On 12/26/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So what if I told you that by supporting the 1935 Social Security Act > you would be selling out the working class and capitulating to right-wing > special interests who wrote half the bill? > > Didn't see that one coming, didja? > > To get Social Security passed, progressives had to agree to exclude nearly > one-half of the working class, including two-thirds of all African > Americans and more than one-half of all women. > > Yep, that's the deal you would have had to make in 1935 to pass what we > know now is one of the most progressive and successful governmental programs > of all time. But in 1935, it didn't look that way when progressives had to > accept the deal racist, reactionary Southern Democrats laid down in exchange > for their votes > > Protesting is easy. Governing is a bitch. << > > > Comment > > The idea that communists, under the rubric “progressives,” had to make > such a deal as described above - in 1935, is ridiculous. In 1935 America was > passing through what has turned out to be the beginning of capitalism’s last > period of reforming relations between classes. No communists were required > to make deals with the Southern based reaction of that era. Nor did the > totality of communist organizations of that era have the organizational mass > or political clout to make deals in the legislative arena. So much truer of > the mounting campaign for Medicare for all, or what is called a Single > Payer Health Care system.
^^^^^^^ CB: Not a very convincing argument that to make such a New Deal was ridiculous. ^^^^^ > > It is precisely who was left out of the reformed relations between classes > that needs to be looked at. This “What if” article correctly grasp the > intersecting class dynamics of American society, in stating: > > “These backward elements held power over key committees that could have > scuttled Social Security and prevented even a vote. Their deal? Exclude all > domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government employees, > and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians and social workers. > Their special interest? Keeping power by keeping intact the American-style > apartheid system they presided over.” > > Let’s add up whom the “What if” article states was excluded from the New > Deal legislation: > > “(T)wo-thirds of all African Americans and more than one-half of all women. > all domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government > employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians and social > workers.” > > Now the question becomes whom did the legislation in question include and > if the current legislative reform is similar in content? > > The New Deal legislation reformed the relations between classes by creating > a new social contract and social safety net based on organization of the > best-paid workers at the expense of the most destitute and poverty-stricken > workers. Communists were under no moral or political obligation to support > such legislation and could have stood mute, and continued to fight along > their path of concern. For instance, our Detroit auto worker writer of this > article must not be aware that the Medicare for all movement has not been > affected at all and continues to push forth on its own basis. Voices from > within the Medicare for all movement may or may not advocate support for > legislation pending, but the actual organizations pushing for single payer do > not see their choices as supporting reactionaries. ^^^^^^^ CB: "Supporting" reactionaries ? ^^^^^ > > "We - (Communists) must collaborate with racist and reactionaries to get > something for some of the workers," is a horrendous ideology. > > The spilt in the working class is a material relationship that arises as an > expression of the wage labor form. Capitalism rest exclusively on > competition between the workers for wages. The resultant impulse is for one > section > of the working class to kill the other so that it way continue > uninterrupted work for its capitalist master without threat from competing > workers. > > That sector of the working class excluded - (according to our auto workers > author, who in our “What if scenario” was an auto worker in say 1935) was: > > “(T)wo-thirds of all African Americans and more than one-half of all > women. all domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government > employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians and social > workers.” > > In other words the primary beneficiary of reform of the system and > stability of the political regime as America entered the war and then carried > out > its post war expansion, were workers constituting the most economically > secured sector of the working class, according to our auto worker writer. > > The problem is "the auto worker writer" demand that organizations and > blocks of people excluded from the current legislative reform accept the > legislation because it is easy to “protest but governing is a bitch.” > Support > for the pending legislation by a huge layer of our working class is not > going to happen for a complex of reasons, including the economic split > between > the better paid and most destitute of the workers. The most poverty > stricken workers, who are indifferent to legislative initiatives, voting and > partaking in electoral politics, correspond to those sections of the working > class left out of he 1935 reform. > > Our task as communist has always been to discover the intersecting > interest between various economic layers of the workers as the base of a > common > class program, rather than intersecting interest between layers of the workers > and the bourgeoisie. > > II. > > Exactly who is governing today and who governed in 1935? The specific > intersection of classes, based on distinct economic gravity wells is > different, > although, the political superstructure with its historic North/South > division has not changed. This North/South division goes back to when the > Democratic Party was the party of slaveholders, and the rising Northern > industrial power created and shaped the Republican Party as its voice. In > 1935 the > Democratic Party expressed as Roosevelt represented a distinct economic > gravity well within finance capital that found its voice in the Democratic > Party. > > In fact, the communist movement of that era, produced a generation > unraveling of class factors in the 1930s isolating a section of international > capital called the industrial sector, as the dominant articulated voice of > fascist finance capital. This sector of capital had a distinct policy striving > to recreate the closed colonial system as the vehicle for its national > finance capital. The Roosevelt coalition was a political expression of > American > international finance capital striving to defeat the closed colonial world > structures inhibiting the penetration of American capital. The Roosevelt > Coalition understood it has to bring the workers in heavy industry into its > camp to conduct the war and prepare for worldwide domination. > > Apparently, our autoworker writer mistakes the historic political division > in our political landscape for economic divisions within capital. The > struggle evolving in America today is not between two distinct sectors of > American financial capital. > > III. > > Why would a communist or progressive with a sense about what is taking > place in Detroit proclaim that “protesting is easy?” Protesting in the past > was easy because a section of capital - during the Roosevelt era, had to > bring the workers in heavy industry securely under their domination to > destroy > the closed colonial system and then rebuild a war torn Europe suffering > from a tremendous commodity hunger and a need to rebuild entire countries > The > excluded - 2/3 of the African Americans were supported by a section of > capital in their historic struggle against Jim Crow. Jim Crow has to go and > the impediments to the blacks entry into the industrial order overcome. > > This is not the case today. That is to say, the politics of this era is not > to create a new set of reforms and build upon them. In fact the current > legislative reform is not the meaning of reform at all. Medicare for all > means extending the reform of the Roosevelt era to larger sections of the > working class, or what communist call a fight for concessions. > > In a genuine fight to reform, the system there is an objective necessity > for a policy of alignment with a section of capital or class collaboration, > between political parties. Class collaboration is not reducible to ones > mental disposition but arises out of the logic of capital. The economic basis > for class collaboration is the workers go to work and the capitalist pay > them. Politics and ideology seeking to convert this material relationship > into > a political program for the entire proletariat at all times during all > boundaries of the development and expansion of the system is class > collaborationism. For instance, when negotiating with the company over better > conditions of labor, this material action was predicated upon collaborating > with > the employer without regard to my personal subjective disposition. The > capitalist say, “you work and I will pay you.” I say, “No you will pay me > more > and certain rules and conditions will be changed to better the quality of > life for the workers being represented.” > > The workers or capitalist cannot walk out of a relationship that is the > unity of production of commodities. Thus, those left wing communists > advocating an abstract fight for the political independence of the workers, > are > merely windbags, refusing to provide a concrete unraveling of the dynamics of > class in America. On the other hand our auto worker writer who insists that > the excluded accept their exclusion - and go slow or wait for more > concessions, because “governing is a bitch,” preach class collaborationism > and > fails to see who the real bitch is. > > IV. In real life we are faced with profound splits and a complex layering > of our working class. The implied idea that somehow communists are involved > in governing America is absurd. One-policy fits all is absurd when the > working class is split and divided into distinct economic sectors with the > most > poverty stricken and destitute spontaneously demanding socially necessary > means of life without money possession. Other sections of the working class > demand a better sell of its labor power and some demand economic relief to > save their homes and avoid bankruptcy due to medical bills. Workers such > as myself - 57, find ourselves in need of relief from the medical care > insurance companies different from those millions without any medical > insurance. > > Medicare for all or single payer remains our demand because it does not pit > one section of the working class against another. Do, I personally > advocate and support the current legislation. No. I support Medicare for > all, as > the path to defeat reaction on the left and right. . > > The art of politics for communists is figuring that decisive link in a > chain of events that can pull the entire chain forward. On the issue of > health care, that link is Medicare for all. This is a demand that arises from > and express the immediate needs of the most poverty stricken of the > proletarian’s forces to emancipate everyone in the working lass as the > condition for > its self-emancipation. > > WL. > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [email protected] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
