Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link , Pull the Whole Chain Forward
Comrades, The following article was published by LRNA in their periodical Rally, Comrades, Vol 20, Edition 1 of Jan/Feb 2010 which is their present edition: Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward We are entering into an epoch of social revolution, a time of crisis. The very foundations of society are being shaken. The entire superstructure that encompasses American society is being thrown into the air. We cannot stand still; we cannot go back. We not only have to have a sense of which way forward, but of who we are as an American people – the mass who are being pulled into the vortex of social destruction and who find ourselves on the down side of the growing polarity of wealth and poverty. In whose interests do we fight as we fight for ourselves? What defines us? What provides the basis for our unity and common purpose? The past period It has been said that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and surely, the contours of today’s growing revolutionary movement arise out of and conform to the specifics of American history. From its very beginning, the basis of American society was capitalist, that is, a mode of production in which capitalists, as owners and rulers of society, exploited wage-laborers as the means to accumulate wealth for private profit. The rising American capitalist class never had to overthrow the feudal relations of production that prevailed in Europe. Its expansion depended first upon the conquest and removal of the native peoples, and then the forced bondage of millions of slave-laborers imported from Africa. The United States was essentially a Southern country for almost the first 100 years of its existence; with slavery fueling the development of the capitalist economy, slavery became a fetter, not only, to the slave, but also, to “free” wage-labor. The slave power had to be overthrown; it was overthrown. The slave was emancipated, but only made free to become a wage-slave. Well, not right away. The brief effort to reconstruct a new society in the South was met with defeat, and the South was returned to a condition of penury, a semi-colonial agricultural backwater which kept both poor blacks and whites impoverished and tied to the land. With the introduction of the steam engine and the consequent industrialization of the economy, the industrial worker, concentrated in the “Iron Triangle,” which was the industrial heartland of America, arose to lead and shape the American social struggle. With the rise of the industrial union movement in the early twentieth century, the fight was to redefine the social contract between owner and worker, to limit the working day, to create safer work conditions, to provide social security, a decent education, and a living wage. Yet, economic depression dominated the same period, to be rescued only by world war. With the ending of World War II, American capitalism, which already had begun to expand beyond its own borders to colonize and export capital to all corners of the globe, found colonialism itself now to be a fetter on the further expansion of capital. Parallel to that was the recognition by the capitalist class that the South had to be industrialized. Southern agriculture was mechanized and the sharecropper tractored off the land. The civil rights explosion to emancipate the oppressed African-American masses in the South arose simultaneously with the mass migrations to the industrial heartland in the North and the emergence of industrial centers in the South. The southern masses entered and became an integral part of the American industrial proletariat. This was followed by the subsequent migration of workers of Latin, Asian and other nationalities from all over the globe coming in search of work. They, too, entered into and became a part of the American working class, itself part of a process being shaped by the developing forces of globalization. Industrialization also saw women enter the workforce in large numbers, until today their numbers are equal to men. Yet inequality persists, and so the struggle for women’s equality continues. Inequality for African-Americans persists, so their struggle for equality continues. Immigrant people enter American society upon an unequal playing field, and continue their struggle for equality. Yet it is an economic equality they seek, and not an equality of poverty. Everything changing And now, the catch. All of that history is being negated. Just about the time that all of these forces were being integrated into the modern American working class, the capitalists, in their insatiable drive to maximize profits, introduced a new instrument of production into the process that is like no other that has ever occurred in human history. All other advances, whether the iron plow or the steam engine, have enhanced or enabled human labor-power. The computer and the robot replaces human labor. That is
[MLL] “New Trade Union Initiative”.
“New Trade Union Initiative”. Below is the link of article of Manzoor Ahmed Razi Chairman of Railway Workers Union open line, published in monthly “Awami jamhooriat” regarding his visit to India Mumbai in Labor Conference organized by “New Trade Union Initiative”. http://jan10.aj-pak.org/gpage11.html Kamran Abbas _ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward
Yes. The LRNA articles and editorials are excellent. I was a member of the League and my struggle with them was this: What role does the old proletariat play in this revolution; that is, that section of the class not dispossessed, still working and creating surplus value, is it symbiotic with capitalism, is it reactionary? The League claims that it is. The dispossessed are the new class, according to the League, and that its politics are objectively communistic as opposed to that of the old working sector, who wages above, let's say $25,000, is a conservative sector. Do communists rely on the dispossessed or on the workers and their organizations on our march to revolution? We'd better get it right, since this question is crucial, especially now a days that communists repulse organized labor like a plague. And what does the rest of the world demonstrate? What class is leading the revolutionary struggles there? The question becomes: who will fight in the interest of the exploited class.. or do we believe that it's becoming extinct. Surely, the capitalist, in their introduction of robotics, SEEM to want to turn us to be, at least, superfluous. Despite the advancements of the productive forces, is globalized capitalism/Imperialism actually doing without the exploitation of surplus labor? f580 --- On Wed, 3/24/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 9:02 PM LRNA's editorials and/or articles are very good ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward
In a message dated 3/24/2010 9:02:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, mark1scot...@yahoo.com writes: LRNA's editorials and/or articles are very good Comment Not withstanding my personal opinions and visions, these are the folks I have worked with more than less for the past 40 years. LRNA is not a Leninist party formation but more of a federation or as it is a League of Revolutionaries for a New America. We are big enough to encompass the most diverse leading elements of the proletariat. The key is unity of action. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward
In a message dated 3/25/2010 4:28:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Yes. The LRNA articles and editorials are excellent. I was a member of the League and my struggle with them was this: What role does the old proletariat play in this revolution; that is, that section of the class not dispossessed, still working and creating surplus value, is it symbiotic with capitalism, is it reactionary?The League claims that it is. The dispossessed are the new class, according to the League, and that its politics are objectively communistic as opposed to that of the old working sector, who wages above, let's say $25,000, is a conservative sector. Comment We had such a discussion some years ago. I would rely upon the articles in Rally rather than the opinion of individuals, including myself. 60% of the American working class makes $14 an hour and less or before taxes $560 a week and 29,120 working 52 weeks a year. The new starting wage in auto for new workers is $14 an hour with no defined pension plan.. What was a more than less conservative economic-political middle is being transformed into fighting sector of the class. LZRNA has traced and followed this process - in detail, since at least 1979. Somewhere, I have the exact 1979 article passed out at the factories concerning the new features of capitalist crisis. Note: 1979 factory newsletter. LRNA has never neglected the workers in large scale industry. Never. They are flexible and deploy a concept of that section of the proletariat in motion. Where in any Rally articles does the League call anyone making more than $25,000 conservative? I am a retired auto worker with a pension that is roughly $15.50 an hour AFTER TAXES. There is plenty of room for me in LRNA. The key is unity of action rather than unity based on theoretical concepts. Rally does in fact describe the specific role of auto workers who are hardly the most poverty stricken workers. We have more in common than our individual conceptions. Unity is always paramount. Trust the articles in Rally rather than individual interpretation. My vision of communism is just that: my vision. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
[MLL] Health Care fight in real time
(quoting from another author) I think the very small and powerless far left in this country went way off the deep end in calling for the defeat of the health care bill. The basic argument is that it still leaves the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry in the catbird seat, which is true. In fact, it is quite clear that today, in the existing relationship of class forces, no bill could have passed that did not do that. In calling for defeat of the bill, they demanded that Congress vote down: (a) barring immediately denying children insurance because of pre-existing or other illness (b) barring all other such denials within two years (3) adding 16 million people to Medicaid eligibility; (4) taking millions of people out of the category of uninsured. And a number of other like things. How can we call for defeating THIS when we today have absolutely no viable alternative. And in calling for defeating itself, we effectively rely on the ultrarightist (these days) Republican Party and the right-wing Democrats to win our victory for us. Our political influence is of course nil. It's a version of Alexander Cockburn's left-right alliance politics, in my opinion. (end quote) _http://www.marxmail.org/msg74553.html_ (http://www.marxmail.org/msg74553.html) Comment The above was taken from Marxmail, basically a Trotskyist list. It is being reproduced to describe different ideological approaches and why unity of action is paramount. I work with RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. We have discussed and followed debate over health care for the past year or so. All of our efforts have focused on educating the worker of Detroit and surrounding areas about Conyers Universal Health Care bill HR 676. This is so because health care has become a motivating issue pushing a section of the proletariat into material action. . We have been very careful not to campaign against any bills or plans in Congress, viewing such as a waste of time, energy and money. While discussing proposed bills all our literature is aimed at promoting HR 676. We fight to get the union into action; to push local union into action supporting a single payer system. This is consistent with the resolution from our Constitutional Convention on a National Health Care plan for America. Here is what we discovered through action. Most people do not know what is meant by single payer system. Many people do not know what is meant by Medicare for All. Invariably the question is asked, does this include me? To accelerate the propaganda war we formulated single payer and/or universal health care (who knows what universal means amongst the real proletariat?) to read: Everyone In, Nobody Out. Conyers Bill 676 is the way. Every time various versions of a health care bill was attacked, fear was created blocking our campaign and propaganda for HR 676. There are those that supported the current bill as better than nothing. There are those who vehemently and passionately denounced what the bill did not deliver. At one meeting addressed by Conyers, he was attacked for stating his reasons for supporting the passed bill. (Yes, when Conyers is in town he comes to our meetings). Conyers stated that defeat of the bill would further align the political/ideological sphere and orient it to the historically reactionary political South. Although he stated his extreme disappointment with Obama, his position was clear about supporting the bill and Obama reelection. Here is the point. Advocating rejection of the bill does not of necessity, align one with the right. Supporting the bill does not of necessity, align one with the left or democrats. Doing nothing or saying nothing does not align one with those who do nothing and say nothing because this group swings from the left to the right. In real world politic, the system is being attacked from the right and left simultaneously over all the same issues. All active people are saying no to the system as it exists for deeply different reasons. The working class cannot stand still or go backwards to a relative prosperity. In the larger scheme of things revolution and counter revolution advances and proceed as a unity. One can only fight along a path - line of march, that clarify who we are as opposed to reaction. It is the function of ones communist press and communist literature to clarify the issues of capital. If you are not part of a revolutionary group then join one and become part of the system of events of training and educating the proletariat. It is job one of communists to get into the fight and help the proletariat achieve material organization. One cannot fight for a quality such as socialism. One can only fight on the quantitative level. Advancing a clear picture of what is being fought for is the way to recruit and begin the organization of that section
Re: [MLL] Health Care fight in real time
Dear Waistline, I have a quick question that is somewhat separate from the debate going on on the list. According to one summary I read of the Obama health care bill (actually of the Senate's proposed changes), there would be a 40% tax on hiigh-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for familes. Do you know, for active UAW members who are earning more than the new hires salary of $14 per hour, what is the official cost of their health plan? Would it be classified as a high-cost plan that would then be taxed? (And if you know, who pays the tax, the insured or the insurer?). Thanks, George - Original Message - From: waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:26 AM Subject: [MLL] Health Care fight in real time (quoting from another author) I think the very small and powerless far left in this country went way off the deep end in calling for the defeat of the health care bill. The basic argument is that it still leaves the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry in the catbird seat, which is true. In fact, it is quite clear that today, in the existing relationship of class forces, no bill could have passed that did not do that. In calling for defeat of the bill, they demanded that Congress vote down: (a) barring immediately denying children insurance because of pre-existing or other illness (b) barring all other such denials within two years (3) adding 16 million people to Medicaid eligibility; (4) taking millions of people out of the category of uninsured. And a number of other like things. How can we call for defeating THIS when we today have absolutely no viable alternative. And in calling for defeating itself, we effectively rely on the ultrarightist (these days) Republican Party and the right-wing Democrats to win our victory for us. Our political influence is of course nil. It's a version of Alexander Cockburn's left-right alliance politics, in my opinion. (end quote) _http://www.marxmail.org/msg74553.html_ (http://www.marxmail.org/msg74553.html) Comment The above was taken from Marxmail, basically a Trotskyist list. It is being reproduced to describe different ideological approaches and why unity of action is paramount. I work with RETIREES FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. We have discussed and followed debate over health care for the past year or so. All of our efforts have focused on educating the worker of Detroit and surrounding areas about Conyers Universal Health Care bill HR 676. This is so because health care has become a motivating issue pushing a section of the proletariat into material action. . We have been very careful not to campaign against any bills or plans in Congress, viewing such as a waste of time, energy and money. While discussing proposed bills all our literature is aimed at promoting HR 676. We fight to get the union into action; to push local union into action supporting a single payer system. This is consistent with the resolution from our Constitutional Convention on a National Health Care plan for America. Here is what we discovered through action. Most people do not know what is meant by single payer system. Many people do not know what is meant by Medicare for All. Invariably the question is asked, does this include me? To accelerate the propaganda war we formulated single payer and/or universal health care (who knows what universal means amongst the real proletariat?) to read: Everyone In, Nobody Out. Conyers Bill 676 is the way. Every time various versions of a health care bill was attacked, fear was created blocking our campaign and propaganda for HR 676. There are those that supported the current bill as better than nothing. There are those who vehemently and passionately denounced what the bill did not deliver. At one meeting addressed by Conyers, he was attacked for stating his reasons for supporting the passed bill. (Yes, when Conyers is in town he comes to our meetings). Conyers stated that defeat of the bill would further align the political/ideological sphere and orient it to the historically reactionary political South. Although he stated his extreme disappointment with Obama, his position was clear about supporting the bill and Obama reelection. Here is the point. Advocating rejection of the bill does not of necessity, align one with the right. Supporting the bill does not of necessity, align one with the left or democrats. Doing nothing or saying nothing does not align one with those who do nothing and say nothing because this group swings from the left to the right. In real world politic, the system is being attacked from the right and left
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward/Unity/Glossary
In a message dated 3/25/2010 4:28:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: The question becomes: who will fight in the interest of the exploited class.. or do we believe that it's becoming extinct. Surely, the capitalist, in their introduction of robotics, SEEM to want to turn us to be, at least, superfluous. Despite the advancements of the productive forces, is globalized capitalism/Imperialism actually doing without the exploitation of surplus labor? f580 Reply It seems to me that LRNA and Rally Comrades are being accused of something they are not putting forth. Where in Rally Comrades is it stated that productive capital exists totally independent of speculative fiance? I have read Rally Comrade since its first issue. Yes, there has been changes in vision and conception of the motion of capital. Where does it state in Rally Comrades that the production of surplus value no longer exists? More importantly, the question of unity of revolutionaries is one of distribution of the press. Lenin united the revolutionaries through production and distribution the press. Rally Comrades is bigger than you and I. It is obvious that Mark, you and I enjoy the paper and our disputes are rather petty and individual, from the standpoint of the actual articles in Rally - that we all claim to support. Then there is the issue of unity of material action. Comrade, the question of a Marxist glossary grow out of real work or the formation of study groups of young people and industrial workers. 90% of all terms and concepts in the glossary adheres to Rally Comrades descriptions. I am prepared to send you and Mark version 7.5., off list. This draft will be completed on schedule, which is March 31 and then critiqued by a collective. Our disputes of five years ago are irrelevant and pale in the face of the stirring of the proletariat. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Health Care fight in real time
In a message dated 3/25/2010 7:40:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geor...@micronetix.net writes: According to one summary I read of the Obama health care bill (actually of the Senate's proposed changes), there would be a 40% tax on hiigh-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for familes. Do you know, for active UAW members who are earning more than the new hires salary of $14 per hour, what is the official cost of their health plan? Would it be classified as a high-cost plan that would then be taxed? (And if you know, who pays the tax, the insured or the insurer?). Thanks, George Reply I do not know. We have had a devil of a time making sense of our new VEBA, and literally are fighting with the upper level of the Union for information. I will follow up on these question but it will take time. Part of the problem is the union is in transition and the staff is all but frozen. We get a new president - Bob King, in June, at the Constitutional Convention, to be held in Detroit. Again, we met with the staff about four weeks ago while rallying with 50 workers outside headquarters seeking the general information you request. We face a profoundly different struggle. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
[MLL] Auto workers
Check out the People's Tribune issue of May 2009 Vol. 36, No. 5 _http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2009.05.0.html_ (http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2009.05.0.html) Auto Workers Woes Symbolize Struggle Ahead for Everyone. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Auto workers
Dear Waistline, I am not sure whether this link was in reply to my question. Anyway, I checked it out. It had some very interesting material on the increase in productivity and decline in employment in the auto industry, but it did not deal with the question that I asked. Let me explain what I need. I am working on an article for a local paper (NYC Working People's Voice) on Obama's health care plan. It talks of a 40% tax on the expensive health care plan. If this includes what were good union plans, it becomes one more push for the auto industry to reduce their health insurance, and if the tax is on the workers who receive the insurance, it becomes another tool for the workers themselves to agree to a cutback in their health insurance coverage. The problem is that I do not know what the official cost is of plans such as the UAWs. It has to be over $10,200 per individual and $27,500 for familes for the 40% tax to kick in. I know that for some unionized construction workers, the official cost of the benefits that the construction companies pay to their funds (not just health care, but vacation, pension etc) are very high, somewhere around $30 per hour for carpenters. Anyway, I am asking whether you know (or can give me a source) the official cost of the health insurance plan for UAW members, the older ones who are not making the new $14 per hour wage. Any help you can give me would be appreciated. Thanks, George - Original Message - From: waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:27 AM Subject: [MLL] Auto workers Check out the People's Tribune issue of May 2009 Vol. 36, No. 5 _http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2009.05.0.html_ (http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2009.05.0.html) Auto Workers Woes Symbolize Struggle Ahead for Everyone. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward/Unity/Glossary
Comrades, I think there are some misconceptions all around for sure. Even I had the same misconception of what was put forward as the new class by LRNA and disagreed with them, however, I do not believe this conception of the new class is at all intended to supersede or in any way make null and void the conception of the old class of working members of the proletariat. These concepts are only being recognized based on the ever changing (dialectics) conditions in the mode of production and the workers relationship to this newly developing mode or means of production which is in fact summed up in the technology which is electronics that is the new contradiction that is at the base of how workers today are being exploited. With the advancement of electronic technology we are seeing the displacement of workers in huge numbers as it transforms what was known as industrialization, therefore, electronics is superseding the industrial proletariat in that sense but it in no way implies the extinction of an exploited working-class - in fact, it means just the opposite - it means the continued exploitation of the working-class on an ever larger scale which is setting in motion, by capitalism itself, its own demise through proletarian revolution as more and more workers become displaced. It is in this sense that the new class of workers is put forward without denying the Marxian dialectical concept of an exploited working-class put forward by Marx and Lenin when industrialization was the new quality arising as fuedalism was dying out. The key is understanding the ever changing contradictions in the process of capitalisms development from fuedalism to industrialization to electronics much in the same manner that Marx recognized the dialectics of the newly developing steam engine and how it transformed one stage of society to another all the while displacing workers under fuedalism for the new class developing under industrialization. This is only a quick synopsis based on my limited time to involve myself without digressing from other matters I am undertaking. More can be said later on this point. WL, as far as our disagreements being petty and individualized...perhaps. I see you state that what you put forward as communism is your own vision, that acknowledgement is acceptable but I still disagree with it completely and will adhere to Marx and Lenin's dialectical proposition of socialism and this in no way implies I am saying that I put forward a copy-cat version of their definition of socialism based on their historical materialist conditions of their day. What I am saying is that socialism is still the dialectics of the transition from capitalism as we know it today to the higher stage of communism which is classless society. The reason for the stage of transition known as socialism was clearly defined as the stage of societal development wherein the proletariat seizes power from the capitalist ruling class and must suppress that class which is still filled with antagonisms developed as a result of their relationship to the means of production wherein they exploited the working-class for their own acquisition of profits for a minority over the needs of entire humanity. This implies that the now suppressed capitalist class retains its bourgeois ideology based on their relationship to their former means of production and both Marx and Lenin clearly stated that such ideology will take generations to overthrow as bourgeois ideology is not overthrown with the overthrow of this exploiting class and the seizure of power and control of the means of production by the working-class. Bourgeois ideology is still antagonistic during this period, hence, the need for the dictaorship of the proletariat. It is further needed in order to begin the socialized production of society that will benefit all of humanity which implies not only the need for the entire proletariat to come to terms with a socialized ideology (class and ploitical consciousness) but also learn how to plan production and distribution so that all of humanity benefits. With the seizure of power by the proletariat, it is this new socialized relationship to the existing structure of the means of production inherited from capitalism that the new man or the socialized man develops his socialist ideology further that will allow for the withering away of class society. This is the quality whereas merely having the abundance of products and goods is only quantative in the process of development to classless society and this is where I completely disagree with your concept of economic communism which you imply superseded socialism. I do not agree with your concept of unity either at this point. It will need further elaboration for me to accept. I personally have no problems with you or anyone else making reference to writings of Trotsky or any other renegade of Marxism. Lenin and Marx both
[MLL] Labor Produces All Value,The Capitalists Make the Profit
* Labor Produces All Value The Capitalists Make the Profit Interesting article : http://www.workingpeoplesvoice.org/wpvv3n1/labor.htm * ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Labor Produces All Value,The Capitalists Make the Profit
Comrades, Thank you for this contribution. A good article. Fraternally Mark Scott From: Marxist Front marxistfr...@yahoo.co.in To: Marxist-Leninist List marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 12:04:24 PM Subject: [MLL] Labor Produces All Value,The Capitalists Make the Profit * Labor Produces All Value The Capitalists Make the Profit Interesting article : http://www.workingpeoplesvoice.org/wpvv3n1/labor.htm * ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Auto workers
In a message dated 3/25/2010 7:40:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _geor...@micronetix.net_ (mailto:geor...@micronetix.net) writes: According to one summary I read of the Obama health care bill (actually of the Senate's proposed changes), there would be a 40% tax on hiigh-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for familes. Do you know, for active UAW members who are earning more than the new hires salary of $14 per hour, what is the official cost of their health plan? Would it be classified as a high-cost plan that would then be taxed? (And if you know, who pays the tax, the insured or the insurer?). Thanks, George Reply I do not know. We have had a devil of a time making sense of our new VEBA, and literally are fighting with the upper level of the Union for information. I will follow up on these question but it will take time. Part of the problem is the union is in transition and the staff is all but frozen. We get a new president - Bob King, in June, at the Constitutional Convention, to be held in Detroit. Again, we met with the staff about four weeks ago while rallying with 50 workers outside headquarters seeking the general information you request. In the next 48 hours I will try and locate some details. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, We are members of the same group.
In other words we are member of the same organization. The unity I speak of is unity of action. The reason the League is a League is to win over revolutionaries and the fighting section of the proletariat. This is a diverse lot. I accept “Rally Comrades,” as the final arbitrator of general theoretical questions of Marxist theory and doctrine. . On the question of the first stage of communism in America I accept what is written in Rally Comrade. I have not written anything in opposition to “ Rally Comrade’s” clear outline of economic communism as a first stage of a post capitalist America. Read for yourself what OUR own newspaper says: (_http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v19ed4art3.html_ (http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v19ed4art3.html) ) Communism: Practical resolution to immediate problems Socialism is becoming more popular in America. According to an April 9, 2009 poll by Rasmussen Reports, only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. The same poll found that younger Americans are most favorably inclined with 33% of adults under 30 preferring socialism. Americans today are changing their minds about socialism and capitalism, but without a clear understanding of what socialism is. At a moment in history when the transition from industrial to electronic production is forcing global economic and social reorganization, understanding the difference between capitalism, socialism and communism helps us envision a future society that meets the needs of all and a strategy to achieve it. After decades in which socialism has been painted as evil, lawless, and totalitarian to forestall criticism of capitalism as an economic system, people’s minds have been opened by the turmoil of the economic crisis and the government’s bailout of the banks, not the people. The ruling class has discredited alternative economic systems – socialism and communism – as unpatriotic or impossible by equating socialism and communism with dictatorship while treating capitalism and democracy as one and the same. In fact, both democracy and dictatorship are forms of political systems. Capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems. Socialism an economic system Economic systems are the set of relations between people and classes in social production, essentially who owns the means of production and how the product is distributed. Under the economic system of capitalism, the capitalist class owns the means of production (factories, transport, etc.) as private property – in contrast to public property (like schools and fire stations), or personal property (like homes and cars). The basic law of capitalism – competition in the production of commodities to maximize profits – results in poverty, war, colonial exploitation, monopolies, and crisis. Capitalists hire workers to produce commodities, which are socially produced, but privately owned by the capitalists, and then sold for profit. The state provides an infrastructure to assist the capitalist class in maximizing profit and towards this end provides some basic necessities (such as schools, unemployment insurance, and social security) to maintain a workforce and ward off starvation, social chaos, and revolution. Under the economic system of socialism, the means of production are not in the private hands of the capitalists, but are socially owned by the state or by cooperatives. Production is planned by the state with the goal of satisfying the constantly rising requirements of society through expanding production. Under socialism, the product is distributed to those who work either directly in the form of payment for work or socially through public goods and services and the development of public industry. Money and exchange based on the value of commodities – which is the essence of capitalist production – continue to operate in some spheres and influence economic planning. Under the economic system of communism, the means of production are publicly owned and capable of producing abundance sufficient to meet the needs of all of society. The use of money disappears because commodities are no longer produced for a market, but for distribution on the basis of need. Socialism a stage At every stage in the history of society, the development of the means of production make possible certain kinds of economic systems. The basic implements of animal husbandry and seasonal planting of crops made possible the economic system of slavery. The steam engine, factories, and ocean-going ships opened up the era of industrial production, which made possible the economic systems of socialism and capitalism. The socialist movement was born in the period of transition from agriculture to industry as serfs and peasants were driven off the land to seek survival as wage-slaves in the miserable conditions of
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, We are members of the same group.
I have read your link and I have read and reread Rally Comrades as well as the Tribune and no where does it advocate your vision of economic communism as an alternative to the accepted concept of socialism. LRNA clearly advocates socialism as the transitory stage to communism. The only difference being between the day of Lenin and Marx to our contemporary capitalist society is the fact of the advances made in technology that recognize the reality that we do have the means to provide for all of society based on this advanced stage of the socialized means of production. LRNA explicitly advocates socialism and not economic communism as you present it. For the working-class to seize power right this minute still means the transitory stage of socialism until the very contradictions of class society are eliminated no matter that there are the abundance of goods to go around for all. This so-called paradise of abundance as you relate it is utopian and has nothing to do with the dialectical or historical materilist conditions. The abundance of goods are only quantitative and do not constitute the leap to a new quality of society when class antagonisms still remain and it is this contradiction that determines the difference between the Marxian concept of which stage of societal development we are in and which stage constitutes the level of attainment of communist society. Economic communism means nothing other than the fact that should the working-class seize power today we could distribute wealth equally to all of society and that simply translates into the reality that we have only begun to build socialist society and taken a step towards classless society which still remains to be established through the suppression of bourgeois ideology and influences until the ideology of exploitation of man by man has been completely eliminated. Economic communism as a stage of development that somehow replaces socialism is your contorted vision and definition taken out of context. Mark From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 1:49:02 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, We are members of the same group. In other words we are member of the same organization. The unity I speak of is unity of action. The reason the League is a League is to win over revolutionaries and the fighting section of the proletariat. This is a diverse lot. I accept “Rally Comrades,” as the final arbitrator of general theoretical questions of Marxist theory and doctrine. . On the question of the first stage of communism in America I accept what is written in Rally Comrade. I have not written anything in opposition to “ Rally Comrade’s” clear outline of economic communism as a first stage of a post capitalist America. Read for yourself what OUR own newspaper says: (_http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v19ed4art3.html_ (http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v19ed4art3.html) ) Communism: Practical resolution to immediate problems Socialism is becoming more popular in America. According to an April 9, 2009 poll by Rasmussen Reports, only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. The same poll found that younger Americans are most favorably inclined with 33% of adults under 30 preferring socialism. Americans today are changing their minds about socialism and capitalism, but without a clear understanding of what socialism is. At a moment in history when the transition from industrial to electronic production is forcing global economic and social reorganization, understanding the difference between capitalism, socialism and communism helps us envision a future society that meets the needs of all and a strategy to achieve it. After decades in which socialism has been painted as evil, lawless, and totalitarian to forestall criticism of capitalism as an economic system, people’s minds have been opened by the turmoil of the economic crisis and the government’s bailout of the banks, not the people. The ruling class has discredited alternative economic systems – socialism and communism – as unpatriotic or impossible by equating socialism and communism with dictatorship while treating capitalism and democracy as one and the same. In fact, both democracy and dictatorship are forms of political systems. Capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems. Socialism an economic system Economic systems are the set of relations between people and classes in social production, essentially who owns the means of production and how the product is distributed. Under the economic system of capitalism, the capitalist class owns the means of production (factories, transport, etc.) as private property – in contrast to public property (like schools and fire stations), or personal property (like homes and cars). The basic law of
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, We are members of the same group.
What I am saying is that socialism is still the dialectics of the transition from capitalism as we know it today to the higher stage of communism which is classless society. The reason for the stage of transition known as socialism was clearly defined as the stage of societal development wherein the proletariat seizes power from the capitalist ruling class and must suppress that class which is still filled with antagonisms developed as a result of their relationship to the means of production wherein they exploited the working-class for their own acquisition of profits for a minority over the needs of entire humanity. and I have read your link and I have read and reread Rally Comrades as well as the Tribune and no where does it advocate your vision of economic communism as an alternative to the accepted concept of socialism. LRNA clearly advocates socialism as the transitory stage to communism. Comment Rally Comrade presents the issue as thus and state in no uncertain terms Communism possible today. I extract a somewhat different point of view from Rally Comrade. Entering an Epoch of Social Revolution is used as an index for certain theoretical concepts such as antagonism. When in doubt I cross check theory concepts with our study guide: Marxist Philosophy: A Study Guide for Revolutionaries in the age of electronics. This guide is used as the fundamental source material for our classes. (Begin quote) In the era of industrial production, the vision of a world without exploitation, hunger and war galvanized the working class movement for communism, but industrial production was unable to create the material conditions required for a communist economic system. The idea of communism preceded the possibility. Today, in this era of electronic production, the reverse is true. Now, the material conditions for communism exist, but the ideas are lagging behind. Communism possible today The introduction of electronics into production has created the conditions for this abundance and thus Soviet style socialism of the 20th Century is no longer necessary or possible. In the 21st century, the global capitalist system has reached a stage where goods can be produced with little or no labor. The global capitalist system is no longer growing and expanding and is in a deep crisis as a result. The transition from industrial capitalism to electronic production is forcing global economic and social reorganization. A level of production has been achieved through electronics that makes communism possible. This is the turning point at which we stand today. (end quote) II. In my understanding the period of transition between capitalism and communism can be nothing more nor less than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and all this entails of the ideological struggle. The economic content of such a transition depends upon the material power of means of production (the non-human totality of material power of production) and productive forces - means of production plus people as subjective agents. The economic content of the dictatorship of the proletariat - in America, is outlined by the League as communism is possible today. I have said no less than this. The dialectic of transition from capitalism to the higher stage of communism is bound up with the dictatorship of the proletariat as a political form of the state. The dialectic of transition of the economic order is bound up with a historically specific development of means of production. Rally Comrade outlines the historically specific state of development of means of production. A first stage of communism is not at all rejected. Rather, American communism will mean something different from Soviet socialism which wrote on its banner, he who does not work, shall not eat. This formula means the law of value is still in operations in areas of the economy. The law of value does not necessarily means capitalism. I write the league formula as economic communism in socially necessary means of life. To each according to their socially necessary needs, from each according to their ability. . Does Rally Comrade state this proposition? No! The qualifier that makes this formulation different from Marx’s is socially necessary needs rather than just needs. My neglect of the ideological struggle under the first stage of communism is deliberate and meant to highlight to the workers what is possible in the economic arena. You are my comrade in closer way than I thought. Let’s us put down the weapon of ruthless struggle. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
[MLL] new class or not new class, that is the question.
Dear comrades, Sorry, but the League is NOT a Marxist organization although there are Marxist within it, Unless they have changed back to being Marxist since I was last there. That is because its politics cannot be called Marxist. The new class concept, I perceive, as reactionary. To me it is quite simple. The dispossessed is NOT a new revolutionary class. It is part of the proletariat and allied to it. The dispossessed is the result of decaying capitalism and not the beginnings of an idle proletariat of the future. We are not now IN nor will we see anytime soon mass production without workers. In fact millions of immigrant workers come to the USA to work. The capitalist class introduces advanced technology to render the proletariat superfluous and insignificant in that it may reduce its subsistence way below its cost. Meanwhile this same bourgeoisie will exploit workers a la lower organic composition in China and India. etc. This new class will not be idle during the first stage of economic communism while others do the work as some League advocates presume. The Leagues' position on the working class making over $25,000 / year puts the class as conservative and symbiotic, if you will, to capitalism. The League considers this higher paid sector NOT revolutionary. This position splits the class and assumes and antagonistic posture. Mind you, that this very contingent of the proletariat is becoming impoverished yet not within the ranks of the dispossessed. The peasantry was indeed the majority during the russian and chinese revolutions and most were dispossessed and miserable and yet the small proletariat became the leader of the revolution because the future economic society was to be that of capitalist wage labor or revolutionary emancipated labor. Either way the productive forces needed to be developed and very quickly or else counter revolution would succeed. The peasantry had either to be converted into communist workers or its petty bourgeois aspirations and conditions jeopardize socialist construction. Well, the bolsheviks did not eliminate the peasantry since it became an ally of the proletariat and it decided to socialize the peasantry into collective farms. That proved to be a problematic minor clash of class relations but the revolution continued. I say that either socialism peacefully transforms the peasantry into communist workers or capitalism will will transform the peasantry into proletarians. Now that capitalism is in decay and forced to render its archenemy, the working class, into insignificance, or so it thinks, people believe that the new dispossessed poor becomes the vanguard new class. What's new about it?! The dispossessed will unite with the proletariat whether it be native born or immigrant in this fight for communist revolution for it will take the working class to de-thrown capitalism. Or have we all revised that Marxist concept? Or, even leaving Marxism aside, where in the world has the dispossessed led a communist revolution separate from the working class? People will work and enjoy leisure time and become scientists and artists and doctors and technicians and whatever we'll need to survive among each other, but no one will put up with and idle man enjoying the fruits of others. Unless we believe that communism is so far out that by the time we get there the Matrix Revolution will have taken over. f580 ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] new class or not new class, that is the question.
Where in Rally Comrades is it stated that productive capital exists totally independent of speculative fiance? my comment: Productive capital is separate from speculative capital. Speculative capital is separate from commercial capital. These capitals are separate but interdependent. WL: Where does it state in Rally Comrades that the production of surplus value no longer exists? my comment: Rally Comrades and the new class concept proclaims that production without labor has began to take over capitalist production. That is like saying: production without surplus value has created a new class. Rally Comrades and perhaps WL believe that it still must exist somewhere. WL: Rally Comrades is bigger than you and I. It is obvious that Mark, you and I enjoy the paper and our disputes are rather petty and individual, from the standpoint of the actual articles in Rally - that we all claim to support. Then there is the issue of unity of material action. my comment: No sir!!! I will never abandon my class to idlers who believe that they have replaced the revolutionary proletariat. You are funny. No where will idlers lead a proletarian revolution. The dispossessed will follow the lead of the WORKING proletariat of all industries. I see it happening now. [more on this later] May the struggle continue Down with the Speculators and War Mongers All Power to the Proletariat Forward to the Emancipation of Labor f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com wrote: From: frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com Subject: [MLL] new class or not new class, that is the question. To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 3:01 PM Dear comrades, Sorry, but the League is NOT a Marxist organization although there are Marxist within it, Unless they have changed back to being Marxist since I was last there. That is because its politics cannot be called Marxist. The new class concept, I perceive, as reactionary. To me it is quite simple. The dispossessed is NOT a new revolutionary class. It is part of the proletariat and allied to it. The dispossessed is the result of decaying capitalism and not the beginnings of an idle proletariat of the future. We are not now IN nor will we see anytime soon mass production without workers. In fact millions of immigrant workers come to the USA to work. The capitalist class introduces advanced technology to render the proletariat superfluous and insignificant in that it may reduce its subsistence way below its cost. Meanwhile this same bourgeoisie will exploit workers a la lower organic composition in China and India. etc. This new class will not be idle during the first stage of economic communism while others do the work as some League advocates presume. The Leagues' position on the working class making over $25,000 / year puts the class as conservative and symbiotic, if you will, to capitalism. The League considers this higher paid sector NOT revolutionary. This position splits the class and assumes and antagonistic posture. Mind you, that this very contingent of the proletariat is becoming impoverished yet not within the ranks of the dispossessed. The peasantry was indeed the majority during the russian and chinese revolutions and most were dispossessed and miserable and yet the small proletariat became the leader of the revolution because the future economic society was to be that of capitalist wage labor or revolutionary emancipated labor. Either way the productive forces needed to be developed and very quickly or else counter revolution would succeed. The peasantry had either to be converted into communist workers or its petty bourgeois aspirations and conditions jeopardize socialist construction. Well, the bolsheviks did not eliminate the peasantry since it became an ally of the proletariat and it decided to socialize the peasantry into collective farms. That proved to be a problematic minor clash of class relations but the revolution continued. I say that either socialism peacefully transforms the peasantry into communist workers or capitalism will will transform the peasantry into proletarians. Now that capitalism is in decay and forced to render its archenemy, the working class, into insignificance, or so it thinks, people believe that the new dispossessed poor becomes the vanguard new class. What's new about it?! The dispossessed will unite with the proletariat whether it be native born or immigrant in this fight for communist revolution for it will take the working class to de-thrown capitalism. Or have we all revised that Marxist concept? Or, even leaving Marxism aside, where in the world has the dispossessed led a communist revolution separate from the working class? People will work and enjoy leisure time and become scientists and artists and doctors and technicians and
Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward
WL: Where in any Rally articles does the League call anyone making more than $25,000 conservative? my comment: Honest League members will concur with this statement as being true, for I have read it numerous times and in fact it was my reason for breaking with the League. It was said and written that this sector of the proletariat was symbiotic with capitalism and therefore not revolutionary!!! I don't lie mister. If the League has since then changed its position then let them make a honorable self criticism. But we don't need to go too far. You claim to be an advocate of the LRNA and its politics. I ask YOU. 1. What revolutionary role do workers in any industry earning over $25, 000 / year hold? 2. Is the old working class different than the dispossessed new class? 3. What is the difference between the immigrant workers and the new class? 5. Are the immigrant workers part of the new class? 6. What is the difference between immigrant workers and those workers earning over $ 25,000/ year? [I mean politically and not wage wise] 7. Will the dispossessed become workers in economic communism? 8. Who will work in the era of economic communism? Answer these questions, please, like the League would. I thank you. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] Grasp the Key Link, Pull the Whole Chain Forward To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 7:14 AM In a message dated 3/25/2010 4:28:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Yes. The LRNA articles and editorials are excellent. I was a member of the League and my struggle with them was this: What role does the old proletariat play in this revolution; that is, that section of the class not dispossessed, still working and creating surplus value, is it symbiotic with capitalism, is it reactionary? The League claims that it is. The dispossessed are the new class, according to the League, and that its politics are objectively communistic as opposed to that of the old working sector, who wages above, let's say $25,000, is a conservative sector. Comment We had such a discussion some years ago. I would rely upon the articles in Rally rather than the opinion of individuals, including myself. 60% of the American working class makes $14 an hour and less or before taxes $560 a week and 29,120 working 52 weeks a year. The new starting wage in auto for new workers is $14 an hour with no defined pension plan.. What was a more than less conservative economic-political middle is being transformed into fighting sector of the class. LZRNA has traced and followed this process - in detail, since at least 1979. Somewhere, I have the exact 1979 article passed out at the factories concerning the new features of capitalist crisis. Note: 1979 factory newsletter. LRNA has never neglected the workers in large scale industry. Never. They are flexible and deploy a concept of that section of the proletariat in motion. Where in any Rally articles does the League call anyone making more than $25,000 conservative? I am a retired auto worker with a pension that is roughly $15.50 an hour AFTER TAXES. There is plenty of room for me in LRNA. The key is unity of action rather than unity based on theoretical concepts. Rally does in fact describe the specific role of auto workers who are hardly the most poverty stricken workers. We have more in common than our individual conceptions. Unity is always paramount. Trust the articles in Rally rather than individual interpretation. My vision of communism is just that: my vision. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
[MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Why is the New Class Revolutionary? from the Editorial Board RALLY COMRADES [Excerpt] .Industrialization brought about a great social revolution in Europe and America; however it did not go far enough and deep enough to bring about the kind of political revolution that could lead to the elimination of private property. Why? We think that since all the social elements that overthrew the political shell of feudalism (or in America, chattel slavery) were within capitalist society, they were restricted to reforming that system – no matter how militant the struggle. The industrial workers were in antagonism with feudalism and slavery because they were external to that system. They were in contradiction to the capitalists because they were inside that system. Industry got bigger, manufacturing and agriculture got smaller. The existing elements were re-arranged, but nothing was extracted or added. Therefore, the quality could not change. The industrial revolution changed the productive forces – i.e., the means of production and the resultant skills of the working class — but could not change the mode of production, which remained capitalist. A social force capable of such a change must be outside capitalist society and antagonistic to it. True to the dialectic, electronics itself is creating this force. As more and more production is taken over by electronics, the displaced workers are forced into lower and lower paying jobs and many of them end up in the growing mass of permanently unemployed. Today over a third of the work force is unemployed, contingency, parttime or temporary workers. A huge section works at or below minimum wage. They are forming a new class that has few or no ties to capital. This class is revolutionary because it is increasingly outside of and hostile to the wages system. It is revolutionary because it cannot fight the individual employer – it must fight the state. It is revolutionary because robotics makes it impossible for them to co-exist with private property. The only way for them to prevent these gigantic means of production from crushing them is to make them public property. We hope our ongoing statements on the new class will become the basis of discussion and inquiry. It is sorely lacking in the American Left. As in all social transitions, we revolutionaries will have a small and very temporary window of opportunity. If we do not understand the historical line of march and have not worked out a strategy of transition, that window will close. http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed2art4.html Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
[MLL] Questions answered
1. What revolutionary role do workers in any industry earning over $25, 000 / year hold? Lets make this real and take me for example and all my comrades who did 20 to 40 years in auto. We are genuine leaders of the revolutionary tradition and elements of the proletariat. Everyone we recruit is educated and trained without distinction to income. If you make $65,000 or $80,000 a year, you are educated in the exact same literature, using the exact same copies of Rally Comrades ad writing of Marx and Engels. We use the exact same study guide if you make $80,000 or are unemployed. The specific magnitude of the various layers of the proletariat won to the cause of communism and revolution are generally not known in advance. The specific revolutionary role of the workers in any industry earning over $25,000 a year will be exactly the same as any other revolutionary workers won to the cause of communism and revolution. 2. Is the old working class different than the dispossessed new class? Yes. And not just the dispossessed sector. The old working class is the proletariat that expanded and took shape on the basis of the system of Fordism. This old working class emerged on the basis of a quantitative development of the industrial means of production. Say,1914, the first year after Ford began the $5 wage. This form of the working class expanded and began peaking in the mid 1950‘s, and was first registered as a shift in the ratio between white and blue collars workers. The new form of the working class displaced an old form of the working class. I have in front of me Robert G. Moreo’s paper Before the Riot: The economic forces of Urban deindustrialization in Post-War Detroit - 1945 to 1967. December 21, 2009. Moreo, of Wayne State University describes what Rally Comrades described in 1989: the technological advance and its impact on the working class. If I get some time I will scan the entire report and put it on line. It is very good. The old form of the working class before Fordism, was defined by its craft character imprinted onto it by the material configuration of the productive forces. These craft workers, their skills and their craft unionism were sublated. Everyone knows the form of the working class changes. The working class born of and developing in relationship to and deploying new means of production is also an aspect of the new class and the dispossessed proletarians, to the degree they are marginalized and laid off and face falling wages. Absolutely the new form of the working class is different than the old form of the working class.. What has not changes is the property signature that cast the working class proletariat. The old form of the working class is different than the dispossessed new class of proletarians; different than the new class of employed proletarians, and different from the poverty stricken employed workers. Yes, Yes Yes, and this is pretty obvious. 3. What is the difference between the immigrant workers and the new class? Many immigrants becomes part of the new class in all its economic layers and stratification. Perhaps I have misunderstood what is being asked. Please reformulate. 5. Are the immigrant workers part of the new class? The new class, and the new form of the working class cuts across every layer of the working class, from the most poverty stricken to the higher paid. The new class of workers are called new in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. If you are an immigrant you are going to occupy some strata within the working class, 6. What is the difference between immigrant workers and those workers earning over $ 25,000/ year? [I mean politically and not wage wise] I do not really understand the question. By immigrant workers you mean recent arrivals in America, fist generation or second? In America we have a hereditary proletariat. Does this means their form of consciousness? Much depended upon from which country these workers arrive. The workers from Venezuela absolutely love our educational forums and are outspoken in stating this is what we are missing back home. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America have varying degree of consciousness, without regard to documented and undocumented. .I did notice that a couple of young people from Columbia had a very sharp grasp of economic relations, but do not know or understand the condition for their sharp economic observations. . 7. Will the dispossessed become workers in economic communism? No one becomes a worker under economic communism. You question is thus: will the individual contribute their labor to society. Yes. Every individual become an associated producer of something, include watching ones neighborhood, baby sitting singing and dancing, studying higher education including studying as a lifetime pursuit. No one becomes a
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
In a message dated 3/25/2010 6:53:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 Comment The issue of antagonism and its meaning goes but to Lenin criticism of Bukharin for mistaking antagonism for contradiction. . . The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. Here is how the Marxist Glossary in progress describes matters. Do you agree? If not why? Class antagonism: the dialectic : The decay of feudalism and transition to capitalism shows two distinct form of change: class struggle as contradiction and class struggle as antagonism. I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the nobility provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of wealth is landed property. The political and social structures were based on monarchy or the King and Queen as ruler with their courts of civil servants and in Europe the Church as a powerful land owner. II. The serf struggled in contradiction - not antagonism, with the landowner and nobility. The slow introduction of manufacturing meant the introduction of new tools and a new division of labor in society. These new productive forces drove the growth of towns of people separating them from thousands of years of living off the land; previously trapped in the ritual culture and custom of feudal society. Trade created and enlarged the towns. The struggle of the towns and towns people for cheap food from the countryside, against privately own trade routes cutting across land controlled by lords; for a market for their goods was a sharp clash of classes or the struggle between towns and countryside. The rising bourgeoisie represented the town and the feudalist the countryside. This kind of class struggle expressed the antagonism between new and old classes. III. Feudal relations, contradictory to the manual labor of the serf striving to better his family life, faced a new danger - antagonism, in the towns and the process of large scale mechanization possible with the steam engine. Feudal society was founded on manual labor and was overthrown by new social forces - classes, created by mechanical labor. This took place as a sharp struggle involving all the classes of the old and new society with the new classes of modern worker and capitalist fighting for revolutionary change or a qualitatively different kind of society. In dialectics connections - interactivity, are a special kind of relations between and within things. Marxists search out and unravel these connections to describe and understand the self movement of what is being examined. Through the landed property relations the serf and his labor was connected with nobility as land owners. This interactive relationship, connection, as the point of production defines feudalism and class contradiction. Not so with the rising merchant capitalist and proletariat. They did not have the same kind of connection with nobility, serf or the land. They are not and do not express the contradiction of feudal society. The merchant capitalist and rising capitalists, as a class, shares no connection or interactive relations with the nobility or serf as the unity of bourgeois commodity production. The proletariat as a class, shares no connection or interactive relations with the nobility or serf as the unity of commodity production. Rather, capitalists and proletarians constituted a new unity of production; a new production relation operating within feudal soci ety but outside the property relations of feudalism They are outside the system. (see system) There is a connection between all the old and new classes but not interactivity as the production process. This connection takes place in the evolving market place where things are brought and sold. The nobility purchases and consumes products created outside the landed property relations or commodities the serf’s labor does not create. Thus, these class exist and intermingle external to one another. The struggle of the new classes against the old is that of external collision within a dying social order. This form of class collision - struggle, is called class antagonism. IV. Contradictions of the old society - the struggle between serf and nobility, were superseded by antagonism, or superseded by the external collision of new classes unable to fit
Re: [MLL] LRNA, A NEW CLASS: DEFINITION
In a message dated 3/25/2010 8:30:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: These new strata of workers and this new permanently unemployed are the result of the introduction of electronics into the workplace. They are a new class. my comment: Do I need say anymore? f580 Comment Great quote. These new strata of workers and . . . . Who and what is These new strata of workers ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
No. I don't agree with your or LRNA new class concept. It is reactionary. It will provoke antagonistic reaction within the class. You split them apart, not I. The dispossessed [and NOT the lumpen], unemployed workers, marginal workers, immigrant workers, part time workers, migrant workers, are the class of proletarians; any attempt to separate them strategically from organized labor [not reactionary labor aristocrat], to form a front led by the permanently unemployed is asking for trouble and may be tantamount to treason. Our slogan remains: THE WORKERS UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!! While the LEAGUE may mean well, and their articles are very communistic, they best seriously consider this reactionary new class concept for it will not hold water amongst the proletariat, immigrant or not. You are beginning to babble. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:32 PM In a message dated 3/25/2010 6:53:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 Comment The issue of antagonism and its meaning goes but to Lenin criticism of Bukharin for mistaking antagonism for contradiction. . . The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. Here is how the Marxist Glossary in progress describes matters. Do you agree? If not why? Class antagonism: the dialectic : The decay of feudalism and transition to capitalism shows two distinct form of change: class struggle as contradiction and class struggle as antagonism. I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the nobility provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of wealth is landed property. The political and social structures were based on monarchy or the King and Queen as ruler with their courts of civil servants and in Europe the Church as a powerful land owner. II. The serf struggled in contradiction - not antagonism, with the landowner and nobility. The slow introduction of manufacturing meant the introduction of new tools and a new division of labor in society. These new productive forces drove the growth of towns of people separating them from thousands of years of living off the land; previously trapped in the ritual culture and custom of feudal society. Trade created and enlarged the towns. The struggle of the towns and towns people for cheap food from the countryside, against privately own trade routes cutting across land controlled by lords; for a market for their goods was a sharp clash of classes or the struggle between towns and countryside. The rising bourgeoisie represented the town and the feudalist the countryside. This kind of class struggle expressed the antagonism between new and old classes. III. Feudal relations, contradictory to the manual labor of the serf striving to better his family life, faced a new danger - antagonism, in the towns and the process of large scale mechanization possible with the steam engine. Feudal society was founded on manual labor and was overthrown by new social forces - classes, created by mechanical labor. This took place as a sharp struggle involving all the classes of the old and new society with the new classes of modern worker and capitalist fighting for revolutionary change or a qualitatively different kind of society. In dialectics connections - interactivity, are a special kind of relations between and within things. Marxists search out and unravel these connections to describe and understand the self movement of what is being examined. Through the landed property relations the serf and his labor was connected with nobility as land owners. This interactive relationship, connection, as the point of production defines feudalism and class contradiction. Not so with the rising merchant capitalist and proletariat. They did not have the same kind of connection with nobility, serf or the land. They are not and do not express the contradiction of feudal society. The merchant capitalist and rising capitalists, as a class, shares no connection or interactive relations with the nobility or serf as the unity of bourgeois commodity production. The
Re: [MLL] LRNA, A NEW CLASS: DEFINITION
Great quote indeed!! These new strata of workers are explained in the quote as on the other hand. They are potential new class recruits. Almost there but not quite. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, A NEW CLASS: DEFINITION To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:35 PM In a message dated 3/25/2010 8:30:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: These new strata of workers and this new permanently unemployed are the result of the introduction of electronics into the workplace. They are a new class. my comment: Do I need say anymore? f580 Comment Great quote. These new strata of workers and . . . . Who and what is These new strata of workers ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Comrade WL, You stated in response to Comrade f580: The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. In this we agree 100%. At one point years ago I objected to the use of new class until I realized the dialectics of it in these terms of relatiosnhip to the new means or mode of production. The obstacle to this is in the thinking that somehow it replaces the working-class which it doesn't. The working-class is the working-class and it matters not whether the worker is actually employed by the capitalist or is unemployed because of the capitalist which determines whether or not he advances the technology and mode of production. The industrial proletariat, or the industrial working-class is becoming a shrinking phenomenon because the large factories that employed thousands of workers are shutting down operations or advancing their mode of production with electronics and this displaces workers by the thousands almost daily. This advancement of technology that is responsible for the replacement of workers by electronic and mechanical means, while displacing workers, does not deny the existence of the working-class - it merely creates new conditions of exploitation, thus, it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. This can be possibly somewhat confusing to some but as you mentioned it is Marxism 101. Fraternally Mark Scott From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 9:32:49 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM In a message dated 3/25/2010 6:53:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 Comment The issue of antagonism and its meaning goes but to Lenin criticism of Bukharin for mistaking antagonism for contradiction. . . The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. Here is how the Marxist Glossary in progress describes matters. Do you agree? If not why? Class antagonism: the dialectic : The decay of feudalism and transition to capitalism shows two distinct form of change: class struggle as contradiction and class struggle as antagonism. I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the nobility provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of wealth is landed property. The political and social structures were based on monarchy or the King and Queen as ruler with their courts of civil servants and in Europe the Church as a powerful land owner. II. The serf struggled in contradiction - not antagonism, with the landowner and nobility. The slow introduction of manufacturing meant the introduction of new tools and a new division of labor in society. These new productive forces drove the growth of towns of people separating them from thousands of years of living off the land; previously trapped in the ritual culture and custom of feudal society. Trade created and enlarged the towns. The struggle of the towns and towns people for cheap food from the countryside, against privately own trade routes cutting across land controlled by lords; for a market for their goods was a sharp clash of classes or the struggle between towns and countryside. The rising bourgeoisie represented the town and the feudalist the countryside. This kind of class struggle expressed the antagonism between new and old classes. III. Feudal relations, contradictory to the manual labor of the serf striving to better his family life, faced a new danger - antagonism, in the towns and the process of large scale mechanization possible with the steam engine. Feudal society was founded on manual labor and was overthrown by new social forces - classes, created by mechanical labor. This took place as a sharp struggle involving all the classes of the old and new society with the new classes of modern worker and capitalist fighting for revolutionary change or a qualitatively different
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
OUR' is the workers I march with. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:56 PM In a message dated 3/25/2010 8:52:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Our slogan remains: THE WORKERS UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!! Comment Who is Our? With all due respect I thought you spoke for yourself without organizational affiliations. Hey, the workers united is a good thing. I understand your opinion. WL. ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Comrade Scott, I think that this point of yours can be taken to a higher logical conclusion, if I may: .it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. There are indeed workers all over the world and here in USA being trained to handle and produce the new means of production in the era of electronics. They are the technical and newly skilled workers and they are not stupid and they do production too. Will comrade WL and the LEAGUE deem this new technological worker as reactionary? Are they not the workers created by the new means of production? Dialectical and Historical Materialism can answer that question. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:58 PM Comrade WL, You stated in response to Comrade f580: The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. In this we agree 100%. At one point years ago I objected to the use of new class until I realized the dialectics of it in these terms of relatiosnhip to the new means or mode of production. The obstacle to this is in the thinking that somehow it replaces the working-class which it doesn't. The working-class is the working-class and it matters not whether the worker is actually employed by the capitalist or is unemployed because of the capitalist which determines whether or not he advances the technology and mode of production. The industrial proletariat, or the industrial working-class is becoming a shrinking phenomenon because the large factories that employed thousands of workers are shutting down operations or advancing their mode of production with electronics and this displaces workers by the thousands almost daily. This advancement of technology that is responsible for the replacement of workers by electronic and mechanical means, while displacing workers, does not deny the existence of the working-class - it merely creates new conditions of exploitation, thus, it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. This can be possibly somewhat confusing to some but as you mentioned it is Marxism 101. Fraternally Mark Scott From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 9:32:49 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM In a message dated 3/25/2010 6:53:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 Comment The issue of antagonism and its meaning goes but to Lenin criticism of Bukharin for mistaking antagonism for contradiction. . . The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. Here is how the Marxist Glossary in progress describes matters. Do you agree? If not why? Class antagonism: the dialectic : The decay of feudalism and transition to capitalism shows two distinct form of change: class struggle as contradiction and class struggle as antagonism. I. Localized manual labor with the serf working the land for the nobility provided the economic based for feudalism. The primary form of wealth is landed property. The political and social structures were based on monarchy or the King and Queen as ruler with their courts of civil servants and in Europe the Church as a powerful land owner. II. The serf struggled in contradiction - not antagonism, with the landowner and nobility. The slow introduction of manufacturing meant the introduction of new tools and a new division of labor in society. These new productive forces drove the growth of towns of people separating them from thousands of years of living off the land; previously trapped in the ritual culture and custom of feudal society.
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Comrade f580, I am unclear as to how you arrive at the conclusion that LRNA, would or does, consider a worker as reactionary. I do not like he said/she said arguements and had no intention of relating a conversation I had with a member of the editorial staff that is my best friend, however, I did have such a conversation today to clarify some misconceptions made in previous arguements relating to a different subject. From my own experience with LRNA I know without doubt that LRNA does not consider any worker per se as reactionary so all I can say is that perhaps you have either misread or misinterpreted something as I did when I first began reading their position on electronics and the new class. I would be willing to take some time to read the material you question if you post the exact references you are refering to and if there are discrepanicies I will further inquire to the editorial staff such discrepancies for their clarification. All I can say at the moment without reading exactly what you are refering to is that I will not support anyone or any group that would consider a worker as reactionary simply based on their relationship to the means or mode of production as that of a wage laborer. Can you post exactly the references you are commenting on? Fraternally Mark Scott From: frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 10:25:21 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM Comrade Scott, I think that this point of yours can be taken to a higher logical conclusion, if I may: .it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. There are indeed workers all over the world and here in USA being trained to handle and produce the new means of production in the era of electronics. They are the technical and newly skilled workers and they are not stupid and they do production too. Will comrade WL and the LEAGUE deem this new technological worker as reactionary? Are they not the workers created by the new means of production? Dialectical and Historical Materialism can answer that question. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:58 PM Comrade WL, You stated in response to Comrade f580: The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. In this we agree 100%. At one point years ago I objected to the use of new class until I realized the dialectics of it in these terms of relatiosnhip to the new means or mode of production. The obstacle to this is in the thinking that somehow it replaces the working-class which it doesn't. The working-class is the working-class and it matters not whether the worker is actually employed by the capitalist or is unemployed because of the capitalist which determines whether or not he advances the technology and mode of production. The industrial proletariat, or the industrial working-class is becoming a shrinking phenomenon because the large factories that employed thousands of workers are shutting down operations or advancing their mode of production with electronics and this displaces workers by the thousands almost daily. This advancement of technology that is responsible for the replacement of workers by electronic and mechanical means, while displacing workers, does not deny the existence of the working-class - it merely creates new conditions of exploitation, thus, it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. This can be possibly somewhat confusing to some but as you mentioned it is Marxism 101. Fraternally Mark Scott From: waistli...@aol.com waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 9:32:49 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM In a message dated 3/25/2010 6:53:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Comrade Scott, I quoted here from the LEAGUE, RALLY COMRADES the relevant articles defining the new class and its relations with the rest of the proletariat. I could quote more, if I need too. If the new class is revolutionary because they are outside the system [which they're not] and organized labor is, let's say, not prone to overthrow capitalism because they're INSIDE the system, wouldn't that cause a bit of friction between the factions, theoretically speaking? If the LRNA considers all sectors of the class, except, perhaps the labor aristocracy, or the labor hacks, as revolutionary, then good for us. Labor united! f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 9:40 PM Comrade f580, I am unclear as to how you arrive at the conclusion that LRNA, would or does, consider a worker as reactionary. I do not like he said/she said arguements and had no intention of relating a conversation I had with a member of the editorial staff that is my best friend, however, I did have such a conversation today to clarify some misconceptions made in previous arguements relating to a different subject. From my own experience with LRNA I know without doubt that LRNA does not consider any worker per se as reactionary so all I can say is that perhaps you have either misread or misinterpreted something as I did when I first began reading their position on electronics and the new class. I would be willing to take some time to read the material you question if you post the exact references you are refering to and if there are discrepanicies I will further inquire to the editorial staff such discrepancies for their clarification. All I can say at the moment without reading exactly what you are refering to is that I will not support anyone or any group that would consider a worker as reactionary simply based on their relationship to the means or mode of production as that of a wage laborer. Can you post exactly the references you are commenting on? Fraternally Mark Scott From: frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 10:25:21 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM Comrade Scott, I think that this point of yours can be taken to a higher logical conclusion, if I may: .it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. There are indeed workers all over the world and here in USA being trained to handle and produce the new means of production in the era of electronics. They are the technical and newly skilled workers and they are not stupid and they do production too. Will comrade WL and the LEAGUE deem this new technological worker as reactionary? Are they not the workers created by the new means of production? Dialectical and Historical Materialism can answer that question. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:58 PM Comrade WL, You stated in response to Comrade f580: The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with class struggle - private property, you are going to have a new class emergence in union with the new means of production and in antagonism with the old relations of production. This is pretty much Marxism 101. In this we agree 100%. At one point years ago I objected to the use of new class until I realized the dialectics of it in these terms of relatiosnhip to the new means or mode of production. The obstacle to this is in the thinking that somehow it replaces the working-class which it doesn't. The working-class is the working-class and it matters not whether the worker is actually employed by the capitalist or is unemployed because of the capitalist which determines whether or not he advances the technology and mode of production. The industrial proletariat, or the industrial working-class is becoming a shrinking phenomenon because the large factories that employed thousands of workers are shutting down operations or advancing their mode of production with electronics and this displaces workers by the thousands almost daily. This advancement of technology that is
Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Comrade f580, You stated: If the LRNA considers all sectors of the class, except, perhaps the labor aristocracy, or the labor hacks, as revolutionary, then good for us. Labor united! I assure you this is their position. What I am asking for is can you give me the exact article name or link to the articles in which you are quoting and then I will look them up and read them and get back to you as this may save you alot of time in terms of copying and pasting whole articles. I need to read the articles in their entirety in order to comment because I think there is some misunderstanding in the reading of the article(s) as I know for a fact that LRNA will not nor does not consider any member of the working class as reactionary except for those you mention above. Fraternally Mark Scott From: frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 10:54:07 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM Comrade Scott, I quoted here from the LEAGUE, RALLY COMRADES the relevant articles defining the new class and its relations with the rest of the proletariat. I could quote more, if I need too. If the new class is revolutionary because they are outside the system [which they're not] and organized labor is, let's say, not prone to overthrow capitalism because they're INSIDE the system, wouldn't that cause a bit of friction between the factions, theoretically speaking? If the LRNA considers all sectors of the class, except, perhaps the labor aristocracy, or the labor hacks, as revolutionary, then good for us. Labor united! f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 9:40 PM Comrade f580, I am unclear as to how you arrive at the conclusion that LRNA, would or does, consider a worker as reactionary. I do not like he said/she said arguements and had no intention of relating a conversation I had with a member of the editorial staff that is my best friend, however, I did have such a conversation today to clarify some misconceptions made in previous arguements relating to a different subject. From my own experience with LRNA I know without doubt that LRNA does not consider any worker per se as reactionary so all I can say is that perhaps you have either misread or misinterpreted something as I did when I first began reading their position on electronics and the new class. I would be willing to take some time to read the material you question if you post the exact references you are refering to and if there are discrepanicies I will further inquire to the editorial staff such discrepancies for their clarification. All I can say at the moment without reading exactly what you are refering to is that I will not support anyone or any group that would consider a worker as reactionary simply based on their relationship to the means or mode of production as that of a wage laborer. Can you post exactly the references you are commenting on? Fraternally Mark Scott From: frankenstein580 frankied...@yahoo.com To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 10:25:21 PM Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM Comrade Scott, I think that this point of yours can be taken to a higher logical conclusion, if I may: .it creates the new class in relationship to the new means or mode of production based on the emergence of electronics. There are indeed workers all over the world and here in USA being trained to handle and produce the new means of production in the era of electronics. They are the technical and newly skilled workers and they are not stupid and they do production too. Will comrade WL and the LEAGUE deem this new technological worker as reactionary? Are they not the workers created by the new means of production? Dialectical and Historical Materialism can answer that question. f580 --- On Thu, 3/25/10, Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Mark Scott mark1scot...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [MLL] LRNA, WHY THE NEW CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY... OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM To: For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010, 8:58 PM Comrade WL, You stated in response to Comrade f580: The new class is new because it evolves in relationship to qualitatively new means of production. Where ever and when ever qualitatively new means of production appear in a society rent with
[MLL] RE-POST
Here is the re-post on the INSIDE- OUTSIDE matter. Would you share your thoughts on this, please. I asked whether the LEAGUE would deem the INSIDER sector of the working class reactionary being, in my words, that its not prone to overthrow capitalism as the dispossessed would. Note that poor workers, immigrant, part time, marginal, would be INSIDERS. You say to trust you that the LEAGUE would not regard any sector of the proletariat reactionary, except the aristocracy of labor and labor hacks. Good! Now, does the LEAGUE posit the industrial proletariat and organized labor as revolutionary? f580 Why is the New Class Revolutionary? from the Editorial Board RALLY COMRADES [Excerpt] .Industrialization brought about a great social revolution in Europe and America; however it did not go far enough and deep enough to bring about the kind of political revolution that could lead to the elimination of private property. Why? We think that since all the social elements that overthrew the political shell of feudalism (or in America, chattel slavery) were within capitalist society, they were restricted to reforming that system – no matter how militant the struggle. The industrial workers were in antagonism with feudalism and slavery because they were external to that system. They were in contradiction to the capitalists because they were inside that system. Industry got bigger, manufacturing and agriculture got smaller. The existing elements were re-arranged, but nothing was extracted or added. Therefore, the quality could not change. The industrial revolution changed the productive forces – i.e., the means of production and the resultant skills of the working class — but could not change the mode of production, which remained capitalist. A social force capable of such a change must be outside capitalist society and antagonistic to it. True to the dialectic, electronics itself is creating this force. As more and more production is taken over by electronics, the displaced workers are forced into lower and lower paying jobs and many of them end up in the growing mass of permanently unemployed. Today over a third of the work force is unemployed, contingency, parttime or temporary workers. A huge section works at or below minimum wage. They are forming a new class that has few or no ties to capital. This class is revolutionary because it is increasingly outside of and hostile to the wages system. It is revolutionary because it cannot fight the individual employer – it must fight the state. It is revolutionary because robotics makes it impossible for them to co-exist with private property. The only way for them to prevent these gigantic means of production from crushing them is to make them public property. We hope our ongoing statements on the new class will become the basis of discussion and inquiry. It is sorely lacking in the American Left. As in all social transitions, we revolutionaries will have a small and very temporary window of opportunity. If we do not understand the historical line of march and have not worked out a strategy of transition, that window will close. http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed2art4.html Notice that the working class while antagonistic to feudalism because it was outside that system are merely in contradiction with capitalism since it is inside the system. f580 ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
