> On Nov 25, 2025, at 12:08, Marv Gandall via groups.io 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> the bourgeoisie will not allow the gradual and nonviolent introduction of 
> almost all of these measures which fundamentally challenge its power and 
> property. 

Agreed. Tom posted a reference to a Jacobin article on Gorz's book, STRATEGY 
FOR LABOR, which considers the distinction between reformist and non-reformist 
reforms, 
https://archive.org/details/strategyforlabor00gorz/mode/2up?q=transition. The 
book does not mention Trotsky's Transitional Program, which seems to be an odd 
omission to me. According to Trotsky 

"It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to 
find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the 
revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, 
stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers 
of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the 
conquest of power by the proletariat. Classical Social Democracy, functioning 
in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts 
independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms 
within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which 
promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. 
Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed 
Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used 
only for holiday speechifying." 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transitional_Program)

Steve's demands could be transitional and prioritized to strategically reduce 
the power of capital as a defensive measure, such as creating social ownership 
of the fossil fuel industry to meet climate emission goals. Social ownership 
would certainly require governance by industry workers with the consent of the 
population, which might be local, regional, national or international. AS 
another example, Medicare for All would need a transformed medical industry in 
order for it to be affordable and led by councils of workers and students, 
physicians, janitors, patients and the public.

All of this begs the question of what sort of political organizations are 
needed to lead the transition. And this leads us to the critique of the 
varieties of Leninism and other organizational theories, which is a long 
discussion by itself.

Mark





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#39491): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39491
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116410536/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to