Support for capitalism falls in US.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Apr 19, 2011 14:39

..with a little profitable philantropy on the side..

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Apr 12, 2011 13:38

I went over to the BBC news to meet a report of a Republican(English)celebration to coincide with the Rile Weddin being banned by Camden Council.

Ireland meantime is having an avalanche of visting majesties to remind us of the nEU World Order. Croppy comoners, lie down.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Apr 12, 2011 13:29

you throw Left and Right around as though they were precise scientific terms.
But on one point, '..the blame is correctly assigned to problems internal to the left which seems unable to make a coherent case'.

Is part of that not the simple fact that ideological semantics handicaps progress?Every time I hear 'Left' I have to analyse the context in hope of eliciting the general meaning being imposed on the term by its user. Its seldom clear, and usually conducive to hairsplitting arguments, which spiral off, as you say 'internally' and ad infinitum to the joy of self-congratulatory 'intellectuals'. Otherwise its a bludgeon of the 'Right' for any challenge to its hegemony.

Meantime, back in the world of the ordinary worker trying to keep his snout above the debt, all conduits of debate are long controlled by the entrenched Right. I see America at the minute as akin to Germany circa 1938/9, rolling out its proxy bid for its Projected New Century reich through NATO and its revived Euro-imperial 'civilising mission' to contain any attempt to implement actual democratic regimes that might control their territorial resources for their peoples. Neatly wrapped in a pristine banner of democratic dictation.
Adolf&Co wanted leibensraum(resources and cheap labour) in the east, while USInc. wants corporate 'free trade'(the bigger yer arsenal the freer yer trade) out to the edge of the solar system. And if threat of serious resistance emerged it would be a snowball to Fukushima.
I think the debate needs changing to who's democracy, and where do we see the best examples. Certainly not the nominal democracies of contending corporate lobbyists monopolising the machinery purporting to represent the demos.

by Mike Novack Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:49

That's how YOU interpret the situation in Wisconsin?

Let me ask you something. What do you know about the politics of Wisconsin? (history). Wisconsin is one of the more divided between extreme states. Think both Bob LaFollet and Joe McCarthy. And not a place to simply think Democrat vs Republian*.

Understand? You intepret a takeover via democratic election by right wing Republicans as indicating a shift to the left among the people of Wisconsin? You interpret that the Republicans now control both houses of the legislature plus the governor's mansion as indicating there are more strong right arms favoring the left?se right wingers in.

Sure there were big demos. But had they threatened anything you should assume that it wouldn't be just the powers of the state but lots of those people who voted right wing out there with their guns to defend democracy. REMEMBER -- democracy is not about making good, wise, just, etc. etc. decisions but when working properly, just the decisions that the people want. Well this time around the people (for whatever reason) voted those right wingers in.

Do I know about the situation in the US? Well I do live here. Like I said, in one of the most "left" parts of the country (in the 2000 election Bush came in THIRD in many of the western MA hill towns). But even here an up or down vote on socialism would lose. If you imagine that this pleases me you aren't reading carefully but the blame is correctly assigned to problems internal to the left which seems unable to make a coherent case.

* Easy to forget that the Progressives were a branch of the Republican Party. The New Deal was originally LaFollet's baby. Or think of La Guardia of NYC. Populism is hard to pin down to party or even left vs right.

by Dick Mon Apr 11, 2011 16:36

Interesting John ,but I can't open that link . There's a story on Huffingdon about the poll here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/us-china-brazi....html

John and Mike seem to agree that the left /radical movement n the US isn't growing , but how do they know that is the case ?The events in Wisconsin last month would suggest that some sort of radicalisation is occuring . The poll seems to confirm it.
I don't know who the "Tom" is that John is debating with in his comment.

by Mike Novack Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:48

"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."

No --- the problem with the left in the US today is that it is effectively non-existent. To which add the miniscule numbers are split into a zillion warring factions and the above comment is a symptom of that.

Look -- I am NOT intending to take sides on internal left disagreements except to point out that some semblence of unity far more importance than being right on this or that strategic or tactical question. At least to the extent of being able to think of each other (the different factions) as being on the same side. To be sure, many/most of the factions are living in la-la land and haven't a clue why the workers won't listen to them (and why the workers don't trust them). But the problem ISN'T "too reformist" since very few workers go beyond reformism in their thinking. Nor are they necessarily wrong. Even if you win, revolution is a negative sum game so you need to be very sure your payout is greater than in a negotiated compromise. Please, this is NOT saying reform will work but you need to understand why for so many it must have been shown to have failed before they will chance further.

by john throne - Facts For Working People. Sun Apr 10, 2011 17:50 loughfinn at aol dot com

4 comments:
Tom said...
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."
April 9, 2011 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...
Saw a massive ISO contingent at the April 9 antiwar rally in NY.
April 10, 2011 6:46 AM
Sean said...
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 most of my other 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 another 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 also ultra leftism.

Part 2.
April 10, 2011 8:20 AM
Sean said...
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, continue to 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 the workers 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. It is like where I think it was Einstein said people who use a method which does not work but keep repeating this same method again and again expecting it to work the next time.

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.
April 10, 2011 8:40 AM
Post a Comment

Links to this post

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Apr 10, 2011 13:42

I find that since I adopted a diplomatic tone and keep my voice down the capitalists are quite agreeable wee people.
Here's an example of me renegotiating my loan repayments, caught on location with in-house unfiltered camera..He immediatlely felt inclined to share my pain. Even the security men doffed their hats respectfully.

Talkin to the bank manager...

by Mike Novack Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:19

The problem with a poll like this (and trying to compare results across countries/cultures) us that there isn't a common understanding of the terms.

Take the US for example. You need to understand how people here might be understanding terms like "free enterprise capitalism" and potential alternatives.

I'm sorry --- but those answering pro aren't necessarily "voting" for regulated capitalism with that latter understood as capitalism but WITH unions, labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc. large numbers of those answering pro are voting for UNBRIDLED capitalims. And those on the anti side? Very few are for anything WE could consider socialism. For the most part they are opting for more heavily regulated capitalism. It's simply an expression of the (narrow) range of the social debate over here.

You really need to understand that silly as it might seem to you significant numbers here consider regulated capitalism to be socialism, consider moderate Democrats like Obama to be "reds". This wouldn't be true of other countries in which those "voting" for capitalism might by this mean something a majority of folks in the US might consider socialism. Look at the health care debate in the US if you need an example.