[Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight
Comment In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm) ^^^ CB: So, don't aim for a communist polarity. ^ The communist goal is first and above all victory to the workers in their current struggle. That is the communist goal - Job 1, at all times. To make the immediate and long term goal of communists the abolition of private property outside the field of victory to the workers in their current struggle is just silly thinking. ^ CB: To make it the immediate goal is silly. To make it the long term goal is right out of the manifesto you just quoted. Communists do not have separate demands from various segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands that creates the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined the task and role of communists. ^^^ CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity ^^ In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. ^ CB: i.e. including the poorest sections of the working class but not only the poorest sections of the working class The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. (End quote) Here is where Marx deploy the communist concept of the line of march. What is wrong with formulating the goal of communists as abolition of private property, is a failure to advance on the basis of the here and now. ^^ CB: Correct. Don't raise aboltion of private property now. That's the ultimate goal,not the current line of march ^^ If comrades are involved in the struggle for unemployment, and they are, that is the goal. For instance, when communist are involved in a strike, the goal is not abolition of private property but to resolve the strike in favor of the workers on strike. When the communist fought for Civil Rights and industrial unions the goal was not to abolish private property but the realization of Civil Rights and industrial unions. Why would this not be the case today? ^^ CB: Correct : do not raise abolition of private property today. Support the trade union's aims, which are united behind the O admin. ^^ The idea that establishing a communist polarity means fighting for the abolition of private property makes no sense and is hopelessly sectarian. As if communist have interest outside the proletariat. CB: The idea of establishing a communist polarity separate from the current struggles of the working class is sectarian. Polarity means separation from some other pole, like the social democratic pole, or the DP pole. No polarity, unity. ^ The real issue is my refusal to praise winning a concession. I see no need for genuflecting. CB: It's not genuflecting. It's cheerleading. It's expressing support, rallying the working class in each of its little victories. Comrades and workers , come rally. not genuflecting. cheerleading for each first down, each basket. ^ There are far to many other concessions to be fought for and won, than to pause and praise the Obama administration for unemployment benefit extensions. ^^^ CB: First of all this is not the only one to cheer. There's stem cell research. I don't know why you never have anything to say about pay equity for working women. There's declaration of out of Iraq, etc, etc. Part of winning the future battles is rallying and cheering for the wins we have already. As Ravi on Pen-l said it's rah,rah ! rah rah we want a touchdown ^^ Now that not taxing a portion of unemployment has been put into effect, we might consider abolition of all taxes on unemployment, a policy change that begin under the Carter administration. We communists opposed taxing unemployment checks back when the Carter administration implemented this new taxation. We still oppose such. We have not changed our attitude in favor of somehow fighting - detached from the mass of proletarians, a fight to abolish private property. ^ CB; Sure but, we aren't there yet. The
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight
Communists do not have separate demands from various segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands that creates the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined the task and role of communists. ^^^ CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity Comment Do you support the American invasion of Afghanistan? Do you support the demand of the antiwar movement to remove US troops from Afghanistan? To speak of unemployment and the fight against it as the cornerstone of the communist polarity and will always be talked about on a Marxist list serv. On the other hand I deeply respect those who are not communist and the non-communists have just as much of a right to put forth their views. I believe the dividing line on a Marxist List serv is between communism and anti-communism. The communist polarity in American society is objective. It is not a subjective disposition or ideology. Those sectors of the working class more than less shut out of the civic society of the bourgeoisie are an objective communist formation, because their spontaneous demands are for socially necessary means of life. In a word welfare. The fight for welfare is the communist polarity in American society with a huge section of the working class slowly warming to the idea that government must provide for the people when the free market capitalist fails and it is failing big time. That is the communist polarity and it is going to be talked about on a Marxist List serv. Communism is not to be understood as an ideology but rather the historic movement of people - real human beings, that emerged with the emergence of classes as a property expression, in human history. As long as communism is understood as some kind of conspiracy on the part of individuals . . . the bourgeois point of view, the deepening revolution in the mode of production makes no sense. We have entered an era of revolution. * CB: Correct. Don't raise aboltion of private property now. That's the ultimate goal,not the current line of march Comment Don't raise abolition of private property now? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Abolition of private property is not a demand, reform or a concession to be sought from the bourgeoisie. . The line of march, in my opinion. is as I have described it for the past 10 years. The demands of the poorest workers is the line . . . as these demands intersect with various layers of the working class. Now, discussion of all of Marx projection and thinking is appropriate for a Marxist List serv. There is of course a deeper issue and that is the communist approach to work in the legislative and electoral arena. I have some direct experience in this arena, as well as negotiation with the representatives of institutional capital. Communist most certainly must volunteer or be assigned to this arena of struggle. Most of our communist work is however non-electoral. *** CB; Sure but, we aren't there yet. The agenda of what is doable now is being set by O. And by the way, over the last 30 years, the other team has built up a 49 to 0 lead. So, we have to make a lot of touchdowns. You can't score 7 touchdowns on one play. Comment Interesting analogy. We are to understand that the extension of unemployment benefit is not a concession but a touchdown. Brother, not very long ago you were cheerleading for communist to support the bank bailout plan and schemes to nationalize the banks, only to back off this position. No matter how hard communists on various list screamed against the idea of nationalizing the banks you refused to listen. Apparently, in a moment of spiritual awakening to decided that maybe nationalizing banks is not a bright idea, given the fact that there is no mathematical way to value assets or even determine a rational model to stabilize the Ponzi schemes of the bourgeoisie. Further, when asked how will this help the working class, no one could answer the question. What is wrong is a misunderstanding of capitalism, this moment of deepening crisis and the meaning of concessions; and fights in the legislative and electoral arena. Simply defining what is taking place in the legislative arena as the legislative arena, allows communists and Marxist to understand there is a larger field of social struggle. There is a profound misunderstanding of the legislative and electoral arena. First of all Obama does not set the agenda for what is doable. Here does not even set the agenda. Even the most backwards trade union leader knows that real life sets and creates the need for an agenda. What sets the framework for what is doable is a complex intersection of class needs or identity of interest. The needs of capital and the workers connected to capital as the social process, are expressed in the political
[Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight
Waistline2 Communists do not have separate demands from various segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands that creates the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined the task and role of communists. ^^^ CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity Comment Do you support the American invasion of Afghanistan? Do you support the demand of the antiwar movement to remove US troops from Afghanistan? ^^ CB: No, I'm for urging the O admin to modify their position, and move to withdrawing from Afghanistan. ^^^ To speak of unemployment and the fight against it as the cornerstone of the communist polarity and will always be talked about on a Marxist list serv. CB: No. I didn't say anywhere cornerstone I specifically said as one of many Here's what I said, explicitly _not_ unemployment comp as a cornerstone: First of all this is not the only one to cheer. There's stem cell research. I don't know why you never have anything to say about pay equity for working women. There's declaration of out of Iraq, etc, etc. Part of winning the future battles is rallying and cheering for the wins we have already. As Ravi on Pen-l said it's rah,rah ! rah rah we want a touchdown ^^ the other hand I deeply respect those who are not communist and the non-communists have just as much of a right to put forth their views. I believe the dividing line on a Marxist List serv is between communism and anti-communism. The communist polarity in American society is objective. It is not a subjective disposition or ideology. Those sectors of the working class more than less shut out of the civic society of the bourgeoisie are an objective communist formation, because their spontaneous demands are for socially necessary means of life. In a word welfare. The fight for welfare is the communist polarity in American society with a huge section of the working class slowly warming to the idea that government must provide for the people when the free market capitalist fails and it is failing big time. That is the communist polarity and it is going to be talked about on a Marxist List serv. ^ CB: Staking out a communist polarity in only one sector of the working class contradicts the sections of the Manifesto that _you_ quoted. You are setting up sectarian principles of your own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. Exactly what you pointed out Marx and Engels recommended against. ^^ Communism is not to be understood as an ideology but rather the historic movement of people - real human beings, that emerged with the emergence of classes as a property expression, in human history. As long as communism is understood as some kind of conspiracy on the part of individuals . . . the bourgeois point of view, the deepening revolution in the mode of production makes no sense. We have entered an era of revolution. * CB: Correct. Don't raise aboltion of private property now. That's the ultimate goal,not the current line of march Comment Don't raise abolition of private property now? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. ^^ CB: The statement is quite clear. ^^ Abolition of private property is not a demand, reform or a concession to be sought from the bourgeoisie. . ^^^ CB: It's a fundamental goal and aim of the movement. Here it is in the Manifesto. The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. _In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. _ (emphasis added -CB) We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight
Abolition of private property is not a demand, reform or a concession to be sought from the bourgeoisie. . ^^^ CB: It's a fundamental goal and aim of the movement. Here it is in the Manifesto. The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. _In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. _ (emphasis added -CB) Comment Apparently we understand the word theory different. The theory of communism is not a demand. Nor is the theory of communism a reform or the fight for a concession. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. To me this sentence could not be clearer. What seems to be wrong is a misreading of the word theory. Further, you fight straw men of your own creation. No communist I know has ever raised the abolition of private property as a demand, concession or reform. You suggest that I have when in fact you must know I have not. Simply show where anyone . . . . including myself . . . have over the past 40 years raised the abolition of private property as a demand? * WL: There is of course a deeper issue and that is the communist approach to work in the legislative and electoral arena. I have some direct experience in this arena, as well as negotiation with the representatives of institutional capital. Communist most certainly must volunteer or be assigned to this arena of struggle. Most of our communist work is however non-electoral. ^^ CB: Well, it's electoral and lobbying. I wouldn't say most of it is _not_ electoral, as lobbying is linked to electoral. Comment If most of communist work is electoral and not educational then what have you been doing the past 30 years as evidence that you actually believe this? Share your electoral experience. I most certainly have over the years. I ask because it seems you are not thinking out what you write and simply respond our of passion. Electoral work means lobbying by definition. I really don't understand why mentioning lobbying as linked to electoral work is important when electoral work means Lobbying, someone and groups as the precondition to do anything. Bizarre. 90% of communist work is education. For instance when we recruit say a worker in the plant active in the union, or with her fellow workers, our Job 1 is to help them do better what they are already doing and to educate them as communists. When we recruit someone involved in electoral work our Job 1 is to help them better do what they are already doing and to educate them. What we bring as communists to the game is vision, leadership and class outlook. For instance a tremendous legislative battle is underway right now over expanding the unions ability to recruit union supporters and form a union. While all communists I know and all the lists I participate in support such legislation, our task as communists remains to talk about class and class outlook. Especially on Marxist List servs. *** WL. We are to understand that the extension of unemployment benefit is not a concession but a touchdown. CB: A first down on the way to a touchdown. You are, for some reason , ignoring that I nowhere said extension of unemployment benefits is the only task for working class struggle. That is a fairly obvious strawman argument on this thread. Comment Well of course I agree with the above. A first down is a more realistic assessment. Cheering for a first down is realistic but that is not how any of this discussion about concessions, reforms and demands have been shaped. That is what was wrong. There are a lot of issues on the table. I do not think you have limited any of the discussion to one issue. For instance both of us are big on health care reform; expansion of public education, expansion of the welfare system for all, not just the poorest workers. For instance food stamps should be made available to anyone with a need, regardless of economic layer of the working class. Even the issue of mortgage should proceed from the standpoint of the poorest workers but extend to all layers of the working class, as their economic need intersects with the poorest workers. For instance every layer of the working class should have an opportunity to refinance at a 4% rate, an issue that has been raised in the national dialogue. Why? Because the more stable sections of the working class will rebel and not support legislation and programs that exclude them. This matter of the meaning of class
