number of communes established, and 800000 industrial enterprises scattered in villages, plus 90 thousand small hydroelectrical stations;
page 152, how a positive evaluation of the health care system during Mao’s time by Chen Meixia was refused by the Chinese authorities;
Of course throughout the book you can see how the pro Mao literature is still banned by the State, but there are some spaces in the e media that are escaping from their grip.
And since you Carl are talking about power, let me point out that in page 192 Mr Gao mentions how the new Chinese government has prohibited the Four Freedoms during the cultural revolution, and even the right to strike (and beware that Mao did not build a democracy, if he did he couldn’t have last long. It was a proletarian dictatorship).
Gao goes into some detail about the Great Leap Forward failure. He says that Mao is the main person to blame. But he mentions Liu (page 54) and Deng (page 112 first paragraph). If you read how Deng defended Mao when the latter wanted to self criticize, you may laugh out like I did.
So I should say that I am beginning 2009 as a happy communist, one big reason is Mobo Gao’s book.
Carl Davidson said
I’ve said here before that China has made advances in every period, including under the Gang. I’ve seen a few of them myself. My point was they reached a fetter and roadblock under the Gang, holding them back considerably in many areas, and that the party under Deng removed it. China continues to make progress in many areas, with savage inequalities and setbacks as well, and the class struggle continues. I doubt you’ll find too many who want to go back to 1976, however–but I know that only anecdotally, from Chinese I know, which is why I say ‘doubt’ rather than knowing for a certainty.
Green/Red Rev said
future’s ours Says:
For many many people, me included, but also Carl and Green/Red Rev also, who think that Mao’s era was a catastrohe, the cultural revolution’s economy was a disaster, and thanks Deng who came along and somehow had to fix it…
dear Ka Future, i don’t have the faintest idea where you got that rough summation especially with such an “thanks Deng who came along and somehow had to fix it…”
Fact of the matter is quick industrialization on a large scale of course has achievemnets in life expectency, economic achievements and what have you. But on what basis? were the communes stable? presuming that after revolution the enemy grows within the party, did cultural revolution really resolve their existence and to what extend? Where mixing variety of metals help producing good steel for industrial usage? Deepening ploughing really makes roots of plants larger and longer? Killing sparrows truly helps the agriculture or has the opposite effect intended?
And most of all, is today the condition of peasant way better than before revolution or if not why? It was all due to “Coup,” or was it for problem withing the form of the party itself, with or without cult of personality element?
Looking at the bright side though, today the peasants are re reading Mao Tse tung’s writing again to make another revolution.
And being an outstanding helmsman during the revolution and against the Japanese imperialist are unfrogetable factors.
Also while the media fills our ears and mind with six million Jews (and lesbian/gays, gypsies, etc.) getting killed while both China and Soviet Union almost had tenfold of their peoples killed in that war…
It is not the revoluionary strategy, it is the construction of socialism, methodology and pace that is the question.
And we are not where we were thence. We ought not to repeat the same mistakes is the matter. And variety of applying experiments and learning empiricaly, rather than presuming correctness due to great leadership and confidence. Of course however strange it might have seemed, but CP of Peru’s hanging dogs on poles as Deng’s body, as a political statement, had its merits and value. But, without intending to endorse anarchism, still the pyramidical structure of communist parties have had their downfall effects.
What do i suggest as alternative? I don’t know. we are simply watching history, but observing Kasama fellows and hoping for the better movement/party structure to be synthesized in this new millenium.
Jose M said
I think its hard to argue that the conditions of life for the oppressed (or former oppressed during the maoist era) is better now than it was then. That is ridiculous and wrong on several levels.
It can be easily seen from reports or statistics, so I wont even bother posting them.
And, on what basis does China “continue to make advances.”
There was a capitalist counter-revolution in 1976 that initiated the destruction of what the revolution had brought for the Chinese masses – from healthcare, education, CONSCIOUSNESS, to mass organizations that exercise power and a voice, most everything that mattered to the people during the revolution has been reversed.
And, as a part of building a COMMUNIST movement, we need a scathing condemnation of everything deng xiaoping and the capitalist roaders represent, as a part of gaining an understanding of what it will take to reach our final goal, and as an indictment to the lies spread by the ruling class, as well as revisionist forces.
rosa harris said
During the Cultural Revolution many innovations were forged in education, management, culture and scientific research. There was intense struggle over which way society would go – would it move toward Communism or back toward Capitalism? These questions were taken to the masses and the masses rose to the call taking revolution into all the pores of society. This struggle was intense and ultimately after Mao’s death it was turned back. Since then the gains of the Cultural Revolution have disappeared as society was taken more and more toward capitalism. China is now a capitalist state. Exploitation is widespread and things like prostitution that were all but wiped out during the GPCR have returned.
This is possible because overthrown classes do not reconcile themselves to their fate as revolutions engender reaction as well as change and progress. There will always be those who want to hang onto the present and not move forward or go backward to the ‘old ways’ of doing things instead of daringly forging the way forward. Whatever their particular individual reason, personal gain, position or so on these forces at any time can spell the death of the revolution if not exposed and contended with.
The GPCR did not ‘fail’ – it was overthrown through arrest and purges.
celticfire said
Rosa says “The GPCR did not ‘fail’ – it was overthrown through arrest and purges.”
Hi Rosa,
This assessment of the GPCR always kind of confused me. I mean, if the aim of the revolutionaries was the prevent the restoration of capitalism in light of the revisionism in the Soviet Union, then they did fail, right?
In fact, 20th century socialism did fail, and the results are easy to see.
I’m not going to make over-arching judgments about the causes of those failures, but clearly I think the CPN(M) is right in “taking a cue from the 20th century” and how communists in power relate to the question of political democracy.
Maoism too has balked at the implications of some of the underlying assumptions of Marxism-Leninism, like the one-party state and assuming there is one party for each class, in mechanical form.
But I unite with Rosa that it is correct and important to uphold the CR, especially considering it was the highest moment for democracy, for our class.
Jose M said
I’m weary of using the term “failure.”
Mike said somewhere before along the lines of “is it failure when a baby is learning to walks and falls? Or is it more of a lesson for the future, for the next wave?”
And I agree. There does need to be a reappraisal of political democracy.
future's ours said
Yes, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution didn’t fail. I didn’t say that in my post (just in case), and I agree totally with Rosa Harris.
In fact, the GPCR was a great success. A great breakthrough. A great victory.
Because we people are learning a lot from it on how to continue a revolution having reached the socialist stage. And these are new lessons, and there will be more, our children will know, even when people like us don’t understand it yet.
Failure ought not be understood in such a narrow sense. “Well, Deng overthrew it, then it was a failure”. Mobo Gao has just published a book about its economic and scientific achievements. But it was overall a political victory over the bourgeoisie.
Because we know now what to do. And we will have lots and lots of Cultural Revolutions on our road to Communism.
John Milton didn’t fail. Robespierre didn’t fail even when he died in the guillotine. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions are communists’milestones. Communists will learn and improve on them. So let’s not be pessimists and looking at them, and all the achievements by the proletarian revolutionaries as failures.
Keith said
Jose sd we should “raise revolution in everything we do.”
Yes, yes very good idea. But we should go much further. I say we should raise the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in everything we do and in every discussion thread!
Mike E said
Keith:
the GPCR is a specific event in the past (in the previous century).
The revolution is the process we are initiating, preparing and organizing for.
One is an important part of our experience. The other is a key nodal point and understanding of our ongoing process.
That is why the coming revolution needs to be integral in everything we do, while the previous Chinese events (however significant) have a different strategic relevance.
Ka Frank said
The Cultural Revolution is the key experience of what we need to do after power is seized and has laid the key theoretical and practical foundations for the socialist transition to communism. However, it doesn’t answer the question of how to build a revolutionary movement and seize power in the U.S. or any other country. As important as the Cultural Revolution is, that is the central task before us.
Carl Davidson said
The cultural revolution sets the theoretical groundwork for what we should do should socialism come to power in the U.S.?
Really?
OK, here’s a few problems. Tell us how the GPCR theory would solve them:
Where should the decisions about how a factory is to be run made? By the workers at the factory? By a citywide Workers’ council? By an industry commission at the national level?
Who decides what to produce?
Do goods have prices? If so, how are they determined?
How are we paid? Money? Can we spend it on anything? Who decides? How? Who decides how much we are paid? Are we paid differently? Why? Who decides?
Do we still have private businesses? What about my barber, who has two sons and a daughter-in-law also working in his shop? Can they charge whatever they want? In they do well, are they taxed? Is anyone taxed?
There are two coal-burning power plants and one nuke plant down the road from me. Should we shut them down? Should we charge for electricity? If so, how much? Who decides?
There’s an evangelical church near me. They’re all white, and so is everyone else around; they preach anti-racism and help feed the poor, but they also preach against abortion. Should we let them alone? Shut them down? What about the Black church 10 miles away that preaches much of the same thing?
I could go on and on. I’m hardly warmed up, but this is enough to start. The questions are typical enough of the sort that ordinary workers would ask if you talk about socialism to them.
I’m all ears.
Mike E said
Ka Frank:
I think that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is perhaps the single richest experience the world has so far with revolutionizing socialist society, seeking to deepen broad popular engagement with the transformation of society, and developing new forms of power. And in that I agree with you.
And we can answer carl’s questions above. He poses them (typically with a snide, sarcastic and rhetorical tone) as if such things don’t HAVE answers.
Let’s just respond on two levels:
First, each revolutionary process is unique. To say that there is much to learn from the GPCR is not to say that there are formulas (or even models) that can be lifted and simply applied. I think we need to actually FIGHT for a sense of particularity — and with it a real responsibility to separate from legacies of lazy dogmatism. In other words: we need to learn from this previous experience, and then be prepared to creatively apply what we have learned to the inevitably different conditions that emerge as our revolutionary process (after a seizure of power) erect a new socialist society.
This means that we sort out what is general about the period of socialist transition to communism (i.e. the emergence of capitalist roaders within the revolution itself, not merely as “remnants” of overthrown classes, or the importance of fresh waves of revolutionary initiative from below drawing in new generations and new forces, or the importance of actually understanding the NEED for renewed advance toward a communist society, and not resting “content” with a flawed and conservatizing socialist one.)
and we need to learn from many innovations that were explored in the past (red guard formations, revolutionary committees, expansion of social wages, struggle to end rural-urban divide, bombarding the headquarters, making the old revolutionary structure “go through the gate” of mass criticism, bringing new disruptive youthful elements into the political structure at all levels….
Carl (again mockingly) ask how decisions are made, and whether goods have prices — as if HIS views are obviously upheld by the events, and as if there is OBVIOUSLY little to learn from the past, and especially from the GPCR. (And he is reluctant to really “come out of his bag” which is a rejection of the mass revolutionary storms of the GPCR, and a rather intense partisan support for the Deng Xiaoping capitalist restoration. It is not just that he thinks we have nothing to learn from that experience — but that he thinks the Third World has a great deal to learn from the ‘modernization’ that led to todays Chinese sweatshops and shantytowns.)
But in fact, there is a great deal to learn (theoretically) from how the GPCR (and the revolutionary communist currents WITHIN that larger storm) developed an approach (precisely!) to “how a factory should be run.” (I won’t go into great detail in a post like this…. but lets just mention the distinction made between “relations of production” and “relations in production” — and the accompanying struggle to BOTH increase working class power IN production and their larger (AND MORE IMPORTANT) influence over the direction of the state itself. (Mao said, correctly, that you can list many “rights of the people” — but if you don’t focus on the most important right of the people to rule society (overall, by influencing the struggle over OVERALL line) then the rest are irrelevent (or sops).
The experiences of three-in-one committees (combining plantfloor workers, technicians and representatives of the central plan) are innovations of real transformation in the running of factories (and then become, themselves, a new arena of struggle). and along with them the development of workers militia — in an attempt to prepare an armed basis for defending revolutionary power.
Carl asks “how are we paid? money?” and so on. There is much to say on this, and I urge people to study the political economy textbook produced in shanghai by beleagered Maoist forcesat the heights of the cultural revolution (which delves into these issues in theoretical depth.
Another important place to start a theoretical investigation of what the Cultural Revolution reveals for the political economy of real, revolutinary socialism is his important “Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China: Changes in Management and the Division of Labor” and his “Economic Calculation and Forms of Property.”
And finally, in a more popular vein, I would recommend that folks read (and circulate) Raymond Lotta’s series on “Socialist Planning or ‘Market Socialism’” — Part 1, Part 2 , Part 3 .
(Note: these were written before Avakian’s 2003 party coup, and before Raymond’s writings were increasingly forced to conform with Avakian’s self-distancing from the Maoist summations of socialism and his series of new theoretical inventions.)
Keith said
I don’t think that Carl posed his questions with a snide and a sneer. I think he is genuinely asking how we can answer those questions and how the GPCR actually bears on them (the answers are not obvious to me, and I don’t think that Carl is posing them because he has secret answers that he isn’t sharing. The answers to most of them are not theoretical but practical and they will be answered by masses of people engaged in the process).
Most of MIke’s criticism is ad hominem (that is “to the person” rather than to the line or argument), Mike starts from the premise that Carl is not sincere. So Mike just tries to mock Carl and undermine his credibility without actually addressing his arguments. Carl claims that he is a revolutionary as does Mike. Why should we believe Mike at his word and not Carl?
I read Mike’s post carefully, he doesn’t mention how any of Carl’s questions (which are very good questions about how society should be organized without markets) are answered by the cultural revolution, although he implies that they are dumb questions that have already been answered. The answers are soemwhere for the taking I suppose.
This is not a debate between a revolutionary line and a reformist line as Mike tries to frame it. There are two lines. One line connects revolution to daily practice right now, today. The other line claims revolution is so wild, so radical, that it can only be imagined as some future event that we are “awaiting while hastening.” The former line sees the relationship between reforms and revolution dialectically, while the rrrrrevolutionary line sees reforms as a distraction from revolution.
All that said, I was being sarcastic when I said that we should raise the GPCR in “everything we do.” I apologize that my sarcasm was not grasped as such and led us even further into this discussion of the GPRC when my intention was to get us back to discussing revolution in the U.S.
N3wDay said
“while the rrrrrevolutionary line sees reforms as a distraction from revolution.”
Can I ask what makes you say this? has anyone holding the supposed “rrrevolutionary” view said they think reforms are a waste?
Rosa Harris said
How we sum up the GPCR IS important in working for revolution today in the US. For one, how do we see line struggle? Without line struggle revolution is impossible (and impossible to continue during socialism through to communism.)
A persons view of line struggle will be reflected in how they approach the masses. Is someone with a backward line on the woman question hopeless or can they be won over? I believe, from experience, that they can be won to a revolutionary line on women. I’ve seen it done – I’ve even seen it accomplished in group chats.
Doing something like this in chat requires applying some of the advances of the GPCR in new ways. There was no formula.
Do we base ourselves on a party structure or is there another way? Is it possible to apply a commune structure in the US – possibly even with the only relationship between people working together being online? Its just a thought… a question.
There are many other things we can learn too.
Mike E said
Keith starts by saying
He then accuses me of ad hominem attacks on Carl.
In fact, on the contrary, there is a constant sneer with Carl. The posture is of a worldly wise, jaded veteran who can barely marshal his patience to confront (yet again) the obviously lunacy of those to his left.
I won’t waste more time on this…. but, in fact, carl comes drenched in sarcasm and disrespect for those who disagree with him. Not enough to get him kicked off the site — but just enough to come through. (No one said that carl was incapable of gauging the room, and modulating his tone.)
And, candidly, Keith, that same self-righteous pretense of “realism” crops up everytime you mock people with your signature use of “r-r-r-r-r-r-revolutionary” (implying that the people you are talking with are infantile blowhards, whose rhetoric is shallow and ridiculous.) Talk about ad hominem.
You acknowledge your own tone of mockery and sarcasm when you write:
“All that said, I was being sarcastic when I said that we should raise the GPCR in “everything we do.” I apologize that my sarcasm was not grasped as such and led us even further into this discussion of the GPRC when my intention was to get us back to discussing revolution in the U.S.”
The problem with your sarcasm is not that your audience is blockheads who don’t recognize your mockery — it is that you genuinely don’t respect others here, and don’t appreciate the importance of the cultural revolution (including in “everything we do.”)
However, as much as i find your tone irritating and your disrespect of people undeserved, i think there is real value (to this site and the larger political debate on the left) for your views to be represented bluntly and articulately.
* * * * *
And in fact, carl is not a newbie: he is well versed in the cultural revolution, he knows perfectly well that the cultural revolution has a rich theoretical body of work (around money, commodity exchange, on how factories are run etc. etc.) He is aware of the books i mentioned (the writings of the Four and bettelheim, and Mao himself in his important criticism of soviet economics. He is aware of the criticism by communists of market socialism, and of the schemes of worker-buyouts of their capitalist owners (which in my opinion is one of the more stark deadends that some leftists have wandered into.)
Will we still have barbers he asks? Well, that is a reasonable question, of course. And one that first the masses of people and then the revolutionary process itself will raise from revolutionaries. but I assume that Carl also knows of the critique raised by Maoists of abolition of small businesses under Castro.
Obviously I don’t want to focus this on carl or his tone. It was just necessary to note that he (disingenuously) implied that communist theory has no answer (or interest?) to the questions of our revolution in the revolution.
Keith has misread me when he writes:
First, Carl did not raise dumb questions. they are all (almost without exception) important questions, which (as i said above) both the people and real life will demand answers for.
Second, let’s suppose someone asks you “does the cultural revolution have anything to teach about money under socialism?”
Well, the first, simple answer is simply “yes, it does.”
A second answer is to indicate (as I tried to do) precisely where these matters are engaged and discussed. (and I gave some difficult theoretical sources, and some more accessible popular sources. I gave some sources from inside china, and some from maoists outside china.
However if you expect me to jot down (in a passing comment) the communist answer to these questions (both how they were deal with over the cultural revolution, and a critical appraisal of how we should view all this) — then obviously you are asking the impossible.
(It’s kinda like asking fifteen specific question about quantum physics in a blog thread, and then complaining that no one answered them in detail. well, duh. No, all we gave you was a sense of a few books to go read.)
Just to take one or two questions: what does the cultural revolution teach about money and the oparation of the law of value under socialism? What does the cultural revolution teach about socialist planning, and the role played by conscious working class activism at the point of production?
Each of these is a whole arena of study and complex experience, dealt with in depth in several places. We can talk about them a bit, but don’t expect someone to spin off some superficial capsule summation.
exactly because these questions (on the nature of socialism and its applicability to the U.S.) are important and rather complex, the answers are a whole area of discussion.
Keith writes:
I note your views, and would be willing to discuss them. But, as you clearly understand, I disagree.
Carl takes a clearly non-revolutionary stand — his entire purpose is to subordinate all struggle and thinking to what is acceptable to one or another wing of the existing power structure. He implies that nothing else is possible (or desirable) unless there emerges (from where?) more concrete and immediate opportunities to go for socialism. In a non-revolutionary period, he argues for strictly non-revolutoinary politics. In a revolutionary crisis, his whole politics would lead to new forms of accomodation (and cooptation).
And, he will understand when I say this: His politics have been at times clearly counter revolutionary — particularly when he trumpeted, in a highly partisan and aggressive way, the counterrevolutionary coup in China (with all its disastrous consequences for the world revolution inside and outside China). His opposition to revolution is not new, or superficial, or recently developed — it is quite deeply embedded into his whole strategic view and class stand — and rather systematically developed (as you can see by reading his various references, websites and footnotes).
The only difference I see between Carl’s politics and run-of-the-mill imperialist liberalism is that he has a personal history as a leftist (going back to SDS), and so (for historical reasons) chooses to preach his liberalism to young leftists (who he hopes to innoculate from revolutionary politics.)
This is a fine debate to have. It is hard to develop revolutionary politics if you CAN’T have that debate.
Carl Davidson said
I meant each of my questions seriously–no sneers or snide looks hidden behind this keyboard. But they are very pointed questions, with many implications. Not so simple at all.
But the reason I tied them to practical questions that might arise HERE, in this country, is that the answers should be, too, whether or not they are shaped by some theory of the GPCR. The point is not to argue what might have been better or worse at one or another point in that upheaval, but how would you spell out the answers here, to regular people you come into touch with all the time.
I do have answers to most of them, in the form of working hypotheses, at least that satisfy me. I’ve worked in a collective for nearly 20 years now figuring them out as best as we can. We take our socialist tasks very seriously indeed. On this site, I’ve even pointed out a few books on them, even one I suggested was a good point to study and deal with as an approach to socialism here, Schweickart’s ‘After Capitalism.’ You can agree with it, trash it or something in between.
Mike is partly right. I’m fairly familiar with most of the works he mentions, some more than others. I also know that in some cases, the GPCR would have more than one answer, since it had conflicts within itself at different times. But I set it aside some time ago as largely irrelevant to what I would have to get clear on here, to make revolution here, in this country, with the productive forces and the people at hand.
Mike is dead wrong that I tailor any of my views as to what’s ‘acceptable’ or not by one or another faction at the top. I’m concerned, first of all, as to what will solve the problems of the masses, what they see as steps forward that they can embrace as their own, what could actually be sustainable in real life, and what can advance them on the path of becoming the masters of society and makers of history. That’s the starting point, and whether factions of business or the upper classes can be won to any of it as a matter of practice is an open question. Even if none can, we need to press forward in any case. The point is to do what needs to be done, in accordance with conditions, the relation of forces, and the level of consciousness of the masses.
Are there people on this site who get the relation between reform and revolution wrong? All the time, usually rejecting one or another approach as ‘economism.’ The reason for the quotes is that it’s rather unlike the economism that I oppose, as a somewhat orthodox Leninist on that topic.
In any case, yes, I’m serious about those questions, and if you want to be an advocate of socialism in this country today, you better figure out where you stand on them, because there’s plenty more where they came from.
Eddy said
Davidson writes:
The questions in your post #66 are nearly all limited to how or whether ‘the trains run on time’ after a revolution.
Nowhere do you raise anything about how the revolutionary proletariat can (and must) lead the people more broadly in transforming all of the existing social relationships, uprooting all of the capital relationships, as well as the traditional ideas that attend to and reinforce them.
(Even the partial question about whether to ‘leave alone’ the anti-abortion churches ignores any discussion of ideological/political struggle or the very concrete oppression of women.)
What exactly have you been working on in your 20-year investigation of ‘socialist tasks’? The structural framework for ‘progressives for Obama’?
RW Harvey said
Can revolutionaries and communists ever say “I don’t know” or “We don’t know”?
To attempt to plan out, a priori, every question about a revolutionary society BEFORE the advent of that revolutionary seizure of power seems like crafting a map of territory yet unseen. How is it possible to do that?
Even if we craft an outline of what we THINK will still exist, what we THINK will still be operative, what we THINK the terms of exchange will be, etc., we may have to jettison all of it in the face of actual conditions. I’m not sure we would be chatting about what to charge at the barbershop if we were facing rebuilding cities and towns after a prolonged war with, perhaps, nuclear weapons. This, it seems to me, is the living dialectic between theory and practice. (Frankly, it is just as likely — perhaps moreso — that under capitalism their barbershop could disappear as well, so why not talk about THAT and overthrowing the rule of capital?)
Whether or not the tone is snide and sneering, the affect of Carl’s writings, to this reader, is often to elicit a feeling that if we do not have EVERY answer to EVERY question we fail as communists and will, on that basis, fail at revolution. Quite the defeatist proposition. Hell, I think I’d be talking with that barber about whether he/she can imagine a world where the question of whether or not the existence of their barber shop pales in comparison with them participating in running the society, shaping its institutions, its policies, its culture.
The radical beauty of the GPCR, and perhaps its greatest gift to revolution here in the U.S., may not be primarily in the various forms it adopted (though some of these may be applicable as well), but in its persistence in making every effort to transform people’s consciousness, to bend every effort to break the lethargy of self-focused interests, and to foster a revolutionary critical awareness as a vital component on the road to communism.
Mike E said
Carl writes:
But that is not what I alleged.
I wrote:
In other words, it was not a statement about the confines on HIS thinking. It is that we, “the movement,” and the people more generally should subordinate all OUR struggle and thinking to what is acceptable to the established order.
Libertarian Lurker said
Two questions:
#1 “I assume that Carl also knows of the critique raised by Maoists of abolition of small businesses under Castro.” — Carl might, but I don’t and I imagine many people reading don’t either. Can you summarize this critique or point your readers to primary source material on the Maoist criticism of this aspect of Cuban socialism?
#2 Googling “Shanghai Textbook” comes up with no online version (we’re so spoiled in the 21st century in terms of getting things like this with no effort!) — does one exist?
Carl Davidson said
Every question? Hardly. There’s plenty of unanswered ones on my plate. Just some of the basic ones.
I understand that socialism is a class society, and that one class, the working class, creates a new state, to run the show and rule over the other classes in various ways. Marx called it ‘winning the battle for democracy.’
Laying that out in a general way is the easy part.
But socialism also has an economy, which also involves several classes. You better be able to lay out some answers to ‘how does it work?’ in its basic elements if you want to win people over to it. And that’s what my questions covered, both macro and micro policy, in this country.
And lest some think I’m ‘economist,’ I also offered a few from the political and social sphere as well.
You can carry on all you want about overthrowing everything, transforming this and that, making radical ruptures everywhere, with red flags waving, but sooner or later, if you want to get serious, you have to have some very practical answers, or at least decent working hypotheses, to very practical matters.
Otherwise you belong to the ‘hot air’ brand of socialism, which rarely wins many people over to anything. As I said, some of us take our socialist tasks very seriously, for today, not just to be put off until tomorrow, something we’ll deal with when we get there. Naturally, no plan is chiseled in stone, and can be changed, but that’s no reason not to have a plan.
Mike E said
Keith, in case you are watching, this is an example of what I meant above:
Carl writes:
In fact, the communist revolutionaries have had “very practical answers” all along (some right, some wrong). He posits a facile and rather insulting dicotomy where if you are waving red flags you MUST not be practical, or concerned about practical matters (because, in his world being practical means AS THE VERY FIRST THING that you abandon red flags and talk about “transforming this or that).
This whole aparatus, this whole cluster of assumptions about “practical” is (at its very core) non-revolutionary — and in fact anti-revolutionary.
And, just in passing, this so-called “hot air” brand of socialism has (in fact) repeatedly won people over (in the course of revolutions, in hopes of socialism) at key moments in history. Including among them the cultural revolution. Certainly it is the practicality of the red flags and of “transforming this or that” that won me over. I’m really not interested in politics without it — cuz it would just be more reactionary crap.
Eddy said
Yet again, for Davidson the hard part is having the trains run on time, just like before. However, by his ‘macro and micro’ questions, Davidson betrays the fact that in his ‘revolution’ ‘change’ is simply a change of rulers, not the overthrow of all existing capitalist social relationships, not the product of massive social upheaval where every question of the day is debated and contested.
Thus, his conception of the political and ideological objectives of socialism is ‘the easy part’.
Will there be wages at the outset? Perhaps, perhaps not; that is a product of several factors. But probably a wage scale will be reestablished in the course of reconstruction, and then we will wage a protracted economic and ideological struggle to eliminate it and all of the social relationships of capitalism (which persist after the revolution, and the elimination of which represent one of the key objectives of the socialist revolution).
Will there be barbershops? If there are barbers who want to work that way and own a shop, I suppose so in the beginning. How they might operate is a wide-open question. Again, this is a political and an ideological problem, as well as one concerning economic production relationships.
Will the revolutionary proletariat tolerate an organization (nee church) that promotes an anti-abortion strategy and tactics? Why would it? But the real questions are how to wage the struggle to revolutionize the way we think (including those in the church membership) and how to mobilize the people to support and extend full equality for women, including reproductive rights.
But the ‘practical’ Carl Davidson subscribes to a ‘barbershop’ brand of ‘socialism’, in which it is the masses of people who get fleeced by a new bourgeois class.
Adrienne said
I’m going to try to remain principled here, if I can, but I have to admit that all this nit-picking is really starting to piss me off. Why exactly are we bickering, insulting and attacking each other, comrades?
Because socialists have different ideas on approaching the masses?
Well pardon me, but doesn’t it stand to reason that all kinds of different approaches may to prove to be effective on varying groups of people, as well as one-on-one with varying types of individuals? The way I see it, Carl Davidson and Keith are both very intelligent and articulate — and I look forward to reading the comments they post here. And, the exact same thing is true of Mike Ely — as well as many of the others who comment here regularly.
I think there is definitely a place for no-nonsense practicality and reforms, just as I think there is definitely a place for waving the red flag. I’m not at all bothered by the different approaches which are being brought forward in these threads because (at least in my opinion) there is plenty of room for all of them as long as we understand we’re all working toward reaching the same goal.
Why are socialists always so damn good at splitting ourselves into infinitesimal factions? It just saps strength we could be using collectively — and puts the goal ever farther out of reach in America.
I really like reading the articles and info on this site, and I’ve been extremely appreciative of the idea that creative ideas and open dialogs were going to be encouraged rather than suppressed, but if crapping on a guy like Carl Davidson is going to become a regular and recurring feature of Kasama, I may choose not to keep visiting.
Carl Davidson said
MikeE says:
Very good, that shows EXACTLY the difference between my Marxism and yours.
Your might want to look at Marx’s Theses on Feurbach, especially #2 and #8:
and
Your answers to the questions of wage labor alongside the remuneration of worker-owners, the ongoing importance of the small producer class and the petty bourgeoisie, and the rights of of the masses to practice religion, or not, are both dismissive and evasive. A socialism capable of winning the masses has to be made of sterner and clearer stuff. I don’t doubt that you could probably put it together; it’s just that you think it’s too mundane and not all that important.
Very well, at least we’re clear on that.
N3wDay said
Adrienne,
Can you elaborate? Because I’m having a hard time telling whether your criticism is of tone, debate over how to actually make revolution, or both.
Tone is one thing, but hair splitting is another. To you the debate over motion vs. consciousness may seem like a minute detail, but to many of us it is the difference between whether revolution occurs or not. So, when large amounts of debate go on around it, and emotions run high (on both sides), it’s an indicator that we feel there are real, incredibly important things at stake here.
If you have a chance to read Mike’s summation of the experience of the old CPUSA, “Slipping into Darkness” that may be helpful. It’s a bit long, but it will give you an idea of what many of us feel is problematic about Carl’s thinking. You may not agree with it, but you’ll at at least understand our view better.
Keith said
We can debate which side in this discussion has been more disrespectful of the other view. But, Mike began this discussion by framing the debate as one between “revolutionaries” and Carl Davidson. Now Carl says he is for revolution too, so Mike begins this discussion with the insinuation that Carl is just dishonest. I label Mike’s view “rrrrevolutionary” because in insisting that Carl (and I assume he includes me as well) are not revolutionaries he is taking a “more revolutionary than thou” view. That more revolutionary than thou view is ubiquitous.
But it is not about hurt feelings, the substantive questions are more important. It is only that when catsing aspersions on others we are not discussing the actual arguments and ideas.
I suggested that this line struggle was actually about a line that sees revolution and reform as dialectically linked vs. a metaphysical line that sees reform as a distraction.
Here is an example. Recall in post #66 Carl asked a series of questions about socialism:
Here is the first block of questions:
“Where should the decisions about how a factory is to be run made? By the workers at the factory? By a citywide Workers’ council? By an industry commission at the national level?”
Then In post #79 Eddy says Carl’s questions are just mundane and about getting “the trains to run on time.” Eddy’s comment is truly incredible.
While this back and forth is about building socialism it is characteristic of the ultra left line in general. The very first question that Carl poses is the essential question of socialism and it will determine whether or not the capital relation has been overcome, whether or not exploitation is ending or continuing under a new form.
To the ultra-left this is just mundane trains-running-on-time stuff.
What would really be revolutionary would be all night criticism and self-criticism sessions where we all get to meditate on how we oppress each other and in the process we build the new socialist man and woman. No Thanks!
Adrienne said
N3wday:
“Adrienne,
Can you elaborate?”
Well, I’ll certainly take a stab at it. :^)
“Because I’m having a hard time telling whether your criticism is of tone, debate over how to actually make revolution, or both.”
Both. Definitely.
“Tone is one thing,”
I personally think the tone could stand a bit of improvement. How about you? What do you think of the direction in tone this ongoing debate has taken?
“but hair splitting is another. To you the debate over motion vs. consciousness may seem like a minute detail, but to many of us it is the difference between whether revolution occurs or not.”
I don’t think the substantive aspects of this debate are minute or unimportant details comrade, however I think a lot of us (and allow me to include myself here) need to begin seriously sorting through, and casting off some of our long-held ideological perceptions and judgments — because it often seems that they’ve hardened into blocks of stone that only wall ourselves off from each other, and keep us from communicating effectively.
Indeed, to stretch that metaphor further (bear with me), I’ve been wondering for quite awhile if it isn’t time to dismantle all the stones we’ve been collectively gathering, examine them carefully, and then build something entirely new incorporating various parts from all of them. Because to me it seems socialists in America have been erecting a bunch of protective fortresses out of our various trends, when it really seems like several sets of converging staircases need to be built.
Anyway, making revolution in this particular nation certainly seems to demand that we start doing something radically different than we have been.
The way I see it, there are certain strengths, and extremely important, practical factors to consider which Carl is continually raising in his arguments here. And there are obvious strengths and extremely important ideological factors to consider which Mike is continually raising, due to his long experience with the RCP.
As I read the exchanges that these two men have been engaging in, I find myself respecting their clear reasoning and intelligence, and yet at the same time, I realize that often they’re just talking right past each other!
You say: “to many of us it is the difference between whether revolution occurs or not.” But you know what I’m thinking? Whether the revolution will ever occur may very well hinge on whether people who possess the level of intelligence and experience(s) that Mike and Carl obviously do can learn to listen to what the other is actually saying. And, then find a way they (all of us!) can actually work together, rather than bickering incessantly, and working at cross purposes. Even if that means we end up with two (or more) different spheres performing very different sorts of tasks, yet keeping a single overarching goal in mind.
I hope that makes sense. You’ll let me know if it doesn’t, won’t you?
“So, when large amounts of debate go on around it, and emotions run high (on both sides), it’s an indicator that we feel there are real, incredibly important things at stake here.”
I understand that, believe me. But I have to admit that there are plenty of times when I’m sitting here thinking that what is being pushed forward as being of utmost importance, isn’t nearly as important as socialists in America finding a way to start moving things forward without splintering into yet more ineffective shards and factions.
“If you have a chance to read Mike’s summation of the experience of the old CPUSA, “Slipping into Darkness” that may be helpful. It’s a bit long, but it will give you an idea of what many of us feel is problematic about Carl’s thinking. You may not agree with it, but you’ll at at least understand our view better.”
You know what? I’d really like to read that piece. In fact, I’ve already tried downloading that pdf several times, but either there’s something up with my computer, or there’s a problem or error with that particular file. I can get the pdf to download, but aside from the title page, the rest of it keeps loading as completely blank pages. Has anyone else here had a problem with it the way I have?
Cornelius said
tt6KVqiopDM5s
Mike E said
It is inauguration time, and (unfortunately) the main political effort “on the left” is an inhouse effort to make Obama “live up to” the left’s hopes for him.
The RCP has issues a series of demands — some of which are aimed as U.S. imperialism (stop massacre in Gaza), and the rest are aimed at the people. Their references about Obama Koolaid are now consolidated into a slogan about “Obamal’aid.”
Imagine if politics were so simple, that you could simply DEMAND that the masses think like revolutionaries and internatoinalists. We can just DEMAND “fire your ideas, hire ours.” We can just DEMAND that people “stop thinking” in ways we don’t approve.
Can you imagine the people seeing those slogans and saying “gee, you’re right. I’m gonna stop thinking like an American.”
The crude idealism of this self-important fantasy jumps out at you.
Anyway, leaving aside the shill, hostile impotence of these slogans….
What plans do people have for the inaugural? How should revolutionaries respond to the festival of celebration in Washington?
My sense is that we need to
a) Step up work around the war in Afghanistan, to build resistance to the escalations about to come.
b) Speak out against U.S. support to Gaza
c) Prepare to help radicalize the demands and politics that arise among the people for equality and justice — encouraged now that the U.S. has a Black president.
d) Step up our own work to regroup a militant, revolutionary movement that can far more effectively speak among the people and for the people in the midst of major events.
Radical-Eyes said
Mike, I for one would like to see a fresh blog stream started with your last post–or something like it– as a starting point.
Perhaps under the title of “Inauguration Time: What is to be done?”
Radical-Eyes said
Also, while I’m suggesting topics for new blog streams: How about one on the Shanghai Commune and the debates between Mao, the right, and the left (often the so-called “ultra left”) in the GPCR?
While I take the point that it is important not to focus on past revolutionary efforts at the expense of having a concrete analysis of concrete conditions in our own time and place, I for one would like to see the question of the successes and failures of the GPCR opened up here even more than it has so far. (This last series from MLMRSG on the Cultural Revolution seemed to me to put the blame for the failure of the GPCR basically on objective conditions, rather than on questions of line or of organizational method and party structure during the mao years.)
Poleemiks said
That’s a fairly myopic point you’re making Mike.
It is of course true that a simple demand that things be different is of no account, but there is nothing wrong (in fact it is necessary) with people making demands, or presenting them as slogans. Far better to demand an end to the IDF’s invasion of Gaza, or to demand an end to the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan than to merely speak of “stepping up our work,” or “speaking out”. In fact, making such demands is exactly speaking out.
As for demands to stop thinking like Americans in favor of thinking of humanity, who could argue with such a sentiment? I certainly wouldn’t choose the particular phrasing, but it’s a cogent critique of the Obama phenomenon, and how it relates to American ideology (particularly notions of individualism, identity, and meritocracy that are part of the American Dream, and part of the narrative of progress around Obama), as well as the foundations of that ideology resting on colonialism and the systematic dispossession of other human beings.
Carl Davidson said
I agree with MikeE on the RCP ‘demands,’ for the reasons he states.
I think the most important thing we can do is encourage mass action mobilizations by the trade unions around the economic crisis, although not limited to that, starting locally and focusing on national mobilizations on DC ASAP.
Republic Windows was a case in point, and there are more where that one came from.
There is some interest already aomg trade union activists around HR 676 and the EFCA. the latter is especially important, because victory there will spur a new upsurge in unionization drives.
There is also interest at the base in fighting for the best deployment of stimulus money so that it serves to actually work against the recession and helps the working class, rather than simply lining the pockets of low-road capital.
The international situation, the wars and the danger of new wars, can be brought up in this context, ie, there are no ‘guns and butter’ solutions; to get what we need, as opposed to what Empire needs, we need to stops these wars and cut the Pentagon.
Same with HR 676; if you really want to benefit the working class, as well as help all stressed businesses, apart from the insurance companies, set aside Obama’s half measures on health care that won’t work anyway, and pass the real thing.
If any of this gets off the ground, then revolutionaries have a wider and more organic context, not only for deep structural reforms of the sort I’ve argued for here before, but for wider revolutionary education and organization-building as well. With that, we can do as Keith often suggests, capturing positions of power and influence, step by step, in the ‘long march through the institutions.’ To which I would add, if you don’t do this sort of thing now, you’re completely unprepared for any transition to an insurrectionary period, should one arise.
Adrienne said
MikeE:
“Imagine if politics were so simple, that you could simply DEMAND that the masses think like revolutionaries and internatoinalists. We can just DEMAND “fire your ideas, hire ours.” We can just DEMAND that people “stop thinking” in ways we don’t approve.”
I agree. Such demands are a sure way to turn the masses off completely. Because they show no respect for the people’s intelligence, and issue no appeal to their better natures. Asking well-worded questions to engage their brains and require them to come up with answers would likely be far more effective.
“Can you imagine the people seeing those slogans and saying “gee, you’re right. I’m gonna stop thinking like an American.””
Not at all. What I imagine instead is people seeing such a slogan and thinking “Screw You, Big Daddy. Don’t tell me what to think.”
“The crude idealism of this self-important fantasy jumps out at you.”
Absolutely.
Poleemiks:
“It is of course true that a simple demand that things be different is of no account, but there is nothing wrong (in fact it is necessary) with people making demands, or presenting them as slogans.”
I think it’s perfectly fine to use “STOP” signs at rallies and marches — perhaps because there are people holding them and making their demands in person. But aside from such activities, using slogans that arrogantly issue demands isn’t likely to engage too many people.
“I certainly wouldn’t choose the particular phrasing, but it’s a cogent critique of the Obama phenomenon, and how it relates to American ideology (particularly notions of individualism, identity, and meritocracy that are part of the American Dream, and part of the narrative of progress around Obama”
Actually, I think a big part of what fomented the Obama phenomenon was all that “Yes, WE Can” and “Change WE Can Believe In” sloganeering. A false appeal to the collectivity of the masses no doubt; but clearly it effectively touches on a very deep-seated desire in the human heart. Namely: to acknowledge that all people are important, and that by pulling together the masses have the ability to transform not only their own situations but this entire world. And, this message worked not only on the people of this nation, but in many other places too — as evidenced by the enormous crowds who came out to hear him speak wherever he went.
It’s funny, but even though I’m aware that the guy is a complete charlatan, I can’t help but admire the mastery of his propaganda!
Mike E said
Poleemiks’s answer above gives me a chance to clarify what I am raising.
P writes;
I am certainly not against demands. (Stop the War!) Or slogans (Serve the People!) I think there is great value in demands made against those in power (Free Mumia!) There is also sometimes value in calling on the people (Join Us!)
But there is something very odd to me about shouting at passersby “Stop thinking like Americans!”
P writes:
Ah, lets unpack that. On one hand, I certainly embrace the idea that we should all stop thinking like patriotic, nationalist Americans, and approach the world from the interests of humanity. I think we should be internationalists, and promote internationalism.
What I am raising is the idea that you can stand on a street corner and literally shout at people what to think. RCP supporters literal stand on the street corners of downtown chicago and in small groups shout at passersby (during the shopping frenzy) “stop thinking like Americans.” And it is exactly the small embittered micro-chorus they intend to erect in DC during the inauguration.
Is that how you imagine people will change their ideas and outlook?
Do you think their audience knows what the RCP means by “thinking like an American?” (they mean “thinking from the basic standpoint of my nation first, from the standpoint of “our” country, and “our” army, and “our” troops, and “our” national security interests…. etc. And they are specifically talking about the rising phenomenon of Black patriotism — where this kind of “thinking like an American” is seeping further into the Black population — because of the rise of Obama, and also because of the widespread patriotic military indoctrination that many young Black people go through in the “multicultural” Army.)
So sure, no one is disputing that we need to expose and confront patriotic and nationalist thinking — or that it is emerging in new ways among the oppressed.
I am simply saying that making “demands” on the people about what they should be thinking really doesn’t do much good, and really works in a counterproductive way. And it (fundamentally) treats the people as something “out there” — as something distant, disconnected, alien, objective in a way that accepts the current isolation of revolutonaries (and then reinforces it).
the RCP has slipped into a bitter, hostile, accusatory stance toward the people. It has abandoned its own (earlier) approach of “arm around the shoulder, speaking the hard truths.”
P writes:
Let me clarify what you have apparently not understood about my comment.
first, I support increasing our work around Gaza and Afghanistan (and said so in the comment you are responding to.) I think it is fine to shout demands about “U.S. out of Gaza” (which are, after all, demands on the government, not hostile demands on passersby.)
I think it would be very valuable to have a serious demonstration in DC during the inagural that put Gaza and Aghanistan at the center — and challenged people to see that the Obama presidency is pledge to supporting the Israeli atrocities and escalating the U.S. attempt to pacify the Hindu Kush.
But the real “stepping up our work” that we need is the creation of a revolutionary movement. We don’t have one, and we need one. We need more than antiwar activism. We need a revolutionary current in society that actually speaks to and for people. We need to break (precisely) with the methods of work that reduce sincere revolutionaries to crusty, cranky, eccentric background noise at the key events of our times.
P writes:
We agree that the particular phrasing is a mistake.
And the reason it is a mistake is precisley that it is NOT a “cogent critique of the obama phenomenon.”
it is the kind of “politics” that only makes sense if you already agree with it. It is a cramped short hand for the very small chorus — exactly when we need a loud clear revolutionary voice reaching a much larger audience.
Adrienne said
MikeE:
I read this and immediately thought of something Che said:
This is why I think asking people a question is likely a better idea than shouting at them and simply demanding that they do something. Shouting and Demands aimed at the people (rather than at the system) is not an act that serves as any kind of example at all. A revolutionary-minded person has to be able to demonstrate respect for the masses and their ability (individually and collectively) to think for themselves, and to feel for other people. And then make appeals to the people’s own sense of justice and truth.
In fact, what you’re describing the RCP is doing by aiming these type of demands at the people is in some ways similar to the issue I couldn’t help but take over the slogan: ‘Create public opinion – seize power.’ It sends an elitist message and treats the masses as though they’re mindless idiots.
“But the real “stepping up our work” that we need is the creation of a revolutionary movement. We don’t have one, and we need one. We need more than antiwar activism. We need a revolutionary current in society that actually speaks to and for people. We need to break (precisely) with the methods of work that reduce sincere revolutionaries to crusty, cranky, eccentric background noise at the key events of our times.”
Well said, and I couldn’t agree more.
RW Harvey said
I am beginning to wonder if the habitual reference to “the masses” is what really treats “them” as a mindless… well, a mindless mass. It feels like a reinforcement of static, mechanical approaches: revolutionaries as active subjects trying to understand and change the inert object of the masses.
Isn’t there some dialectic that helps us avoid extreme individualism and the equally extreme notion of the herd that we are trying to rope and brand with a revolutionary consciousness?
Or perhaps this simply reflects the apparent gap between revolutionary consciousness and the general ideological influence of bourgeois democracy throughout the population — maybe we are objectively the “background noise” at this time and it will take a combination of our consistent work at exposure and shifts in the objective situation on order for the “noise” of revolution to move to the foreground.
Lastly, forgive my crusty density but I still fail to see the elitism in the orientation “Create Public Opinion, Seize Power.”
The seizure of power will not be pristine by any stretch of the imagination. It will likely be that the public opinion revolutionaries will be creating will be extremely basic: we have the physical power to crush the oppressors and restore the basic necessities of life, so follow us.
The best outcome for maintaining power and building a new socialist society will depend on how many conscious revolutionaries are created between now and the revolutionary overthrow.
Carl Davidson said
You’ve come to something close to my position, ‘RW Harvey,’ but through a back door.
What you acknowledge here is the non-revolutionary character of the current situation, and which set of ideas and methods or rule has hegemony.
The point is to find revolutionary ways to do work within it.
But you conclude:
The point that I would make in on the nature of what lies between ‘now’ and ‘revolutionary overthrow.’ I would argue that its divided into two general periods, one insurrectionary, one not, and that we’re now in the non-insurrectionary one, and it demands a different set of strategy and tactics. The two periods are connected, but not the same. And there certainly isn’t one straight path from ‘now.’
Adrienne said
RW Harvey:
“forgive my crusty density but I still fail to see the elitism in the orientation “Create Public Opinion, Seize Power.”
Sorry if my comment created confusion. I had previously explained my impression and thoughts on that particular slogan several days ago in another thread. If you’re interested, you can read them here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/nando-a-maoist-on-engaging-trotskyism/
Mike E said
RW Harvey writes about the term “the masses”:
I have taken a secret pledge (about a year ago) to stop using the term “the masses.” There are reasons why communists have used that concept — it refers to something real. But it also (as RW Harvey suggests) reinforces a static, mechanical view — and in particular it dovetails with a view that we (the communists) are the “conscious factor” (in a mechanical way) and so reinforces a one-way view of how information and insight flows. And it gets doubly bizarre when (as I’ve often heard among RCP activists) a single contact gets referred to as a “mass” (i.e. “We had four masses at that meeting, and one mass had promised to come but didn’t.”)
I think it is just one part of a much larger process of “finding our voice” — which requires a destructive and constructive process around language, style, and view of the people. It requires listening as well as speaking — based on a rather radical sense of the role of people in their own emancipation (which Maoists call “the mass line”).
RW harvey writes (provocatively):
Who doubts that this is true? First that revolutionary thought and politics is marginalized at the moment. And also, more disturbingly, that it seems (to many people) as all-too-familiar background chatter (that can be dismissed because it is irrelevent, out of time, and disproven.)
And i think an existance on such margins is really the underlying reason that the RCP went from revolutoinary movement to sect to implosion-with-cultish-features. There were dynamics and views that got consolidated as part of an encapsulation, as part of the “long distance runners” metabolism problem. There was an acclimatization to the margin — and a kind of real bitterness that has crept in (blaming the people and also the party cadre for the lack of real success). If you form a revolutionary attempt, and it doesn’t get any chance to stretch its legs for several decades, there are objective reasons why it may become cramped, and shout from its confinement muttering in angry disjointed ways.
That is one reason why I think Bill has a point when he talks about exhaustion — we need to form a new movement because this old one is exhausted (by the process it has gone through, and the distance it has traveled from its founding events). Avakian insists that new parties can only be considered when the old ones are totally lost to revisionism — but in some ways, confining our critique to that would really be to miss the larger picture. It is not just that the line of the RCP is wrong (and it is), but it is that the whole project is just over — it is dried up, out of sync, absorbed in its own internal ravings. The very fact that it is so unable to see itself (and its pronouncements) as everyone else sees them, that it has no critical distance from its own subjectivities, means that it is over — how can you even imagine politics if you are so deaf and locked in?
So yes, I agree with you that there are real objective reasons why revolutionary politics has had a trouble gettng a fresh hearing. And we must “await” changes in the objective conditions (including in the mood of sectins of the people, especially students). But we also need to “hasten” the conditions for a rev movement, but developing our voice, and our style, and by reconceiving our revolutionary effort in a way that meshes with the current moment, and that makes its shocking arguments from an understanding of what real people are thinking and why.
Carl Davidson said
I’m following you all the way to the end here, MikeE. I, too, took a similar pledge to myself (not always successful) about ‘the masses’, the radical nature of the mass line, and finding our voice, and so on.
But at the end here, why should our arguments be ‘shocking’?
Why not illuminating, or awakening, or resonating, or penetrating? Or something else?
When I hear ‘shocking,’ I hear Bob carrying on, or am I missing something?
Mike E said
Because the solutions that people need are, in fact, a major radical rupture from what even most progressive people think. The truth (in a world of lies) is shocking — or it probably isn’t that true.
I think we need a movement without any craving for respectability. That has an outlaw feel. And part of that is simply political: the radical people (especially the youth) we need to attract, unite and empower are looking for something like this. We need an organized core that has backbone, courage, style, and that speaks difficult truths in a fearless but creative/attractive way.
Put another way: How can successful communist politics in the imperialist heartland NOT be shocking?
How can we win people to look at radical solutions without having a creative mix of both shake-up-and-entice?