[Marxism-Thaxis] Task and responsibility of communists

2009-03-10 Thread Waistline2
Most folks less than 60 years old have grown up under a steady and  
relentless barrage of anti-communist propaganda. This attack was powerful and  
unyielding because it was tightly linked to a steadily rising standard of 
living  
throughout the country. When thinking and activity are linked with economic  
rewards to all classes and various layers within classes, we all become more or 
 
less, like Pavlov's dog.  _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov)  
 
The American peoples are caught in the conditional reflex of Pavlov's dog.  
Anti-communism fed a generation and economic crisis is undoing the past 60 
years  of conditional reflex at a remarkable pace. Pavlov would hit his dog and 
fed him  and the dog came to associate being hit with being fed.  When the dog 
was  hit once and not fed he returned to be hit again. The American working 
class  knows it is being hit and hurt and are not being fed. They are still at 
a 
stage  of understanding where they attempt to salvage what they might have by 
blaming  anything or anyone for the ills of capitalism. 
 
The populist clamoring and penning away about the banks and greedy bankers  
is designed to obscure the question of class and teaching our class why it must 
 slowly but surely look at all things from the lens of the interest of the  
working class. 
 
At the pace the crisis is deepening in our country, a growing rate of job  
loss running as high as 650,000 newly unemployed for the past 6 months, our  
country will be in serious crisis, if this rate continues for the rest of the  
year. Further, if the crisis continues for the next 24 - 36 months we are  
talking about a fundamental dislocation of American society. 
 
This crisis is different according to every single analysis on the left and  
right. Today, 3-9-09, the UAW agreed to freezing wages at the Ford Motor 
Company  and cutting retiree benefits. Upwards of 20,000 people a day lose 
their 
job.  Today we are facing the social consequence of the revolution in the 
productive  forces and the permanent displacement of another layer of the 
working 
class. We  must understand that the new American Revolution is already 
underway. 
The  economic, objective side is already in revolution. No one can stop the  
application of more efficient means of production replacing the less 
efficient.  In the case of auto the development of new plants and retooling is 
slated 
to cut  the workforce in half, along with cutting wages in half. 
 
The people are asking themselves and their leaders, What has gone wrong  
with the country? The leaders have no answers other than to blame the victims  
or to finger point at Wall Street greed and individuals. Thus, we find the  
people themselves blaming the victims. 
 
This time around, however, provides conscious revolutionaries with a window  
of opportunity, through which we can struggle for the hearts and minds of the  
people. Understanding the this crisis is different and the fundamentals have  
changed is of decisive importance.  Anti-communist ideology united with a  
rising standard of living is one thing. Anti-communism linked with a declining  
standard of living is a different matter altogether. Since advanced robotics 
and  the new technological regime has become an obvious fixture of the American 
 society, and the capitalist must fire people permanently to realize profits, 
the  recover of profitability will only add another layer of the unemployed 
and  homeless to the last period of crisis of 2000. Roughly 10 years ago the  
restoration of profitability was officially called the jobless recovery. 
 
Jobless recovery and returning veterans from the war against the people  of 
Iraq is a volatile combination. 
 
This understanding lays dormant within the heart and minds of the American  
people, waiting to be awakened and kindled by the communists. 
 
In a remarkable way we, at a higher level, the various leaders in the mass  
movement today, and the communists propagandists, find themselves in much the  
same situation that faced the same folks of the 1946-7 period. At that time a  
new economic era was dawning. American imperialism could and did dominate a  
world devastated by war. The established leaders - communists of all kinds,  
didn't and couldn't understand the significance of the new period. It was a  
political shock to see the great movement for civil and labor rights that had  
been built up during 1930's and during WW II collapse and be taken over by  
forces hostile to the former aims of the movement. Irresistible forces were  
coming into play and the leadership had to either adapt to the new era or be  
crushed by it. The communists did not change and was crushed  and  
marginalized. 
 
The strength of degenerate trade union leaders like Walter Reuther was not  
in his oratory or organizing skill, but rather the strength of American  
imperialism and the unheard of expansion of productive 

[Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight

2009-03-10 Thread Charles Brown

Comment

In what relation do the  Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other  
working-class parties. 

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as  a 
whole. 

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape  
and mould the proletarian movement. 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm) 

^^^
CB: So, don't aim for a communist polarity.

^
 

The communist goal is first and above all victory to the workers in  their 
current struggle. That is the communist goal - Job 1, at all times. To  make 
the immediate and long term goal of communists the abolition of private  
property outside the field of victory to the workers in their current struggle  
is 
just silly thinking.

^
CB: To make it the immediate goal is silly.
To make it the long term goal is right
out of the manifesto you just quoted.



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

^^^
CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity

^^

In the various stages of development which the  struggle of the working 
class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they  always and everywhere 
represent the interests of the movement as a whole. 

^
CB: i.e. including the poorest
sections of the working class
but not only the poorest sections
of the working class


 
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most  
advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country,  
that 
section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically,  
they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly  
understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general  
results 
of the proletarian movement. (End quote) 

Here is where Marx deploy the communist concept of the line of  march.  

What is wrong with formulating the goal of communists as abolition of  
private property, is a failure to advance on the basis of the here and now.
^^
CB: Correct. Don't raise aboltion of 
private property now. That's the
ultimate goal,not the current
line of march

^^

 If  
comrades are involved in the struggle for unemployment, and they are, that is  
the 
goal. For instance, when communist are involved in a strike, the goal is not  
abolition of private property but to resolve the strike in favor of the 
workers  on strike. When the communist fought for Civil Rights and industrial 
unions the  goal was not to abolish private property but the realization of 
Civil 
Rights and  industrial unions. Why would this not be the case today? 

^^
CB: Correct : do not raise abolition
of private property today. Support
the trade union's aims, which are
united behind the O admin.

^^
 
The idea that establishing a communist polarity means fighting for the  
abolition of private property makes no sense and is hopelessly sectarian. As 
if  
communist have interest outside the proletariat. 


CB:  The idea of establishing a communist
polarity separate from the current struggles
of the working class is sectarian. Polarity means
separation from some other pole, like the social
democratic pole, or the DP pole. No polarity, unity.

^ 

The real issue is my refusal to praise winning a concession. I see no need  
for genuflecting. 


CB: It's not genuflecting. It's cheerleading.
 It's expressing
support, rallying the working class in
each of its little victories. Comrades and
workers , come rally. not genuflecting.
cheerleading for each first down, each 
basket.

^

There are far to many other concessions to be fought for and  
won, than to pause and praise the Obama administration for unemployment 
benefit  extensions.

^^^
CB: 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


^^

 Now that not taxing a portion of unemployment has been put 
into  effect, we might consider abolition of all taxes on unemployment, a 
policy  
change that begin under the Carter administration. We communists opposed  
taxing unemployment checks back when the Carter administration implemented 
this  
new taxation. We still oppose such. We have not changed our attitude in favor 
of  somehow fighting - detached from the mass of proletarians, a fight to 
abolish  private property. 

^
CB; Sure but, we aren't
there yet. The 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight

2009-03-10 Thread Waistline2
Communists do not have separate demands from various   
segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands  that  
creates 
the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined  the task and role  of 
communists. 
 
^^^
CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity
 
 
Comment
 
Do you support the American invasion of Afghanistan? Do you support the  
demand of the antiwar movement to remove US troops 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. On  
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 
than  
less shut out of the civic society of the bourgeoisie are an objective 
communist  
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. 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 
of 
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
 
Comment
 
Don't raise abolition of private property now?  I have absolutely no  idea 
what you are talking about. Abolition of private property is not a demand,  
reform or a concession to be sought from the bourgeoisie. . 
 
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. 
 
Now, discussion of all of Marx projection and thinking is appropriate for a  
Marxist List serv. 
 
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 
of  
struggle. Most of our communist work is however non-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.
 
 
Comment
 
Interesting analogy.
 
We are to understand that the extension of unemployment benefit is not a  
concession but a touchdown.
 
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. 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 
a 
 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 
the  
bourgeoisie. Further, when asked how will this help the working class, no one  
could answer the question. 
 
What is wrong is a misunderstanding of capitalism, 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. 
  First of all Obama does not set the agenda for what is  doable. 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 
interest. 
 
The needs of capital and the workers connected to capital as the social  
process, are expressed in the political 

[Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight

2009-03-10 Thread Charles Brown




Waistline2
Communists do not have separate demands from various   
segment of the working class. IN fact it is these real world demands  that  
creates 
the line of march. Here is how Marx and Engels defined  the task and role  of 
communists. 

^^^
CB: So, stop talking about a communist polarity


Comment

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 
than  
less shut out of the civic society of the bourgeoisie are an objective 
communist  
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 
of 
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

Comment

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


^^
CB: 
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 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] rah, rah team fight

2009-03-10 Thread Waistline2

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)


Comment 

Apparently we understand the word theory  different. The theory of communism 
is not a demand. Nor is the theory of  communism a reform or the fight for a 
concession. 

In this sense, the  theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single 
sentence: Abolition of  private property. 
 
To me this sentence could not be clearer. What seems to be wrong is a  
misreading of the word theory. 

Further, you fight straw men of your own  creation. No communist I know has 
ever raised the abolition of private property  as a demand, concession or 
reform. You suggest that I have when in fact you must  know I have not. 

Simply show where anyone . . . . including myself   . . . have over the past 
40 years raised the abolition of private property as a  demand? 


*

WL: 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 of   
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.


Comment

If most of communist work is electoral and  not educational then what have 
you been doing the past 30 years as evidence that  you actually believe this? 
Share your electoral experience. I most certainly  have over the years. I ask 
because it seems you are not thinking out what you  write and simply respond 
our 
of passion. 

Electoral work means lobbying  by definition. I really don't understand why 
mentioning lobbying as linked to  electoral work is important when electoral 
work means Lobbying, someone and  groups as the precondition to do anything. 

Bizarre. 

90% of  communist work is education. For instance when we recruit say a 
worker in the  plant active in the union, or with her fellow workers, our Job 1 
is 
to help them  do better what they are already doing and to educate them as 
communists. When we  recruit someone involved in electoral work our Job 1 is to 
help them better do  what they are already doing and to educate them. What we 
bring as communists to  the game is vision, leadership and class outlook. 

For instance a  tremendous legislative battle is underway right now over 
expanding the unions  ability to recruit union supporters and form a union. 
While 
all communists I  know and all the lists I participate in support such 
legislation, our task as  communists remains to talk about class and class 
outlook. 
Especially on Marxist  List servs. 


***

WL. 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.

Comment

Well of course I agree  with the above. A first down is a more realistic 
assessment. Cheering for a  first down is realistic but that is not how any of 
this discussion about  concessions, reforms and demands have been shaped. That 
is 
what was wrong.  

There are a lot of issues on the table. I do not think you have limited  any 
of the discussion to one issue. For instance both of us are big on health  
care reform; expansion of public education, expansion of the welfare system for 
 all, not just the poorest workers. For instance food stamps should be made  
available to anyone with a need, regardless of economic layer of the working  
class. 

Even the issue of mortgage should proceed from the standpoint of  the poorest 
workers but extend to all layers of the working class, as their  economic 
need intersects with the poorest workers. For instance every layer of  the 
working class should have an opportunity to refinance at a 4% rate, an issue  
that 
has been raised in the national dialogue. Why? Because the more stable  
sections of the working class will rebel and not support legislation and  
programs 
that exclude them. 

This matter of the meaning of class 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] rah, team fight - talkin' to American people about class

2009-03-10 Thread Waistline2
I am currently working on several projects at the same time dealing with  
class in American society and the vision of communists (Marxists). Hopefully by 
 
the end of the year a series of Workers pamphlets will take shape. 
 
Here is an example: 
 
Class, Class Struggle and Class Outlook 
 
For most of my life it has been a “no-no” to speak of class because  
economic classes in America, while fixed and permanent did not stop the  
individual 
and millions of people from working hard, acquiring education or  getting lucky 
in the lottery and moving from one economic class to another.  Economic class 
was something in England or the Middle Ages where you had a  Nobility, King, 
Queen and serfs - peasant masses. 
 
Last year something good happened during the primary and run-up to the  
Presidential election. Something that changed the way we talk about class  in 
our 
country.  The outpouring of support for the Obama candidacy forced a  different 
kind of discussion into our national dialogue. A new class of people  entered 
into American politics last year; a class of young people who felt the  older 
generation spends to much time talking about old concepts of race, rather  
than the quality of ones character and economic program. Young people were the  
driving force that forced a different kind of dialogue on the national agenda. 
 
American politics is a healthier “body politic” thanks to our younger  
citizens. 
 
To make sense of the election national media had to talk about class,  
economic categories of people, class interests, class feelings and frustration  
and 
voting habits. At first media spokesperson’s talked about “hard working  
people’ meaning white members of our working class but this was quickly seen to 
 
be offensive because there are all shades of color amongst the working people 
of  America. Finally, to make sense of things most media spokespersons settled 
on  talking about the working class voters and that section of white working 
class  voters that had traditionally voted Republican. 
 
Class became popular to speak of as a way to describe economic categories  of 
within American society. Class became a popular way for us to make sense to  
each other. Most people who followed the election from primary to Nov. 4,  
witnessed a strange alignment of various classes from the most wealthy to the  
poorest, supporting the Obama candidacy. This common identity of classes  
striving in support of Obama or class intersection became the means by which  
Obama 
defeated John McCain.  One section of our working class voted for  Senator 
John McCain and a larger section voted for Senator Obama. 
 
All sections of the working class, be they pro-Senator McCain or pro-Barack  
Obama are angry and scared. The financial and economic crisis is causing fear 
of  what tomorrow might bring and polarizing the working class.  The wealthier 
 classes in our society are economically stable and secure in their living 
while  the great American middle class is being destroyed layer after layer.  
All  classes are being polarized into “for” or “against” government programs 
to stop  or slow down the collapse of the economy. Why is this destruction 
taking place?  What is happening in America to the working class? 
 
copy write pending 
**Need a job? Find employment help in your area. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0005)

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis