Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Yoshie: That's no reason to give up, unless you agree with Brad, Nathan, etc., which you don't. Give up on what? If you'll recall from the time you were on the Marxism list, Jose Perez explained that Marx and Engels were not always involved in party-building. Sometimes, especially during an ebb in the class struggle, they would concentrate on theorizing about the state of the movement and what to do next. It seems to me that both you Brad believe in the iron cage, though with different political reasons conclusions. If you believe in the iron cage, though, what's the point of being a socialist in America? Yoshie How did this turn into a question of being a socialist or not? I wouldn't spend $150 a month to maintain a Marxism mailing list if I was not a socialist. The issue is whether workers in the USA can be reached in significant numbers with a revolutionary message right now. I don't believe so. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Lou says: Marx and Engels were not always involved in party-building. Sometimes, especially during an ebb in the class struggle, they would concentrate on theorizing about the state of the movement and what to do next. Theorizing is absolutely important, but given the drift of the comments on American workers in some recent PEN-l posts, I'm afraid that some Marxists are often tempted to *theorize* American workers' revolutionary potential *out of the political window* -- unless the Second Coming of the Great Depression hits them, that is. If our hope lies only in things getting absolutely horrendous here, we might as well give up for the time being, watch capital's offensives against workers with our hands in the pockets (or our noses in the books, as the case may be), wait for the political Judgment Day or something like that. That would be at least a logical -- if politically unwise, in my view -- course of action. You don't actually believe, though, that nothing we do (except theorizing) matters in an ebb in the class struggle unless until a Great Depression comes, do you? It seems to me that both you Brad believe in the iron cage, though with different political reasons conclusions. If you believe in the iron cage, though, what's the point of being a socialist in America? Yoshie How did this turn into a question of being a socialist or not? I wouldn't spend $150 a month to maintain a Marxism mailing list if I was not a socialist. The issue is whether workers in the USA can be reached in significant numbers with a revolutionary message right now. I don't believe so. As I said, what is can will change, though there is no guarantee that change will be for better. That is true *with or without a Great Depression*. Meanwhile, we work on reforms while getting out a revolutionary message at the same time. Otherwise, we end up being not so different from Brad, Nathan, other supporters of the Democratic Party, except in our self image. Yoshie
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Yoshie: Theorizing is absolutely important, but given the drift of the comments on American workers in some recent PEN-l posts, I'm afraid that some Marxists are often tempted to *theorize* American workers' revolutionary potential *out of the political window* -- unless the Second Coming of the Great Depression hits them, that is. If our hope lies only in things getting absolutely horrendous here, we might as well give up for the time being, watch capital's offensives against workers with our hands in the pockets (or our noses in the books, as the case may be), wait for the political Judgment Day or something like that. That would be at least a logical -- if politically unwise, in my view -- course of action. You don't actually believe, though, that nothing we do (except theorizing) matters in an ebb in the class struggle unless until a Great Depression comes, do you? My beliefs have been made clear over the past 7 years or so on the Internet. Let me repeat them as briefly as possible: 1. The left has to develop a nonsectarian party-building model. It is not sufficient to work for socialism unless the "Leninist" model is dispensed with. 2. Indigenous peoples constitute a fault-line from Argentina to Alaska. Unless Marxism synthesizes indigenist demands into an overall class struggle framework, it will be less than effective as evidenced by Nicaragua and the Miskitos. In the USA, this means dispensing with social Darwinist attitudes toward native peoples. 3. The left has to focus heavily on international struggles such as the Central American revolutions of the 1980s. "Workerism" led groups like the SWP to focus on trade unions when most of the action was taking place on college campuses, churches, etc. 4. The most effective work in the trade union movement was done by the left-Shachtmanites, in the Teamsters in particular. Dan LaBotz's book is must reading for the left. As a precondition for doing effective work, the whole model of "intervention" has to be dispensed with. 5. All the academic crap that finds expression in Social Text, Rethinking Marxism, New Left Review, etc. has to be struggled against mercilessly just as Lenin fought against Bogdanov and Trotsky fought against James Burnham. This is the essence of my socialist beliefs. As I said, what is can will change, though there is no guarantee that change will be for better. That is true *with or without a Great Depression*. Meanwhile, we work on reforms while getting out a revolutionary message at the same time. Otherwise, we end up being not so different from Brad, Nathan, other supporters of the Democratic Party, except in our self image. Jeez, I didn't know that. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Meanwhile, we work on reforms while getting out a revolutionary message at the same time. Otherwise, we end up being not so different from Brad, Nathan, other supporters of the Democratic Party, except in our self image. But Yoshie, you aren't so different, at least from me. (I'll let Brad speak for himself). On day to day work in the community, I doubt 99% of people could distinguish much between us. We may have theoretical disagreements on some issues and strategic differences, but most of our core analysis - the class nature of history and struggle, the core importance of the racial divide, a core internationalism that defends the rights of immigrants and the global working class - is far more similar than different. You are the one who makes a fetish of the question of strategic support for the Democratic Party. But to excommunicate me as a revolutionary on that basis, you also have to retroactively excommunicate all communists and socialists who supported the Popular Front of Roosevelt and who have supported Democratic campaigns throughout the last fifty years, including all those socialist parties who promoted the Jackson campaign back in 1988. Justin and I disagree vehemently on the issue of the Democratic Party yet as lawyers are both involved in building up the National Lawyers Guild, a key legal defender of radicals since it's founding in 1937 and a core promoter of socialist values in the law. There is not some simple divide between "revolutionaries" and "social democrats" but a whole host of seperate organizational and strategic issues that radicals of good faith agree and disagree over. The search for Manichean divisions is a sectarian virus that would be better dispensed with, whether in its Leninist or anti-Communist versions. You may want to vote everyone off your theoretical revolutionary island on that basis, but I just think it's historically a silly thing to do. And very un-Marxist, since both Marx and Engels never made electoral political alliances a pure theoretical criterion but had a very practical view of supporting the parties where the working class was strongest, country by country. Without illusions of what Lincoln was all about, he was a strong supporter of him because he saw the critical nature of defeating slavery. So lesser-evilism is not some latter-day revisionism but derives directly from the Old Man himself.
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Nathan, I've just been calling for forgetting about 2000. But, just for the record, was it not the case that the CPUSA actually supported voting for Gore? Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: "Nathan Newman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: [PEN-L:9524] Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.) - Original Message - From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Meanwhile, we work on reforms while getting out a revolutionary message at the same time. Otherwise, we end up being not so different from Brad, Nathan, other supporters of the Democratic Party, except in our self image. But Yoshie, you aren't so different, at least from me. (I'll let Brad speak for himself). On day to day work in the community, I doubt 99% of people could distinguish much between us. We may have theoretical disagreements on some issues and strategic differences, but most of our core analysis - the class nature of history and struggle, the core importance of the racial divide, a core internationalism that defends the rights of immigrants and the global working class - is far more similar than different. You are the one who makes a fetish of the question of strategic support for the Democratic Party. But to excommunicate me as a revolutionary on that basis, you also have to retroactively excommunicate all communists and socialists who supported the Popular Front of Roosevelt and who have supported Democratic campaigns throughout the last fifty years, including all those socialist parties who promoted the Jackson campaign back in 1988. Justin and I disagree vehemently on the issue of the Democratic Party yet as lawyers are both involved in building up the National Lawyers Guild, a key legal defender of radicals since it's founding in 1937 and a core promoter of socialist values in the law. There is not some simple divide between "revolutionaries" and "social democrats" but a whole host of seperate organizational and strategic issues that radicals of good faith agree and disagree over. The search for Manichean divisions is a sectarian virus that would be better dispensed with, whether in its Leninist or anti-Communist versions. You may want to vote everyone off your theoretical revolutionary island on that basis, but I just think it's historically a silly thing to do. And very un-Marxist, since both Marx and Engels never made electoral political alliances a pure theoretical criterion but had a very practical view of supporting the parties where the working class was strongest, country by country. Without illusions of what Lincoln was all about, he was a strong supporter of him because he saw the critical nature of defeating slavery. So lesser-evilism is not some latter-day revisionism but derives directly from the Old Man himself.
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nathan, I've just been calling for forgetting about 2000. But, just for the record, was it not the case that the CPUSA actually supported voting for Gore? Barkley Rosser As Doug notes, essentially yes. Even among contemporary explicit Communists, the assertion that no real socialist supports the Dems is almost definitionally a sectarian position - which of course means that for all Lou calls for non-sectarianism, he continues to promote it. As I said, I wish we could just say that other leftists have poor analysis, are making the wrong assumptions, misjudging the facts, etc. rather than jumping to accusations of bad faith and counter-revolutionary intentions. One of my favorite slogans of all time comes from Robert Heinlein, who had a character argue, "Never assume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation." -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
As Doug notes, essentially yes. Even among contemporary explicit Communists, the assertion that no real socialist supports the Dems is almost definitionally a sectarian position - which of course means that for all Lou calls for non-sectarianism, he continues to promote it. I believe you have confused the term sectarian with revolutionary. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Doug, And with Gus Hall dead, they were lacking a candidate... Heck, if one wanted to protest, Nader was a wimp and so was even McReynolds. Might as well show how off the CPUSA is and vote for the SWP just to show how right "that prostitute Trotsky" is. And they even had enough votes in Florida to give it to Bush. The power!!! I have no comments on your (and my) yankee-centrism, but do note (for Paul Phillips' benefit) that both Poland and Slovenia avoided having noticeable increases in their Gini coefficients since 1989, in contrast to Russia, Ukraine, and even China, not to mention lots of other places. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9546] Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.) J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: I've just been calling for forgetting about 2000. But, just for the record, was it not the case that the CPUSA actually supported voting for Gore? I don't know if they ever actually came out and said that, but in the run-up to the election, the Peoples Weekly World was full of exhortations to "vote against the right" and "defeat Bush." The last few issues have been full of photos of Richard Gephardt and other revolutionary anti-capitalists. Hanging my head in shame over the Yankee-centric content of this post, Doug
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED] As Doug notes, essentially yes. Even among contemporary explicit Communists, the assertion that no real socialist supports the Dems is almost definitionally a sectarian position - which of course means that for all Lou calls for non-sectarianism, he continues to promote it. -I believe you have confused the term sectarian with revolutionary. No, Lou, you illustrate the definition of sectarianism, including the denial that you are one. Most sectarianism is born deploring the shortcomings of existing organizations as failing to match up to some ideal, thus explaining the failure of the prophet to join them. The fact that you argue for building such a party, yet are not involved in any existing left organization seeking to move them in your desired direction is exactly the problem. For all everyone on this list talks about the proper "line" of a socialist organization, almost none of them are members of one. So why should any socialist take your advice seriously. At least Justin makes his position clear as a member of Solidarity, a group I respect even if I disagree with them. I've noted that for all people talk about third party politics, I've actually probably done more campaigning for third party candidates than most of them. And at least in the last decade, I've been a member and in the leadership of explicit socialist organizations - a commitment to party building and solidarity that a lot of the abstract theorists of proper socialism on this list seem reluctant to make. No wonder the working class are just individualists and unconvinced by collective solutions. Apparently, the left intellectual class is shares their apathy towards collective effort, at least in practice. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics,etc.)
Debating who is and is not sectarian is absolutely unproductive. I would like to hear more about the 1982 downturn compared to today. Remember how Volcker was able to turn it around by merely loosening the monetary spigot. Will Greenspan's rate cuts cause a turnaround in six months. What about the report that Bob Naiman posted regarding the synchronization of the downturn? Is there going to be a bailout for Turkey or Argentina? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debating who is and is not sectarian is absolutely unproductive. I would like to hear more about the 1982 downturn compared to today. Remember how Volcker was able to turn it around by merely loosening the monetary spigot. Will Greenspan's rate cuts cause a turnaround in six months. What about the report that Bob Naiman posted regarding the synchronization of the downturn? Is there going to be a bailout for Turkey or Argentina? Michael, seriously, why is any of this discussion important if there is no left organization to do something with the analysis? The total disengagement of most left intellectuals from questions of organization is one of the reasons why there is such a disconnect between the academy and popular movements. Analysis only matters if there is a transmission belt to turn it into political strategy and then into action. It's nice that there are a bunch of economists who do not believe in neoliberalism, but what does it matter if the popular movements are disconnected from them? -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
michael, If there is a mechanism by which the Bush crew really brings about a global crash more than a Gore crew might have, it involves the approach to global bailouts. O'Neill, Lindsey, et al seem to oppose one for Turkey, although I have heard nothing on Argentina yet (maybe they'll get one on Bush/Monroe Doctrine grounds, and they speak Spanish, whoop-de-doo). This seems to go along with a general disdain for all international institutions and the rest of the world. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 5:25 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9558] Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.) Debating who is and is not sectarian is absolutely unproductive. I would like to hear more about the 1982 downturn compared to today. Remember how Volcker was able to turn it around by merely loosening the monetary spigot. Will Greenspan's rate cuts cause a turnaround in six months. What about the report that Bob Naiman posted regarding the synchronization of the downturn? Is there going to be a bailout for Turkey or Argentina? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Michael, I do my organizing off-list. That was my point. What bothers me is that many intellectuals liberally insult socialist organizers who happen to vote Democratic as being insufficiently revolutionary. It is that abstract Olympian position that leads me to ask the queston Gramsci asked- what is the role of the intellectual in the working class movement? How does professional thought serve the mass movement if not grounded in the dscipline of organizaiton? -- Nathan Newman - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9570] Re: Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.) By all means, organize the left. I just don't think that will make much progress organizing on an e-mail list. Nathan Newman wrote: Michael, seriously, why is any of this discussion important if there is no left organization to do something with the analysis? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Nathan, while I disagree with your political strategy, your political work was the key factor in stopping the California State University system from giving away its high-tech infrastructure. Moreover, nobody should insult you for your politics on this list. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how we can do successful political organizing on the list like this. We do have the potential to develop information that can be useful. On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:20:51PM -0500, Nathan Newman wrote: Michael, I do my organizing off-list. That was my point. What bothers me is that many intellectuals liberally insult socialist organizers who happen to vote Democratic as being insufficiently revolutionary. It is that abstract Olympian position that leads me to ask the queston Gramsci asked- what is the role of the intellectual in the working class movement? How does professional thought serve the mass movement if not grounded in the dscipline of organizaiton? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
By all means, organize the left. I just don't think that will make much progress organizing on an e-mail list. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Um, Seattle. Seriously though, for every meeting we had there were scores of email lists and literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of emails/phone calls that created a topology of goals, tactics, education etc, that gathered many geographically separated regions of activists and "organic intellectuals" into a swarm of anger at everything that is wrong with neoliberalism in particular and the international institutions that serve capitalism in general. While Seattle was by no means the first ritual of collective action organized with the help of the internet, it remains, I think, the largest and possibly, the most successful so far. Pray tell it won't be the last. We should build upon that by continuing to discuss the issues that put the desire for real change onto the public's "radar screen". A "battle" of ideas is taking place in cyberspace and we should relish the opportunity it brings. New alliances of economists that leverage their knowledge and "credentials" on behalf of human needs and aspirations are worthwhile goals. There are plenty on this list that could drive apologists for capital at the NYT, the Financial Times etc. completely bonkers; likewise with driving your peers at the IMF/WB etc. insane with phone calls and emails. Will there be instant gratification? No. But abandoning hope for change [navel gazing] is boring. Ian
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Nathan, while I disagree with your political strategy, your political work -was the key factor in stopping the California State University system from -giving away its high-tech infrastructure. Moreover, nobody should insult -you for your politics on this list. I appreciate that, although you may give me a bit too much credit. The unions, students and other folks were doing good work behind the scenes. I just got credit as a media activist on the issue and possibly articulated the best public interest argument for blocking it. -For the life of me, I cannot figure out how we can do successful political -organizing on the list like this. We do have the potential to develop -information that can be useful. But the point is the information is only useful if it connects to mass movements who can use the information successfully - which is why my comments above are relevant. If I played a role in that campaign, it was because there was an existing movement that I consciously saw myself supplying arguments to in their battle. I was in conversation with the technical unions, the faculty, and student activists who were making a variety of arguments against the GTE-Microsoft takeover of the university infrastructure. By bringing in expertise from my NetAction policy work and articulating a public interest policy argument beyond some of the self-interested arguments of the players involved, my work was specifically designed to add credibility to the movement and enhance its power. My point is NOT that this be a forum for a bunch of left economists to organize together, but there should be more discussion on how such left economists can each lend their expertise effectively to mass movements. What bothers me about the Nader-Gore debate is not the specific choice people made last election, because that's over, but the fact that folks are ignoring the unions and other organizations that are currently trying to figure out how to reshape the tax cut in a more progressive direction, block judicial nominations, defend social programs, defeat social security privatization, and pass expanded health care benefits for the elderly and the working poor. Instead of developing the arguments, dare I say propaganda, that could support each of these goals, a lot of people on this list are either hoping for depression to teach the mass organizations a lesson in the folly of their ways or hoping for the Democrats to screw us to expose their pernicious nature. A lot of people rightly condemned the Dems in the Senate who rolled over on the Bankruptcy Bill, but where was the discussion on designing the best counter-propaganda against the credit card industry? Where were discussions of sample op-eds that could be developed and fact sheets that could be distributed? I'm denouncing the Bush nominations and working with Guild folks to develop the fact sheets on his nominees to give grassroots organizations the ammunition to organize. That's what the mass movements need from intellectuals- powerful, explosive ammunition. It may not all be bite-sized, since a good white paper may be needed to fight the battle in the upper reaches of elite opinion, but I admit to a focus on analysis that is useful in the realm of public debate and intellectual battle. Conservative intellectuals are frankly much more committed to that struggle today, having learned their lessons from the Old Left. Unfortunately, a lot of modern left intellectuals seem to disdain the propaganda war, in odd ways being more tied to seeking "objective" truth and the correct analysis of reality. So I return to the question, who cares about any of these economic questions in the abstract? The issue is what form the answers can be packaged to assist radical organizing. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
- Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nathan Newman wrote: A lot of people rightly condemned the Dems in the Senate who rolled over on the Bankruptcy Bill, but where was the discussion on designing the best counter-propaganda against the credit card industry? Where were discussions of sample op-eds that could be developed and fact sheets that could be distributed? -That fight was all about money. There was no money on the side of the -angels, and oodles on the side of the devil. How can you match that -with op-eds and fact sheets? Come on, Doug, that's really simplistic bull. With that analysis, conservative forces would enact fascism tomorrow. The point is not to match opeds in the vaccuum with corporate money, but to support mass organizing that can defeat money with bodies. Not forever and not on every issue, but in particular fights when the right combination of political threat and intellectual justification is backed by that mass organizing. The argument for the inevitability of defeat is the most comforting position for the left intellectual. It absolves them of responsibility to do anything, since they have no ability to effect the outcome. There were arguments made that this bill would benefit the working poor, namely those not filing for bankruptcy, by lowering interest rates and increasingly the availability of credit. It also appealed to the moral sense that people should pay their obligations if they could afford them, with some real reforms that ended abuses of the system by rich folks who were squirrelling away assets in big houses in Florida and Texas. This basic argument could have been refuted overall with a range of economic and political analysis, but except on the Consumers Union site, I saw very little of it. By itself of course, such arguments don't defeat money, but if combined with helping unions and other groups mobilize grassroots public opinion, they would help. But that organizing didn't happen. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
I mainly agree with you and not Doug on this, and anyway fact sheets and bulletins and letter writing campaigns are what we have just now. We really can do something to slow the juggernaut, if only we will. How about this, it isn't much, but it's a bit. Nathan and I and others who track judicial nominations will post info about Bush nominees who are particularly prpblematic, and draft letters about them that can be adapted. If a quarter of the people on and lurking on the list write to the Prez, the members of Judiciary Cmtee, and their Senators, we may bea ble to block a few. Come on, people, pitch in here. Nathan, you start with Sutton. Boil down the stuff into a draft letter. Sutton is nominated for the 6 C (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee); can we get 5o letters? 20? (I went to LS with Sutton's son.) --jks - Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nathan Newman wrote: A lot of people rightly condemned the Dems in the Senate who rolled over on the Bankruptcy Bill, but where was the discussion on designing the best counter-propaganda against the credit card industry? Where were discussions of sample op-eds that could be developed and fact sheets that could be distributed? -That fight was all about money. There was no money on the side of the -angels, and oodles on the side of the devil. How can you match that -with op-eds and fact sheets? Come on, Doug, that's really simplistic bull. With that analysis, conservative forces would enact fascism tomorrow. The point is not to match opeds in the vaccuum with corporate money, but to support mass organizing that can defeat money with bodies. Not forever and not on every issue, but in particular fights when the right combination of political threat and intellectual justification is backed by that mass organizing. The argument for the inevitability of defeat is the most comforting position for the left intellectual. It absolves them of responsibility to do anything, since they have no ability to effect the outcome. There were arguments made that this bill would benefit the working poor, namely those not filing for bankruptcy, by lowering interest rates and increasingly the availability of credit. It also appealed to the moral sense that people should pay their obligations if they could afford them, with some real reforms that ended abuses of the system by rich folks who were squirrelling away assets in big houses in Florida and Texas. This basic argument could have been refuted overall with a range of economic and political analysis, but except on the Consumers Union site, I saw very little of it. By itself of course, such arguments don't defeat money, but if combined with helping unions and other groups mobilize grassroots public opinion, they would help. But that organizing didn't happen. -- Nathan Newman _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Yoshie: American workers -- even in the midst of neoliberal capitalism's best boom times ever -- were not as comfortable as many PEN-l posters imagine them to be (and now the boom is practically over -- we only wonder how bad how long the coming recession will be). Therefore, I conclude that it is *the absence of a clear political program energetic political organizing* -- not economic booms, much less "comfortable" American workers -- that is responsible for a poor showing of the American Left. Is that what we need? A clear political program and energetic political organizing? That's odd. During my time in the Trotskyist movement, I was around people who went into factories and mines who never were able to recruit a single person to socialism, let alone bring them to a forum. Not that I am an expert on what the rest of the left was doing, but nobody else had any success either. In reality, no significant section of the US working class is open to socialism. It is not so much that they are comfortable, it is more that they do not see any particular urgency to be revolutionaries. And that's what Marxism is about, not DSA socialism which is virtually the same thing as being a Democrat. You can't tell workers that they are exploited because of a formula in Wage-Labor and Capital. Some people, using the math in a perverse fashion, have even argued that workers in the US are more exploited than they are in places like Mexico since they produce more surplus value here per average worker. This obviously is not what Marx had in mind. Furthermore, the question of workers in the imperialist nations lacking class consciousness is not a new issue. Lenin cited a letter from Engels to Marx as part of a polemic in 1916 against the DSA'ers of his day: In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: "...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable." (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm) Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Socialism American Workers (was Re: ergonomics, etc.)
Lou says: Yoshie: American workers -- even in the midst of neoliberal capitalism's best boom times ever -- were not as comfortable as many PEN-l posters imagine them to be (and now the boom is practically over -- we only wonder how bad how long the coming recession will be). Therefore, I conclude that it is *the absence of a clear political program energetic political organizing* -- not economic booms, much less "comfortable" American workers -- that is responsible for a poor showing of the American Left. Is that what we need? A clear political program and energetic political organizing? That's odd. During my time in the Trotskyist movement, I was around people who went into factories and mines who never were able to recruit a single person to socialism, let alone bring them to a forum. Not that I am an expert on what the rest of the left was doing, but nobody else had any success either. That's no reason to give up, unless you agree with Brad, Nathan, etc., which you don't. In reality, no significant section of the US working class is open to socialism. It is not so much that they are comfortable, it is more that they do not see any particular urgency to be revolutionaries. Again, that's no reason to give up, unless you agree with Brad, Nathan, etc., which you don't. What exists can will change, though change for better is by no means guaranteed. It seems to me that both you Brad believe in the iron cage, though with different political reasons conclusions. If you believe in the iron cage, though, what's the point of being a socialist in America? Yoshie
