--- Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Ballard wrote: > > > > > > No you silly boy. I mean that we have to engage > in > > the class struggle over the social product of > labour > > until we're strong enough to take it all i.e. > abolish > > the wages system. > > How does "we" get defined?
I define we as the people who are hired to produce the social wealth in the society--the working class. I define myself as a member of this class. > How are conflicts within that "we" (racism, sexism, > skill levels, income > differences, etc.) overcome? The way I see it, we will have to decide tactically how to deal with those strategic questions ourselves as we live. We will argue about our tactics, to be sure and we will decide who has the better idea about how to proceed. If we decide to organize ourselves democratically, from the grassroots up, our organization and power will grow along with our consciousness. > > How does one struggle _directly_ over "the social > product"? Usually through organized, co:ordinated efforts at one's place of employment. For instance, "If the employer doesn't give us more vacation time each year, we will either take vacation time on the job or withdraw our labour in some other way e.g. strike." To the degree that this organization become classwide, co:ordination and power and the acquisition of ownership and control of the wealth our class produces can increase. > How does struggle over the "product" (union > struggles?) increase "our" > strength? To the degree that we control and/or own the wealth we produce and as that control/ownership increases, we become more powerful and self-confident about the prospect that we can change things to make us freer. > How are strategic and tactical differences among > "us" resolved? Through debate and democratic decision making. Each person in the organization has an equal political share in the organization. > How does begging the DP for handouts increase "our" > strength? Begging doesn't help, it only tends to perpetuate a servile mentality. Only by being for ourselves, by insisting on our freedom, by recognizing our interests and the material interests of the employing class will always be at odds, by class conscious praxis do we get any of our social product back. The psychological dynamics which perpetuate the dialectic of lordship and bondage are inimical to the movement towards greater freedom and power for ourselves. > How do "we" know when we are strong enough? It depends on what we're doing. When we decide that our organizational strength is able to overturn the social relation of Capital as opposed to merely modifying the power relationships, the social revolution will be made. > What general procedures are involved in taking it > "all"? Those tactics will be worked out by the workers themselves in the particular circumstances they find themselves in at the time that they think they are able to accomplish that task. Personally, I prefer the tactic of organizing a classwide, classconscious union which I think would provide the power necessary to change social relations. > Do "we" proceed directly from capitalism to > abolition of the wages > system? It depends on how well we are organized, how well we have been able to incubate the new society through this organizing process, within the womb of the old one. > > How do "we" (in our hundreds of millions around the > world coordinate our > activities? I'd suggest an elected, global, classwide co:ordinating council which would carry out the mandates which were given to it by the various constituencies around the globe. Of course, I'm only one person and the concrete decisions on this sort of thing would be made by the grassroots, democratically organized majority--if they were accepting my point of view. How do you answer your questions? Regards, Mike B) ===== **************************************************************** But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the the essence...illusion only is *sacred*, truth *profane*. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. Ludwig Feuerbach Preface to the Second Edition of THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
