In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:54:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the necessity of socialism > by Waistline2 > 22 February 2002 19:17 UTC > > > > > Melvin: > > On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met >some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at >their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had >assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal "Political Affairs" from the early or mid >1930s to 1963 or 64. > > I am always amazed at their lack of theortical depth. > > ^^^^^ > > CB: Hey, comrade, good to see the criticism/self-criticism. > > Is there a specific theoretical shallowness that you note in this article ? > > ^^^^^^ > > > > "A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge >challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence >it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices." > > This is an astonishing statement and nothing more than glorification of the old >Roosevelt Coalition. Fifty years ago the last quantitative expansion of capital was >underway that completed - more than less, the mechanization of agriculture and >realigned the social contract allowing a segment of industrial and state employee the >legal right to unionize. This was the era of the anti-colonial revolts and within our >country the emergence of the Civil Rights movement as political realignment to >stabilize the working of the productive forces. > > ^^^^^^^ > > CB: What I noticed when I looked back at what you quote is that it says "a century >ago " too. So , the time frame is more 1902 to 1952 which is more than the era of the >old (Franklin) Roosevelt Coalition. > > However, myself I would take a neo -Roosevelt Coalition today if we could build one. >I said so on this list. > > What also strikes me is that your programatic discussion for meeting basic economic >needs below seems very much to be a call for a Rooseveltian type Bill of Economic >Rights , as he called for in his last State of the Union address. One of his Four >Freedoms is Freedom from Want. Can you imagine getting an American President to call >for that today ! We would definitely be cooking with gas. > > The question I would raise is concerning the neo-Economist quality of confining >yourself to economic demands and issues. In other words, in _What is to be done_, >Lenin critcized the Mensheviks for confining working class concerns to economic >issues and demands alone, and not including political ( "ideological" ) issues for >the working class to concern itself with. He dubbed it Economism or trade unionism >pure and simple. In other words, when you say > > "The battle is not for ideology but food supplies based on ones family size, shelter >(rent subsidy), medical care, transportion, education for our diverse peoples based >on "needs" as opposed to place of employment or employment" > > this sounds Economistic. The battle IS for ideology and bread, both. Our job is to >raise class consciousness, no ? > > On the direct issue, surely the Roosevelt Coaltion was not formed because of the >influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt. On the contrary, it was precisely a social >movement of the working class - Unemployed Councils, Ford Hunger March, returning >evicted tenants to their housing, unionizing industrial plants,vast working class >struggle in the 20's and 30' - that forced Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head >off more radical change. So, Webb is accurate that there was a social movement behind >the changes 50 ( and 100) years ago. > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > > The social movement did not arise because of the brutal nature of capital. The >African American people for instance, have a record of sustained and unbroken >struggle against police violence, the hangman noose and horrible discrimination and >this struggle intersected with the needs of a sector of capital that allowed the >militant bravery and ingenuity of Montgomery Alabama to assume the proportions of a >mass movement. > > I cannot accuse Mr. Webb of lacking a Marxist approach to the working class since >that is not his claim. What are the quntitative boundaries that define the framework >of the various stages of the working class movement is an elementary question for >communist. > > I had an oppotunity to read and study the preconvention documents and one would >think that the increased polarization of wealth and poverty did not exist in America, >although millions have been added to the homeless, the list of those without medical >care, the list of those unable to properly feed their family and unable to afford >housing. > > It is not merely a question of captialism being "rent" but defining the specific >property of this phase of the decay of private property relations. One must always >start with an anaylsis of the economy and its quantitative and qualitative >dimensions. Electronic production and the increasingly digitalization of the >production process defines this era of capital and is the reason society is being >pulled from its foundation. > > The question is not how to raise socialism in a trade union meeting - as if the >trade unions were the majority of the working class, but rather how to raise the >demands for food, shelter, freash water, rent subsidy, medical care and >transportation on the basis of the most poverty stricken sector of the working class. >The question of police violence is very real for an increasing amoung of working >people. > > "Fight for socialism" remains without definition and socialism is a transition to >something else - a new law system of production. The battle is not for ideology but >food supplies based on ones family size, shelter (rent subsidy), medical care, >transportion, education for our diverse peoples based on "needs" as opposed to place >of employment or employment. Socialism means those who do not work shall not eat and >the productive forces that exist at this phase of history can provide for everyones >basic needs. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. > > It is high time to examine the old propositions, discard that which is outdated and >begin the slow task of organizing the working class on the basis of a program >expressing the needs of its most deprived sector, who from the standpoint of just >medical care, constitute at least 45 million. > > Melvin P. Pardon my typing error. The Communist Pary USA did not exist one hundred years ago and it should have stated half a century ago. Everyone must do what's in their heart. It you feel a neo-Roosevelt Coalition is the path forward - go for it. I undersstand Lenin's criticism differently. The Russian revolutionaries came to power on the basis of the slogan bread, land and peace. If you feel that we can effect change in American with the slogan socialism or political slogans "go for it." I prefer things like food, shelter, rent subsidy and other things that allow the inital formation of the working class into a class for itself. Economism was a criticism directed at work in the trade unions. I am no longer working within the trade union movement and want to try my hand at the labor movement in general. Perhaps in a day or two something on the totality of Sam Webb presentation forwarded to Pen and his preconvention presentation, although to my knowledge he is not claiming that his is a Marxist anaylsis. Am I mistaken? I would rather not engage anyone in lenght who is outside Marxism, by their own confession. Right or wrong I confess the method of Marx and Engels conclusions as the first General strategist for the proletarrian forces. Melvin P.
