For $15.00 an hour minimum wage or a $5.00 an hour increase for all workers whichever is the greater.
For free healthcare, education and affordable housing for all. These to be human rights.
Make the rich pay for these through higher taxes on the rich and corporations and cutting military spending.
End all wars and occupations abroad.
On this basis build a mass direct action united front of the working class which would have as its openly stated objective to halt and throw back the capitalist offensive, make the rich pay, and launch a working class offensive. This mass direct action united front would not engage in lobbying Democrats and capitalist politicians but would confront the forces of the employers and capitalists and seek to bring their system to a halt in order to win their aims. No more business as usual. This would involve building fighting opposition groups in every union local and all unions, every workplace, every school and college and every community. These should then be linked up into a mass fighting direct action movement.
I would like to suggest that another reason the left and radical forces are not gaining at this time when capitalism is losing support is left sectarianism. By this I mean the left groups and individuals putting their own interests above those of the movement of which they are part and above the interests of the working class movement as a whole. This leads to an atmosphere of continual conflict between the left groups and individuals and working class people want nothing to do with this. The internal lives of the left groups take their methods from the distorted and misunderstood methods of the Bolsheviks when this movement was well into being taken over by Stalinism and destroyed. To build a left and radical movement which can put down roots in the working class means not only looking at and breaking from ultra leftism, but also looking at and breaking from left sectarianism. This does not mean we stop seeking to clarify ideas and if we have differences we hide them. But what it means is a different atmosphere in the left and radical movement, one which seeks in the first instance to avoid splits as opposed to having a split, seeks in the first instance to try and work together in spite of a difference instead of seeking at all times for a difference to split over. If this is not done the left and radical movement will not be able to help move the working class movement into action and to take advantage of this decline in support for capitalism amongst the working class.
End all wars and occupations abroad.
On this basis build a mass direct action united front of the working class which would have as its openly stated objective to halt and throw back the capitalist offensive, make the rich pay, and launch a working class offensive. This mass direct action united front would not engage in lobbying Democrats and capitalist politicians but would confront the forces of the employers and capitalists and seek to bring their system to a halt in order to win their aims. No more business as usual. This would involve building fighting opposition groups in every union local and all unions, every workplace, every school and college and every community. These should then be linked up into a mass fighting direct action movement.
I would like to suggest that another reason the left and radical forces are not gaining at this time when capitalism is losing support is left sectarianism. By this I mean the left groups and individuals putting their own interests above those of the movement of which they are part and above the interests of the working class movement as a whole. This leads to an atmosphere of continual conflict between the left groups and individuals and working class people want nothing to do with this. The internal lives of the left groups take their methods from the distorted and misunderstood methods of the Bolsheviks when this movement was well into being taken over by Stalinism and destroyed. To build a left and radical movement which can put down roots in the working class means not only looking at and breaking from ultra leftism, but also looking at and breaking from left sectarianism. This does not mean we stop seeking to clarify ideas and if we have differences we hide them. But what it means is a different atmosphere in the left and radical movement, one which seeks in the first instance to avoid splits as opposed to having a split, seeks in the first instance to try and work together in spite of a difference instead of seeking at all times for a difference to split over. If this is not done the left and radical movement will not be able to help move the working class movement into action and to take advantage of this decline in support for capitalism amongst the working class.
In case any of my readers think these points are unfair I would ask you to consider two points.
There have recently been hundreds of thousands of workers marching in Wisconsin and elsewhere against the capitalist offensive. Please consider to what extent has this resulted in an increase in support for, or an increase in putting down roots, for the left and radical groups in this workers movement. My understanding is not very much progress has been made.
And to consider another point. There are thousands and most likely tens of thousands of left and radical people and others who would adopt a position of genuine struggle in this country. However the overwhelming majority of these are outside revolutionary organizations. I would ask Comrades to consider why this is so. Why are there more revolutionary socialists, lefts and and radicals outside revolutionary organizations than inside them. To pose the question is to answer it. There is something wrong with the revolutionary organizations. .
I would like to suggest that the different left and radical forces and individuals convene a conference, conferences, to discuss these issues:
1.Why we are not growing when there are unprecedented numbers of workers on the streets and when the support for capitalism is declining.
2. What mistakes are being made by the left and radical movement. Yes the union leaders are the main force to blame but the left and radical movement must not use the pro capitalist and bureaucratic policies of the union leaders as an alibi to excuse our own failures.
3. A program for a united front around which we could build a mass direct action movement which would be capable of throwing back the capitalist offensive and launching a working class offensive. I suggest a program something along the lines of above. But learning the lessons from the past this should not be set in stone instead up for democratic discussion by all.
I would like to suggest that the different left and radical forces and individuals convene a conference, conferences, to discuss these issues:
1.Why we are not growing when there are unprecedented numbers of workers on the streets and when the support for capitalism is declining.
2. What mistakes are being made by the left and radical movement. Yes the union leaders are the main force to blame but the left and radical movement must not use the pro capitalist and bureaucratic policies of the union leaders as an alibi to excuse our own failures.
3. A program for a united front around which we could build a mass direct action movement which would be capable of throwing back the capitalist offensive and launching a working class offensive. I suggest a program something along the lines of above. But learning the lessons from the past this should not be set in stone instead up for democratic discussion by all.
Sean.
15 comments:
Ok let's take each of these demands. Most of them do not rise to the formulations of Leon Trotsky in his transitional program, nor Lenin's demands:
For $15.00 an hour minimum wage or a $5.00 an hour increase for all workers whichever is the greater.
!? That's peanuts, and represents a capitulation to the criminally low wage norms of today. It should be DOUBLE THIS, if we really want to talk about a living wage for all. And why not? Why shouldn't all workers be making at least $30 an hour?
For free healthcare, education and affordable housing for all. These to be human rights.
This demand is not bad, except it does not say how we can get from here to there. We can only get there through workers control of these basic necessities.
Make the rich pay for these through higher taxes on the rich and corporations and cutting military spending.
THOROUOGHLY REFORMIST. By demanding "higher taxes," you legitimate the right of the bourgeois government to continue to rule, AND you put forward the idea that the present government would ever do this! Would a socialist government tax the rich? Or just expropriate them?
End all wars and occupations abroad.
I'm dubious about this one as well, but it's not as terrible.
Check out this article, from the IBT:
http://www.bolshevik.org/tp/IBT_TP_1_Introduction.html
Look at these demands by Lenin. You've repeated previously his call for peace, land, and bread. But he posed other demands:
1. Amalgamation of all banks into a single bank and state control over its operations, or nationalization of the banks.
2. Nationalization of the syndicates, i.e., the largest, monopolistic capitalist associations (sugar, oil, coal, iron and steel, and other syndicates).
3. Abolition of commercial secrecy.
4. Compulsory syndication (i.e., compulsory amalgamation into associations) of industrialists, merchants and employers generally.
5. Compulsory organization of the population into consumers societies, or encouragement of such organization, and the exercise of control over it.[36]”
The problem with the left in the U.S. today is NOT, by and large, that it is ultra left. There is nothing ultra left about the ISO, for example, or the Workers World Party. They are thoroughly reformist. And they call, not for transitional demands, but for "tax the rich." There's nothing new about these reformist demands you are proposing, and so they are not going to cure the left of any imagined "ultra-leftism."
Saw a massive ISO contingent at the April 9 antiwar rally in NY.
Part 1. Comrade Tom says my ideas are "thoroughly reformist,' "terrible," legitimates the right of the bourgeois government to rule," "peanuts", "a capitulation to the criminal low wage norms of today." I think this tone is damaging.
The minimum wage demand. What is the consciousness of the working class. Tom speaks of $30,00 an hour for all. This sounds great. But I have two problems. It suggests all workers skilled and unskilled should have the same wage. And the working class would not take you serious if you approached them to build a movement on a $30.00 an hour minimum wage for all. You would fail to make a connection with the working class. This is ultra leftism.
I thank Tom for his support for my demands for free health care, education and affordable housing for all. But what he says about the problems of getting these demands applies to these demands also.
Demanding higher taxes on the rich? Tom says this legitimates the right of the bourgeois government to rule. Is Tom saying that we should not demand higher taxes on the rich. If so then I would venture to say that just about every worker would disagree with him. Tom's position would make it impossible for him to connect with the consciousness of the working class. This is a an example of ultra leftism which is so damaging and makes it impossible to build a united front of conscious fighting workers.
If demanding higher taxes as Tom says "legitimates the right of the bourgeois government to continue to rule" then does not demanding any taxes from the rich do this. Is Tom saying that he would oppose GE which paid no taxes last year paying taxes. It is positions such as this which undermines the credibility of the left and radical forces. This is ultra leftism and is very damaging.
On my demands about ending wars and foreign occupations Tom cannot even give his support to these. This is ultra leftism.
Contd. Part 2.
Look at the many many struggles of the past thirty years. hormel, the airline strikes, the bus strikes, auto strikes, paper workers strikes and on and on and on. No fighting organized united front of workers have been organized out of these? Why not?
There are a number of reasons. Of course there is the union leaders role. And there is also the left sectarianism and the ultra leftism which I have already dealt with. However after discussing with my Comrade Richard he has helped me to see that I should have given more emphasis to another issue.
The left and radical forces tend to approach all these struggles with the idea of the so called Vanguard Party. Some use this term openly some do not. But whether they use the term openly or not it is this method that is used. The main idea is to have as a priority the building of a small group of people who consider themselves revolutionaries around what is seen as a Marxist or revolutionary socialist program. The workers reject this again and again, have been rejecting this again and again. But what does the left and radical forces do. They keep trying to shove it down their throats. They refuse to recognize to the existing consciousness of the working class. They refuse to listen to the working class. This is ultra leftism. It is a very bad mistake.
My Comrade Richard and I give much more emphasis to the building of a mass direct action united front around demands which would take this movement into confrontation with the bourgeois offensive with the clearly stated aim of defeating and throwing back this offensive and opening up an offensive of the working class. That is changing the balance of forces in society. If this happened then all issues would come back on the table again in a mass way.
But we will never get there if we approach the workers struggles with this idea of the so called vanguard party. We have to approach the struggles with the idea of building mass united fronts of struggle around demands that challenge the capitalist offensive and would be capable of throwing this back. And along with this explain that we are for mass direct action which can win victories.
No concessions. This to be a principle of this movement. No business as usual. Use whatever methods are necessary, strikes, occupations, sit ins, street actions whatever are necessary to halt the capitalist offensive. And while the Madison movement was good we have to be careful that the union leaders do not lead the movement into "let off steam" activity. Yes rallies are fine, but only if preceded by building permanent committees in the workplaces, unions at all levels, communities and schools and colleges and so the rallies build a network/ movement of a mass direct action character. And these committees/network are kept in place and built upon after the rallies to organize sit ins, occupations etc. that is use tactics that would mean no more business as usual, that would mean mass direct fight to win action and the building of united fronts on this basis.
The struggles of the working class including especially the most recent ones are not producing permanently established rooted mass direct action united fronts of struggle. Of course left groups will get a few more members but as usual these will probably come and go like snow melting in the spring. The priority is the building of mass direct action united fronts on a program which would challenge and throw back the capitalist offensive and open up a working class offensive. The left and radical movements should be putting their resources to this task. They can exist inside these mass direct action united fronts of struggle in a non sectarian way and explain their ideas. This is also the way that a real revolutionary party with mass roots in the working class can develop.
Thank you again comrade for your comments. Sean.
The issue for us Anonymous is not how many recruits a left group can win. The ISO from what I understand has a huge turnover. Young people will drift in and out of these groups, most will be burned out by them.
I will leave aside my differences with the ISO approach to the Labor bureaucracy but let's ask ourselves:
How is it possible that with Seattle in 1999 when a whole section of organized Labor's ranks were drawn to the youth that nothing permanent was built? As Sean mentioned, there was Hormel, Eastern, Staley, the anti-WTO movement. The left descends on these movements like used car salesmen and we have no serious broad left within the workers' movement?
It is through a mass workers movement against capital that a genuine revolutionary vanguard will be built, not a sect isolated from the mass but borne out of it, fused with it in struggle instead of alien to it which is the situation now. And that also includes open struggle against the Union bureaucracy.
No matter what the left says, its method is inherently sectarian. The main issue is to build each organization rather than dedicate energy and effort to building the movement. There is nothing wrong with fighting for your ideas, but this has to be done in a way that does not subordinate the interests of the movement as a whole.
As Trotsky wrote, “The program must express the objective tasks of the working class rather than the backwardness of the workers. It must reflect society as it is and not the backwardness of the working class. It is an instrument to overcome and vanquish the backwardness.”
Sean, how do these demands differ in ANY WAY from the demands that the union tops would support--the same union tops from whose leadership you want to wrest the working masses?
Your poll merely indicates that working people are fed up with free market capitalism. What your demands would do would simply be to confirm in their "backward" illusions in "progressive," state regulated, corporate-taxed capitalism.
You would be giving the capitalists quite a deal. They don't even need to agree to a new New Deal a la Roosevelt, to renew illusions in the capitalist system. They've got you and your demands--along with the union tops, and the "progressive" Democrats--to do that for them. And what's more, you provide the service--for FREE! What a deal!
The whole premise of socialism and Trotskyism is that consciousness must be brought to the working class "from without." But you are bringing nothing to the working class but what they want to hear. You are basically promoting Martynov's economism.
Tom wrote:
"demands that the union tops would support"
Tom, I have not seen AFL-CIO literature supporting an end to all wars, a $5 an hour wage increase or even a $15 an hour minimum wage (I think it should be closer to $25)
I have never been at a Union conference where the leadership have called for free education and health care, or seen or heard it in their speeches or literature today.
And they will support "affordable " this or that in the abstract. The point is, not only don't they oppose the demands above, they would in no way mobilize around them.
A demand is an organizing tool as well. But the mistake the left makes, and what I see in your contribution, is that they don't understand that workers learn through struggle, as we struggle for concrete things that improve our immediate material well being, we learn lessons in the class conflict. Revolutionaries can help sections of the class draw conclusions from the struggle.
But we don't do that by quoting Trotsky and Marx at them by rote and not connecting with the mood at any given time.
I would like to hear what Tom thinks about the criticism that's been raised about the failure of the left to build a broader left current not only in the unions but also among the US working class as a whole.
Is there even one left group that has had real success attracting and keeping a cadre of worker militants.
Perhaps Tom does not agree with the view put forward by the others that the left's record is not very impressive. ( I admit I lean this way) If he agrees with them then what does he attribute it to? Is it something to do with American workers being too conservative?
I am trying to get to the bottom of this.
In response to Maggie:
I agree that the left has not had much success in organizing workers to date. But is that because they have been "ultra-left" in their demands? There are very few even small "hard left" groups that raise TRANSITIONAL rather than reformist demands. I would say this group includes the Spartacist League--which is abstentionist, and the group to which I am close, the internationalist group, which is NOT abstentionist but is actually attempting to implement a Trotskyist strategy.
This group, the internationalist group HAS had some successes, at least with the West Coast longshore workers. A few years ago, these workers led a one day strike against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And that was because the IG was there to call for it.
Most of the rest of the Left is solidly REFORMIST in their demands--just like comrades Sean and Richard! They too call for taxing the rich, and merely ending the wars, or US. out, vs. defending the people of Iraq from IMPERIALISM. These reformist groups--the ISO, the WWP--also create "united fronts" with forces close to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and to the trade union tops.
So what Richard and Sean are offering is NOTHING NEW. It is NOT an antidote to the crisis of organizing. IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ORGANIZING TODAY. It keeps workers bound hand and foot to the ideology of passivity and reformism: "pressure" the capitalist government, under the leadership of the Democrats and the union tops, reform the system for the better.
Y'all should look at Trotsky's transitional program onine, and also internationalist.org
I have been familiar with the transitional program for some decades now. But I thank Tom for reminding me of it again. However i would say that i think it is better to speak not of the transitional program but of the transitional method. The reason i say this is that it is a method which has to be studied and learnt. It is not a set of demands which can be applied at any time, stamped on any situation at any time.
Things change, consciousness changes, demands therefore have to change. The transitional program was written by Trotsky in 1938. Ultra leftism seeks to apply it as if we were still in 1938. The same with Lenin's material which was written almost one hundred years ago. If we do not conquer the method we will remain stuck in the past repeating demands and formulas which may have been correct in the past and may be correct in the future but which may not be correct at present.
We have to start from the objective situation and the existing mass consciousness and as far as the left and radical movement is concerned the mass consciousness is an objective factor at this time. My understanding is that Trotsky saw his program as a bridge from the existing consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness. My understanding therefore is that the first thing we have to do is establish what is the present existing consciousness. This is the mistake of ultra leftism. It does not establish the existing consciousness.
If i can use the analogy of the bridge and the river and its banks. If you do not know where the two banks of the river are then you cannot build a bridge between them. So the first task is to establish where the existing consciousness of the working class is at present, that is where the river bank on which we stand happens to be. We can see it as the present consciousness which is not revolutionary. Then we have to locate one end of the bridge on this existing consciousness, this bank, and build from there to the the other bank of the river, a movement with a revolutionary consciousness.
I have seen it again and again. Ultra leftism ignores the existing consciousness. Its tendency is always to put forward demands which sound the most revolutionary possible without any thought to whether or not any workers are listening to them, hearing them. This is classical ultra leftism. Like Tom's minimum wage demand. Practically all workers would just turn away from this demand of Tom's.
Trotsky said the art of revolution was to be able to combine objective analysis with subjective action. We have to start from the objective situation and this includes the mass consciousness at this time, the left and radical movement cannot change the consciousness at this time, therefore the mass consciousness is an objective factor at this time. We then have to establish a base on this existing mass consciousness and from there build a movement to challenge the capitalist offensive and capitalism itself.
Comrade Tom. I do not want to seem to be be unfairly focusing on some of your points. However I do think that it could perhaps help clarify things. Are you or are you not in favor of GE and the major corporations paying taxes or do you stand over your stated position that this legitimates the bourgeois government. If your answer is yes I would say that this would completely cut you off from having any chance of connecting with the working class.
I look forward to your response.
Thank you. Sean.
Sean,
To say that I am in favor of the bourgeois government taxing GE is to legitimate, in the eyes of the workers, whom I should be education, the existence of both GE, as a private corporation, and the bourgeois government it controls, as well as the absurd notion that, today, the government of the bourgeoisie would increase taxes upon them.
To organize the workers in a revolutionary, transitional direction means I need to connect to the workers WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING. If I instead just tell them what they want to hear-that GE can and should be taxed by its own government--may win a popularity contest with the workers, by which I might insinuate myself, in opportunist fashion, with their reformist trade union misleaders, a la the ISO. It would not do one BIT to advance their consciousness.
Let's make an analogy. It is the job of revolutionaries to educate the workers, not to be popular with them. Your approach is analogous to a math teacher coming into a class, some of whose students say 2 +2 = 5. You say, yes that's right. Do you like me now? Because someday, I'm going to have to tell you that 2+2 = 4--just not now, because it might make you upset with me, and we can't have that now, can we? I.E. "The new math."
Richard and Sean, you act as if the workers and their consciousness operate in a vacuum. This is 180 degrees opposite to Lenin's formulation in What is to be done--the working class is in a field of consciousness CONTROLLED BY THE BOURGEOISIE (and their lackeys in the current leaderships of the trade unions). If we legitimate the bourgeois order, we further confirm their backwardness.
As Trotsky says, we can't aspire to winning over the working class in their entirety right now. But we can hope that, under the hammer blows of the economic crisis, SOME of them, the BEST of them, will be open to our transitional approach. And a transitional approach has nothing to do with taking over the role of New Deal Democrats in tying the workers to the capitalist system, now that the actual Democrats have become neo-libs and neo-cons.
I think the onus is upon you to show that Trotsky's transitional program of 1938 would not work today. What's your problem with
Sliding scale of hours and wages.
Full employment through public works.
Socialization of healthcare, education, transportation to MAKE it free.
Open the books.
Nationalize the major banks and key industries under workers management.
Unconditional defense of the workers states.
What's your problem with this? What is "ultra-left" about these eminently rational demands? And don't you think that at least SOME workers would be open to this? These demands have the added benefit that we're telling workers the TRUTH, rather than LYING to them that "taxing the rich" will work and will do the job.
I am sorry Tom but I do not understand your first two paragraphs where you talk about taxing GE. It still seems that you are for letting GE off with paying no tax. The logic of this is that all corporations would get off with paying no taxes. Comrade Tom I could go on. But I think I have said enough to show the confusion you are getting yourself into. No taxes at all from corporations seems to be your position. I am interested to see how this would connect with workers consciousness.
If I am right California of the major oil and gas producing states has no extraction tax for oil and gas. Are you in favor of these oil and gas monsters not being taxed or are you in favor of them being taxed. Comrade i am sorry but I find your explanation unconvincing.
I agree that we cannot win over the entire working class. But I feel that this is avoiding the question. What section of the working class has been won over in the past decades? I think the numbers are pretty slim. I am interested in discussing this in a self critical manner. I am in favor of and work to win over the most revolutionary sections of the working class where i can. But i am also in favor winning them over to a program and orientation which allows them to connect with and dig deeper roots in the broader layers of the working class. Many times i have seen a left group win a worker and "educate" that worker with a program and orientation which cuts that worker off from the broader layers of the working class.
You ask what is my problem with the demands in the transitional program. In the main i do not have a problem. But this is to miss the point. We have to work with the transitional method, and this means assessing the consciousness of the working class and applying the transitional method. If i can use another analogy. You can give a person a hammer and saw. Tools with which wood products can be made. But this is no guarantee that the person will be able to do this. The person has to have been trained and to have the skills to use these tools. This is the problem with most of those who claim to base themselves on the transitional program. They have been given the hammer and saw, that is the list of demands. But they cannot use the transitional method, they have not been trained, they are not skilled so the list of demands is not of use, in fact can be actually detrimental. Finally you ask me what my position is on the demand for the "unconditional defense of the workers' states." I am wondering what states you are referring to.
Comradely, Sean.
Sean, you are unable to distinguish yourself between the transitional method and the method of opportunism and reformism. The basic ingredient of the transitional method is to present demands which a socialist government could fulfill as well as a bourgeois government--but the bourgeoisie won't allow its government to do so.
A socialist government would not tax GE. They would expropriate GE.
The main lesson of the transitional method is to encourage workers to see that they can state power into their own hands. You don't grasp this basic ingredient. You are basically talking liberalism when you say "we mustn't let GE off the hook. We must tax them." Which means we must attempt to pressure the bourgeois government to tax them. Not expropriate them, ourselves.
You sound like the liberals who now clamor for the bombing of Libya. "Quadaffi is a murderer. We mustn't let him off the hook." "Hey, while we're at it, let's call for the prosecution of Roman Polanski and Julian Assange." Give me a break. As for the workers states, they are China, Vietnam, and Cuba.
I am not sure much more can be gained from this discussion. In his last and short post Tom said I was an opportunist, a reformist, against workers having state power, a liberal, supported bombing Libya, favored prosecuting Polanski and favored prosecuting Assange. Comrade this is just abuse and does not help any of us to understand the issues. By the way there is an article on this blog by me where I oppose bombing Libya.
I think we would also have to think much more about China, Vietnam and Cuba before pronouncing them without qualification to be workers states.
I will leave this discussion for here. I think my remarks made so far make my position clear.
Thank you Tom for contributing.
Sean.
Dear Sean,
As I said before, I like your blog.
I value your contribution to the workers movement.
I did not say, and did not mean to imply that you opposed "workers having state power, or that you supported bombing Libya, favored prosecuting Polanski and favored prosecuting Assange." However, there is a thin line between saying something like "let's tax GE rather than let them off the hook," and Katha Pollitt saying "let's prosecute Julian
Assange and Roman Polanski and not let them off the hook," or Juan Coles saying "let's bomb Libya and not let Quaddafi off the hook." In each instance, the "us" in "let's" is a popular front with the government, an identification of socialists and workers with the capitalist government, or, as Randolph Bouurne termed it, "the myth of the State."
I do not think you are a liberal, but I think your interpretation of the transitional method is indistinguishable from social democratic opportunism.
As Trotsky writes, I think in his book on 1905, "opportunism doesn't know how to wait." You don't know how to do that either, Sean. You think that by watering down our demands to the point where they are distinguishable from those of New Deal Democrats, you can win millions of workers to the cause of socialism. But all you will doing is fostering illusions in the Democrats. You need to WAIT until the masses are ready to hear a transitional message, and work on getting that message to those workers who are ready for that message: not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The bottom line is we need to talk to the workers about taking power, the need for it, the possibilities of it. Not talking to them about what paltry reforms the capitalist government give them if they just put a little more pressure on it, and the Democrats.
Post a Comment