Communists do not have separate demands from various   
segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands  that  
the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined  the task and role  of 

CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity


Do you support the American invasion of Afghanistan? Do you support the  
demand of the antiwar movement to remove US troops from Afghanistan?

CB: No, I'm for urging the O admin
to modify their position, and
move to withdrawing from Afghanistan.


To speak of unemployment and the fight against it as the cornerstone of the  
communist polarity and will always be talked about on a Marxist list serv.

CB: No. I didn't say anywhere cornerstone
I specifically said as one of many

Here's what I said, explicitly _not_
unemployment comp as a "cornerstone":
"First of all this is not the
only one to cheer. There's
stem cell research. I don't know
why you never have anything to 
say about pay equity for working
women. There's  declaration of
out of Iraq, etc, etc. Part of winning
the future battles is rallying and
cheering for the wins we have already.
As Ravi on Pen-l said it's "rah,rah !"
rah rah we want a touchdown


the other hand I deeply respect those who are not communist and the  
non-communists have just as much of a right to put forth their views. I 
believe  the 
dividing line on a Marxist List serv is between communism and  anti-communism. 

The communist polarity in American society is objective. It is not a  
subjective disposition or ideology. Those sectors of the working class more 
less shut out of the civic society of the bourgeoisie are an objective 
formation, because their spontaneous demands are for socially necessary means 
of  life. In a word welfare. The fight for welfare is the communist polarity 
in  American society with a huge section of the working class slowly warming 
to the  idea that government must provide for the people when the free market 
capitalist  fails and it is failing big time. That is the communist polarity 
and it is going  to be talked about on a Marxist List serv.

CB: Staking out a communist polarity in
only one sector of the working class
contradicts the sections of the Manifesto
that _you_ quoted.
 You are " setting up  sectarian principles of your own, by which to shape  
and mould the proletarian movement."
Exactly what you pointed out Marx and
Engels recommended against.


 Communism is not to 
be understood as  an ideology but rather the historic movement of people - 
real human beings, that  emerged with the emergence of classes as a property 
expression, in human  history. As long as communism is understood as some kind 
conspiracy on the  part of individuals  . . . the bourgeois point of view, the 
deepening  revolution in the mode of production makes no sense. 

We have entered an era of revolution. 


CB: Correct. Don't raise aboltion of private property now. That's the  
ultimate goal,not the current line of march


"Don't raise abolition of private property now?"  I have absolutely no  idea 
what you are talking about. 

The statement is quite clear.


Abolition of private property is not a demand,  
reform or a concession to be sought from the bourgeoisie. . 

CB: It's a fundamental goal and aim of the
movement. Here it is in the Manifesto.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the
 abolition of property generally, but the abolition of 
bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property
 is the final and most complete expression of the 
system of producing and appropriating products,
 that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation 
of the many by the few. 
_In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be 
summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. _
(emphasis added -CB)
We Communists have been reproached with the
 desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring 
property as the fruit of a man’s own labour,
 which property is alleged to be the groundwork 
of all personal freedom, activity and independence. 
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! 
Do you mean the property of petty artisan and 
of the small peasant, a form of property that
 preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need
 to abolish that; the development of industry has 
to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. 
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? 
But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? 
Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property 
which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase
 except upon condition of begetting a new supply
 of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its 
present form, is based on the antagonism of capital
 and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. 
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, 
but a social status in production. Capital is a 
collective product, and only by the united action of
 many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the
 united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. 
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. 
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property,
 into the property of all members of society, personal 
property is not thereby transformed into social property. 
It is only the social character of the property that is changed.
 It loses its class character.


The line of march, in my opinion. is as I have described it for the  past 10 
years. The demands of the poorest workers is the line . . . as these  demands 
intersect with various layers of the working class. 

CB: It's one aspect of the line of march
The demands of the trade unions is
another.  Pay equity for women
workers is another. anti-war is another
Today, so is the profound need
to stop global warming.



Now, discussion of all of Marx projection and thinking is appropriate for a  
Marxist List serv. 

CB: Yes it is.  


There is of course a deeper issue and that is the communist approach to  work 
in the legislative and electoral arena. I have some direct experience in  
this arena, as well as negotiation with the representatives of institutional  
capital. Communist most certainly must volunteer or be assigned to this arena 
struggle. Most of our communist work is however non-electoral. 

CB: Well, it's electoral and lobbying. I wouldn't
say most of it is _not_ electoral, as
lobbying is linked to electoral.



CB; Sure but, we aren't there yet. The agenda of what is doable now is  being 
set by O. 

And by the way, over the last 30 years, the other "team" has built up a 49  
to 0 lead. So, we have to make a lot of touchdowns. You can't score 7 
touchdowns  on one play.


Interesting analogy.

We are to understand that the extension of unemployment benefit is not a  
concession but a touchdown.

CB: A first down on the way to a
touchdown. You  are, for some
reason , ignoring that I nowhere
said extension of unemployment
 benefits is the only task for 
working class struggle. That is
a fairly obvious strawman argument
on this thread. I've repeatedly mentioned
other issue goals before and after
mentioning unemployment benefits,
but for some reason you are fixating
on that and pretending liike it's
the only issue goal I have mentioned.
With everything recorded, it's
so easy to go back and show that
I have not at all


Brother, not very long ago you were cheerleading for communist to support  
the bank bailout plan and schemes to nationalize the banks, only to back off  
this position. 
CB: No I haven't cheerleaded the
bailout plan. In this context bailouts
are the opposite of nationalization.
So, you are mixing things up here.
I pointed out that nationalization is
part of the program of the Manifesto.
But it's a bit too good to be true
to think the current bailout proposals
are the same thing the Manifesto 



No matter how hard communists on various list screamed against  
the idea of nationalizing the banks you refused to listen. Apparently, in a  
moment of spiritual awakening to decided that maybe nationalizing banks is not 
bright idea, given the fact that there is no mathematical way to value 
assets or  even determine a rational model to stabilize the Ponzi schemes of 
bourgeoisie. Further, when asked how will this help the working class, no one  
could answer the question. 

CB: Nope. You aren't talking 
about me above; and you are mixing up bailouts
with nationalization. 

What I said specifically was if they can
give $8 trillion to the big banks,
they can give $8 to $16 trillion to
the People.  I proposed giving'
money to the people with mortgages.
I proposed marches on Wall Street.
And I haven't changed my mind 
on that.

You are thorooughly misremebering 
and misrepresenting what I said,
for the convenience of argument
You just beat another strawman.

You are trippin' bro.


What is wrong is a misunderstanding of capitalism,

CB: Not I

 this moment of deepening  
crisis and the meaning of concessions; and fights in the legislative and  
electoral arena. Simply defining what is taking place in the legislative 
arena  as 
the legislative arena, allows communists and Marxist to understand there is a 
larger field of social struggle. 

There is a profound misunderstanding of the legislative and electoral  arena. 

CB: Not by me. You
must be talking to someone else.


  First of all Obama does not set the agenda for what is  doable.

CB: Yeah, he and his
allies are the  main
ones who do that right now.


 Here does 
not even set the agenda. Even the most backwards trade union  leader knows that 
real life sets and creates the need for an agenda. What sets  the framework 
for what is doable is a complex intersection of class needs or  identity of 

CB: Right now O has
demonstrated that he is
the best interpreter and
artculator of that.  It is
not you and your polarity.


The needs of capital and the workers connected to capital as the social  
process, are expressed in the political sphere as the agenda that various  
sectarian factions within the ruling class address. What is doable arises as a  
social response to economic and social strife expressing the widening breach  
between the productive forces and the social relations of production as 
the  latter 
is destabilized by the former. Maintaining the unity between the latter  and 
the former dictates what is on the agenda as short term and long term goals  
for the ruling class. 

I am not bragging to state that early, the day after Obama was elected I  
wrote extensively on matters of unemployment, health care, housing and other  
needs of the working class - all layers, and what specific points are doable  
based on class intersection. The archives of this list and Pen-L: will prove  

CB: How would that
be something to brag about

The point is that the working class has not scored a touchdown at all. In  
fact the working class is being pushed back. One year form now we shall see 
we have to redouble are efforts in and most certainly outside the legislative 
arena just to stand still. 

CB: more like a couple of first downs.
Plus we need to score a score of
touchdowns. We have to win
a couple of regular season championships
and Super Bowls. 

Your logic is tragic. 

CB: You haven't demonstrated
the competence to make
that judgment.


Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to