Greetings,
On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Tom Walker wrote:
> Shawgi Tell wrote,
>
> > Serious social problems cannot be solved if the people are
> >not in power, if they do not have a real and decisive say in the direction
> >of society, if they remain disempowered, if they lack sovereignty, if they
> >merely beg the bourgeoisie for what is rightfully theirs.
[Snip...}
> You seem to be saying that nothing
> can happen until "the people" are in power. Although I don't agree, let's
> say I do for the sake of argument. Then the next question is how do we get
> there from here. Your answer then seems to be "by exhorting people over and
> over again that nothing can happen until the people are in power."
Tom, here is my recent reply to Blair.
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Shawgi A. Tell wrote:
Blair, briefly, analysis shows that what is needed is an entirely
New electoral process and political system. The present set-up of the
super-wealthy only serves to effectively marginalize and ghettoize the
broad masses of the people. Democratic renewal is needed.
A key feature of democratic renewal is to remove the right to
select candidates for election from the hands of party leaders only and
create institutions and mechanisms which vest the right to select
candidates for election in the hands of every single member of the polity.
Related changes include the creation of institutions and mechanisms which
enable every single member of the polity the right to initiate
legislation, to recall elected officials and to a truly informed
vote. As well, referenda, when held, would actually be binding. Today,
referenda are routinely held in many places, but are not binding, are
routinely dismissed by the ruling classes and its servants.
Many other things, including changes in broadcast time alloted to
officially registered parties and campaign financing must be implemented.
The Canada Elections Act as well as the Federal Elections Commission Act
(U.S.) clarify the extent to which only those with extremely large amounts
of wealth are privileged by the extant electoral system.
Democratic renewal means creating a New electoral system, the only
way to constitute a New and different kind of government, to vest
sovereignty in the people for the first time.
The creation of a modern constitution is also key. Every modern
constitution must base itsself on the cardinal principle that all humans
have inviolable rights by dint of being human. As well, every modern
constitution must enshrine a definite conception of citizenship which
stipulates that all have equal rights and duties. It must also affirm the
specific rights of national minorities, Aboriginal peoples, women, the
youth and other collectives in society. All this is absent at this time.
In order to bring about all these qualitative changes which will,
for the first time, empower all members of the polity, there must be
organized collective discussion on a broad scale in educational
institutions, workplaces, neighborhoods, military units, seniors' homes,
religious congregations and youth organizations.
"Discussion" means actually investigating the essence of social
problems and on that basis proposing real solutions. As is well-known, at
this time the instruments of discussion (e.g., the media and educational
institutions) are monopolized by the bourgeoisie and used to mystify,
disinform and divert people.
Once the working class and people come to power they will have to
work ten times harder than before coming to power. This is when the
"real" work begins, so to speak. Capitalism will not just disappear when
the working class and people come to power. But nor can the
crisis-ridden economy be reorganized without political power in the hands
of the vast majority.
Please let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on
anything.
Tom, I'd appreciate your views on this.
[Snip...]
Tom continues:
--------------
> On the efficacy of the strike, you said,
>
> > Tens of millions of workers have participated in thousands and
> >thousands of strikes around the world in the last few decades. This is
> >extremely positive. But have strikes led to the actual political
> >empowerment of the working class and people? No. [etc.]
>
> By your own reasoning, I don't know how you could see workers' participation
> in strikes as "extremely positive" if they haven't led to political power.
> There is much that I could say to elaborate on the relationship between the
> strike and workers' power, but I'll just mention a few themes --
It is extremely positive in the sense that workers are not passive
and docile, that they are defending their dignity, honor and rights. It
is negative in the sense that the KEY aim, the decisive aim, to move
society forward is not put forward: the people themselves must come to
power in order to solve all the worsening serious social problems inherent
to capitalism. The existing electoral system serves only the super-rich.
> 1. its important to distinguish between strikes for economic demands and
> strikes for political demands.
How is it possible for the working class and people to reorganize
the economy to meet their growing material and cultural needs if they lack
sovereignty, if the present set-up of the super-wealthy effectively
marginalizes and ghettoizes them? If they have no real and decisive say
in the direction of society?
> 2. political strikes are often thought of as general strikes, but it's also
> possible to conduct a political strike within the traditional context of a
> bargaining unit/collective agreement. In other words, to be "political" a
> strike doesn't have to be about government policy but could also be about
> issues of worker control in the workplace.
OK, so why has it not empowered the millions and millions who have
held strikes? Why, for example, do the rich continue to only get richer
and the poor poorer? Why does the political and economic set-up of the
financial oligarchy continue to marginalize and isolate more and more
people?
> 3. political strikes are educative for the workers taking part in them.
>
> A political strike is "workers' sovereignty" in microcosm. What this means
> is that a political strike involves collective action by workers to pursue
> their own ends and rights. A little labour history is all that is needed to
> make the final connection between political strikes and the historical
> struggle to limit the working day. If you don't at least know the keywords,
> "haymarket square" and "chartists", look them up. Historical materialism
> without history seems an unbearable paradox.
What KEY aim should the working class and people have in order to
end all exploitation and oppression? Will something other than full
political supremacy, full sovereignty, real and decisive decison-making
power in political, social, cultural and economic affairs work? If so,
how and where has it worked?
> Regards,
>
> Tom Walker
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> knoW Ware Communications |
> Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect."
> (604) 688-8296 | - John Milton
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
