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 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
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.
^^^^^^
***************
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.
^^^^
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
suggests.
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^
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.
^^^^^
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
interest.
^^^^^^
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
this.
^^^^
CB: How would that
be something to brag about
anyway.?
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
why
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.
^^^^
WL.
_______________________________________________
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
