Date
1 - 20 of 28
Reform as the only game in town?
|
Frederick Harris
This is the condescending and sectarian view of reformists. "Every increase in the power to control the decisions that affect our lives should be praised." This hardly addresses the class power of employers. Nor does it address the issue of the capacity of the capitalist state to co-opt reformist measures, thereby preventing more radical measures. As for the issue of increasing control of our lives as absolutely worthy of praise: many reforms that immediately increase control of our lives also decrease our capacity to engage in a more radical critique of the class power of employers. Collective-bargaining regimes, for example, have "increased the power of some workers to affect their lives." However, this has turned into an idealization of collective bargaining--as if free collective bargaining can eliminate exploitation and oppression. Furthermore, as Karl Polanyi saw, there is a movement towards reforming capitalism--and this movement tends to produce its own counter-movement of capitalists moving in the opposite direction. Why not question this to-and-fro movement rather than assuming that it is the only game in town? In relation to the capitalist state, Thomas Mathiesen saw the danger of the capacity of the capitalist state to neutralize leftist movements.. Mathiesen calls the state absorbent when it has a refined capacity for neutralizing radical and revolutionary movements and demands. Mathiesen calls being co-opted "being defined in" and being shuffled to the side as irrelevant extremists "being defined out." He calls "finished" the impossibility of contributing to the overcoming of the economic, political and social structures that characterize the dominance of the class of employers. From Mathiesen (1980), Law, Society and Political action: Towards a Strategy Under Late Capitalism ,page 252: Fred |
|
|
|
gilschaeffer82@...
As usual, Fred, you don't distinguish between reforms and reformism. I didn't say that reforms are the only game in town, and I didn't say that socialism shouldn't be a goal. I said that dismissing real victories that fall short of socialism because they are not socialism is sectarian and dogmatic. Disagree with me if you like, but please don't mischaracterize what I say.
|
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
Why don't we stop calling each other sectarians" That's what sectarians do. This list works best IMO when we provide information and construct arguments rather than call people names and run each other down. Mrk |
|
|
|
Frederick Harris
The equivalent of "every" is "all." Logically, this means "without exception." So, all reforms "and all increase in the power to control the decisions that affect our lives should be praised" is--without exception. Now, instead of addressing a concrete example of collective bargaining and the typical social-democratic rhetoric that idealizes collectives bargaining,Schaeffer engages in subterfuge: He claims to distinguish between " between reforms and reformism. I didn't say that reforms are the only game in town, and I didn't say that socialism shouldn't be a goal. I said that dismissing real victories that fall short of socialism because they are not socialism is sectarian and dogmatic." Is the collective-bargaining regime "a real victory?" Has Schaeffer answered the question by referring to the distinction between "reform and reformism?" Not at all. I infer that his language is doublespeak. Let him provide examples of this profound distinction between "reform" and "reformism." I I have my doubts.--but let us see what he writes. Fred |
|
|
|
gilschaeffer82@...
So, I disagree. What is gained by saying the US won the Vietnam War in the end? The same in regard to saying the South won the Civil War in the end. That is not providing information or constructing a good argument. That is diminishing the gains that were made. Saying there were gains is not reformism. I don't know what term you would like to use to characterize leftists being dismissive of momentous historical struggles. Sectarianism is a real phenomenon. Of course, everyone denies that they themselves are being sectarian, but it is not the use of the word "sectarianism" that is sectarian. In the cases under discussion here, sectarianism is the attitude that if everything wasn't won, then nothing was won.
|
|
|
|
gilschaeffer82@...
Yes, the collective bargaining regime was a real victory and was an advance over the situation when unions were illegal.
|
|
|
|
Frederick Harris
Why don't we stop calling each other sectarians" That's what sectarians do. This list works best IMO when we provide information and construct arguments rather than call people names and run each other downMy view is that there is a necessary rift between those who really want to challenger the class power of employers and those who aim to obtain reforms without further ado. This is not a listserve that is one big family with similar goals. Providing information and constructing arguments, independently of our own personal experiences and class situations, will hardly change other people's minds; this exaggerates the power of reason. Fred |
|
|
|
Schaeffer does not address the issue of how collective-bargaining also integrated workers into a capitalist system.
He remains silent over the issue. What of the issue of unions referring to "fair contracts," "fair wages," and the like? His assertions are purely reformist and fail to see how workers were coopted through the idealization of the collective-bargaining process. Why bullshit the workers into claiming that the contract is fair? Why not say that the collective-bargaining agreement is the best we can obtain for now given the power situation--but that we deserve much, much more? Why the limitaiton on the power of workers through the acceptance of collective-bargaining as somehow fair? Why is that? Why does Schaeffer ignore the double-edged sword of such a "reform." His "distinction" between "reform"and "reformism" rings hollow. And what of management rights clauses? Why the silence over that? Many collective agreements explicitly indicate managerial rights--as a right (and even if they do not, arbitrators infer such rights). What do union reps have to say about that? What does Schaeffer have to say about that? How does this right relate to exploitation and oppression? Why is that the vast majority of grievances of collective agreements come from--unions? Perhaps because management (aka representatives of employers) have most of the power to decide what is to be done, where and when--and do not need to grieve, whereas workers have much less power and need to grieve--after the fact (when management has made a decision). Schaeffer needs to be concrete how his distinction between "reform" and "reformism" makes any real difference--except leading to simple reforms that accept and justify the existing class power of employers. Fred Schaeffer simply ignores this fact. |
|
|
|
Dayne Goodwin
"Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
first paragraph of her "Introduction" (written April 18, 1899) "At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal – the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labour. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for the Social Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/intro.htm Yes Mark, "sectarian" can be used as an unjustified epithet but sectarianism is an actual phenomena as exemplified in the political practice Frederick Harris shares on this list. Dayne On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:01 PM <gilschaeffer82@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
gilschaeffer82@...
Workers are integrated into the capitalist system through the system of collective bargaining. Slaves were integrated into the capitalist system after the US Civil War. For true human liberation we need socialism. But that was not how this discussion began. It began with what I saw as the ridiculous claim that the US won the Vietnam War in the long run. I objected to the denial that the Vietnamese struggle for national liberation was a real victory, that collective bargaining was a real reform, and that the destruction of the slave system in the US was also a real victory. I objected to the equation of these victories with reformism. How we get beyond where we are now is a real problem, but we don't get closer to an answer by mischaracterizing the gains that have been won.
|
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
On Mar 27, 2023, at 6:47 PM, gilschaeffer82@... wrote:Our point of departure is that the so-called workers states have all collapsed and become capitalist countries. That's just reality. We need to accept that reality going forward. We should be asking ourselves "why?" and not taking pot shots at messengers. So what was accomplished in 1973 when the US gave up on Vietnam? Within 2 years, Portuguese colonialism collapsed following the victories of FELIMO and MPLA. There's a lot more that could be said, but I have other points. Domestically in the US, the victory of Vietnam over US imperialism coupled with the victory of the US Civil Rights Movement over Jim Crow was like a one-two punch against US white supremacy. Also, the US Vietnam anti-war movement, both civilian and military gave anti-communism a bad name. Six months following the Vietnamese victory, I was in Fort Riley having completed the first year of a two-year obligation. We tried to continue the antiwar movement through a petitioning campaign to stop REFORGER NATO training in Germany. It was quixotic, as it turned out, but attempts to isolate me personally as a "communist" by my battalion command led nowhere. Here is a press release that we developed at the end of that campaign that I personally typed, as I was a clerk in the 12st Signal Battalion: https://web.archive.org/web/20230105050025/https://content.wisconsinhistory.org/digital/collection/p15932coll8/id/49971 Apart from KP duties (additional "training") during summer field exercises, I suffered no consequences from my fellow GIs despite being branded as a communist by officers in my unit. That movement to stop the US war machine failed because the GI movement had fallen apart, particularly the civilian part of it. The US antiwar movement against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars failed, Occupy failed to accomplish its goals as did BLM. We should be considering these failures so we can stop failing. And we need to have a better idea of why post-capitalist countries went capitalist. I'm sorry if I upset you. Mark |
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
On Mar 27, 2023, at 6:51 PM, Frederick Harris <luchaharris@...> wrote:And the alternative is, Fred? Mark |
|
|
|
Michael Meeropol
OK -- I'll bite --- If one tries to actually analyze what the imperialists were fighting for in Indochina (from the moment the US decided to help the French) the US did NOT care who had the formal control of the governments of Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia --- they were afraid (there is writing about this in the late 1940s and 1950s --- the book of readings about Vietnam edited by Lloyd Gardner and W.A> Williams has them ) that "communist" control of Indochina would be a step towards removing more and more countries from the world capitalist system --- (maybe even threatening in the long run Japan's integration into the world system) --- remember this wa particularly "scary" to the capitalists after the victory of the Chinese Revolutionaries in 1949. YES -- the nationalistic Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian movements gained political control of those three countries --- but the long run INTEGRATION of (particularly) Vietnam into the capitalist world system means that the MOST IMPORTANT reason the US intervened in "French Indochina" and then after 1954 intervened directly was to preserve it as a colonial outpost of the world system --- and in the end after 1975 they ultimately GOT that -- was it better for the Vietnamese than if the Saigon puppets and corrupt warlords had "won" the war --- YES --- just like sharecropping, share-tenantry, etc. was "better" than slavery --- BUT the long term goal of revolutionaries who thought that China, Vietnam, Southern AFrica, Cuba, other states in Latin America would make a complete break from the imperialist system was thwarted --- (one could argue that the massacre of communists in Indonesia was one of the crucial elements in that long run "victory") On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:32 PM <gilschaeffer82@...> wrote: Workers are integrated into the capitalist system through the system of collective bargaining. Slaves were integrated into the capitalist system after the US Civil War. For true human liberation we need socialism. But that was not how this discussion began. It began with what I saw as the ridiculous claim that the US won the Vietnam War in the long run. I objected to the denial that the Vietnamese struggle for national liberation was a real victory, that collective bargaining was a real reform, and that the destruction of the slave system in the US was also a real victory. I objected to the equation of these victories with reformism. How we get beyond where we are now is a real problem, but we don't get closer to an answer by mischaracterizing the gains that have been won. |
|
|
|
Frederick Harris
Yes Mark, "sectarian" can be used as an unjustified epithet but Ah--I am a sectarian. In what way? The quote from Luxemburg is interesting. She does not--anymore than I do--argue against reforms. If anyone has ever bothered to read many of my posts on my blog, they would realize that I tried, when being an employee, to link "reform" with a questioning of the class power of employers. So, I am hardly opposed to "reform"--anymore than Luxemburg was. Luxemburg, however, was opposed to those, like Bernstein, who theoretically or in practice opted for reforms that do not challenger the system. And collective-bargaining nowadays hardly challgenges the system. On my blog, I posted several posts that showed that the largest unions in Canada--both priviate and public--frequently engage in the rhetoric of "fair contracts," "fair wages," and so forth. So, while workers are being exploited and oppressed--despite a collective agreement (unless it is claimed that collective agreements magically removes exploitation and oppression--their representatives claim the relationship to be fair. And the left "non-sectarians" remain silent over the issue? Who is being sectarian here? Is there any wonder why some workers find unions to be useless if not colluding with employers? How many union reps these days openly declare that workers are systematically exploited and oppressed? Not many, as far as I can see. Luxemburg was opposed to the sectarianism of reformists--that is clear. Fred |
|
|
|
Frederick Harris
Schaeffer now seems to contradict himself. He claims that collective bargaining was a gain--but now he agrees with me that "Workers are integrated into the capitalist system through the system of collective bargaining."
So, we have gained--at the expense of being coopted. So, we have lost. So, how do we go beyond a reformism that leads to just that--reformism and not to a challenge of the class power of employers? By referring to a supposed distinction between "reforms" and "reformism?" This is pure word play. Collective bargaining integrated workers into the capitalist system--with the help of reformers, among others. As I pointed out above, Thomas Mathiesen indicated that the members of the capitalist state and the related structures have become quite adept at integrating the working class. How are we to address this problem? By the magic words of making an empty distinction between "reform" and "reformism?" Fred |
|
|
|
Frederick Harris
I would say that the alternative is--the politics of exposure. Rather than attempting to change other people's views through "reason"--it is better to expose their views--critique, if you like. I have little doubt that whatever I write will hardly change Schaeffer's views--and undoubtedly others on this list. However, some who desire to challenge the class power of employers may see through their claims at least.
People have "trajectories" in life--as workers, students, fathers, mothers, spouses, sons, daughters, other genders, in certain areas of the world. Will reason change their trajectories? I doubt it. If, however, you speak to their interests--as the negative example of Macron changing the retirement age from 62 to 64--then you will more likely engage their interests and at least temporarily change their trajectories since another event has threatened their own trajectories. Another examle here in Toronto. Support workers went out on strike. The premier of Ontario (Toronto is located in the province of Ontario) legislated them back to work--but he also used the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution to prevent the workers from challenging the legislation in the courts. This galvanized the union bureaucrats to threaten a general strike--since "free collective bargaiining" was actually threatened--and such collective bargaining is indeed something which they defend (while simultaneously considering it "fair.") Their trajectory changed for a brief moment--until the premier backed down. So, I doubt that reason has all that much power. This society is irrational--human beings must have access to the means of production--or the human species would die. But theoretically and practically, they are legally separated from such means of production. If reason were so powerful, it would be easier to convince workers that this society is irrational and needs to be changed. But it is hardly that easy. Fred |
|
|
|
gilschaeffer82@...
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:32 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
We are all trying to figure out what went wrong and how to advance the movement. One thing I see in some of these attempts is setting standards and expectations too high, such as your reference to post-capitalist countries reverting to capitalism. I don't see that these countries were ever post capitalist, so I don't see their integration into the world market system as a regression. They were all such poor countries to begin with and wanted to trade with the advanced capitalist countries but were denied by the US during the Cold War. If our expectations are too high and they are not met, I see two possible outcomes: one is to reexamine what are reasonable expectations and the other is to be disappointed that reality doesn't measure up to what we want. I think only the first of these is capable of generating new and productive ideas.On Mar 27, 2023, at 6:47 PM, gilschaeffer82@... wrote:Our point of departure is that the so-called workers states have all collapsed and become capitalist countries. That's just reality. We need to accept that reality going forward. We should be asking ourselves "why?" and not taking pot shots at messengers. |
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
On Mar 27, 2023, at 7:45 PM, Michael Meeropol <mameerop@...> wrote:That was 10 years before the reunification of Vietnam. I'm curious, maybe a bit clueless, about what the argument is. Mark |
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 07:32 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
We should be asking ourselves "why"Indeed. Why did the masses in USSR, China, Vietnam and elsewhere accept integration into the capitalist world economy? Why did they passively aquiesce in a turn to the right rather than rise up against the "bureaucracy” or “revisionists” in defence of public ownership and the social gains of their revolutions? Why did the same process occur earlier in the more developed capitalist economies in the West, where the workers abandoned revolutionary syndicalism, Marxism and other forms of militant activity aimed at the overthrow of the capitalist system to follow leaders who promoted collective bargaining, class harmony (“the social contract”) and gradual reform of the system? In other words, why didn’t the struggle for reform lead inexorably in the direction of revolution, as Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and other revolutionary Marxists confidently expected? My own view is that capitalism as a world system, despite its repeated crises, had not - has not - yet exhausted its capacity for reform and recovery and expansion into new zones of exploitation, on which such optimistic expectations were predicated. Perhaps the latest convulsions of the global capitalist order will be the final crisis, but Marxism as method has so far proven superior to Marxism as prophecy. |
|
|
|
Mark Baugher
On Mar 27, 2023, at 9:03 PM, gilschaeffer82@... wrote:The leaders of revolutionary Russia, the founders of the Soviet Union, did set high expectations in their writings and their deeds. From what I read, they would have been surprised to learn that they founded a new capitalist nation in 1922. The expropriation of their capitalist, comprador, or autocratic classes, the defeat of foreign armies or foreign-supported armies, the nationalization of production, distribution and exchange, and the establishment of planned economies have been referred to as "workers states" or "socialist states" for more than a century. I prefer the term "post-capitalist" since they were of course not socialist, in the Marxist sense, and workers had little to do with the running of those states. Mark |
|
|