World economy fundamentally unsound?

[Random]

Out of interest as you and mk12 are both supporters of the IWCA how do you see the IWCA method developing into the eventual overthrow of capitalism? Or, like LLETSA, do you think that the overthrow of capitalism is all but impossible.

I don't see it 'developing' into the overthrow of capitalism. Rather I see community organising as contributing to the possibility of superseding capitalism, by building independent working class strength; and, in the meantime winning palpable gains.

Does LLETSA post on here by the way? While I find he can be very politically cynical he also puts forward points that a lot of the left find uncomfortable, party because he makes people face up to defeats and the weak position that the left and the working class are in at the moment.

Why don't you pop over to MATB and ask him over?

 

[poster342002]

Does LLETSA post on here by the way? While I find he can be very politically cynical he also puts forward points that a lot of the left find uncomfortable, party because he makes people face up to defeats and the weak position that the left and the working class are in at the moment.

Oi! I fulfill that role, too!

 

[cockneyrebel]

I don't see it 'developing' into the overthrow of capitalism. Rather I see community organising as contributing to the possibility of superseding capitalism, by building independent working class strength; and, in the meantime winning palpable gains.

But how does it develop from a reformist method (as it currently is) to a revolutionary method? Isn’t there a danger that the IWCA method ends up re-enforcing the idea that left reformism is the best we’ll get (which is basically the message of an IWCA supporter like LLETSA)?

I have no problem with fighting for palpable gains and having community campaigns, indeed it’s essential. But when this is divorced from revolutionary politics then I think, as Houston found out, we have a problem.

Why don't you pop over to MATB and ask him over?

Haven’t posted on MATB for ages. Might PM him though!

Oi! I fulfill that role, too!

Indeed you do

 

[Random]

But how does it develop from a reformist method (as it currently is) to a revolutionary method?

Like I just said, I don't see it 'developing' into a revolutionary method at all. I'm not a vanguardist who thinks that his organisation has to be capable of doing everything, from stopping hospital closures to storming the winter palace.

 

[poster342002]

Indeed you do

As does Keyboardkockey, Treelover and a few others.

I agree, though - LLETSA is sorely missed and would be very welcome back by me, anyway...

 

[cockneyrebel]

Like I just said, I don't see it 'developing' into a revolutionary method at all. I'm not a vanguardist who thinks that his organisation has to be capable of doing everything, from stopping hospital closures to storming the winter palace.

I think you're being slightly pedantic about language here.

Clearly PR isn't capable of doing everything and I don't think PR has all the answers.

I'm saying how do you see society changing from capitalism to socialism? And in that context I presume you think the IWCA has a role to play. You say that it can "build independent working class strength; and, in the meantime win palpable gains." Fair enough. But how can the working class go from that to getting a socialist society and isn't there a danger that if there is an organisation/movement/method that only puts forward left reformism as the answer that this will end up re-enforcing illusions in reformism.

 

[poster342002]

I'm saying how do you see society changing from capitalism to socialism? And in that context I presume you think the IWCA has a role to play. You say that it can "build independent working class strength; and, in the meantime win palpable gains." Fair enough. But how can the working class go from that to getting a socialist society and isn't there a danger that if there is an organisation/movement/method that only puts forward left reformism as the answer that this will end up re-enforcing illusions in reformism.

The problem is that, at present, the working class isn't even at a reformist level of conciousness, let alone revolutionary, and is very much a marginalised force. It's that bad. Under those circumstances, at least something lile the IWCA might be able to stand a chance chipping away at this state of affairs - it's probably the only option available, tbh.

Should the level of conciousness rise (a very long way off), then who knows what may happen - via the IWCA or some other as-yet-unformed movement?

 

[mk12]

how do you see the IWCA method developing into the eventual overthrow of capitalism?

We live in Britain, in 2007. As far as I am aware, the overthrow of capitalism is not around the corner.

isn't there a danger that if there is an organisation/movement/method that only puts forward left reformism as the answer that this will end up re-enforcing illusions in reformism.

I think you focus on organisations too much. Does the IWCA "sow illusions in reformism"? Do they argue that by getting elected to local levels, they will bring about an end to capitalism>?

 

[fanciful]

I think Random's hit the nail on the head.
At the end of the day its about a different goal, one wants the superceding of capitalism - I don't think its especially clear how - the other wants its overthrow.
At one level this of course is an abstract debate at present given that neither option is likely in the short term, but the key thing is therefore how does it relate to what we do now.
And there I think its clear, we see the key priority as building an organisation based on the industrial working class as only they have the social strength to overthrow capitalism, Random wants a diffuse organisation based on the wider community, without any particular priority for the working class (at least that's what Negri said and I take it that you agree with him).
In our view that paradoxically weakens the struggles of the wider working class as it robs them of the concentrated social force to even win reforms, through for example uniting the struggles of the industrial workers with say the NHS workers or whoever.

 

[butchersapron]

Random wants a diffuse organisation based on the wider community, without any particular priority for the working class (at least that's what Negri said and I take it that you agree with him)

Where did he say this?

 

[Random]

I'm saying how do you see society changing from capitalism to socialism?

Through independent working class power.

And in that context I presume you think the IWCA has a role to play.

Yes.

 

[fanciful]

He didn't say it but Negri did, in a document posted by MK12 and as I said presumably supported by Random (as indeed I put in my post).
and simply replying "through independent working class power" doesn't answer the question.
We think that the workers will take power through "independent working class power", but we mean an armed insurrection against the capitalist state and the establishment of a socialist commune.
What do you mean?

 

[butchersapron]

He didn't say it but Negri did, in a document posted by MK12 and as I said presumably supported by Random (as indeed I put in my post).

Where did negri say this? It would be odd of him to say the least if he did -given that if would go 100% againt the postions thyat he's defended for the last 40 years. I've read the whole thread and i can't see it.

 

[fanciful]

See my post 146.

 

[cockneyrebel]

We live in Britain, in 2007. As far as I am aware, the overthrow of capitalism is not around the corner.

Well thanks for that be of insight however I'd have word with the bloke you quoted who seems to think capitalism is in crisis.

Obviously the overthrow of captialism in the UK isn't around the corner and I never suggested otherwise. My point was that in the long run how does the IWCA method tie into getting to a socialist society, or because it's not around the corner do you see that as irrelevant?

I think you focus on organisations too much. Does the IWCA "sow illusions in reformism"? Do they argue that by getting elected to local levels, they will bring about an end to capitalism>?

I think that the working class has to be organised to make progress, I don't think we can all just be individuals.

My point about sowing illusions is that if you put forward the need for reforms but don't link it to revolutionary politics/long terms goals then surely there is the danger that this will re-enforce illusions in reformism? The IWCA has a manifesto which is essentially very similar to a left social democratic programme. Now of course they don't say that getting IWCA officials elected will see the end of capitalism, but if you just fight for reforms in the here and now do you not think that will have an impact?

Random saying "yes" and "through independent working class power" is so vague that it's meaningless.

 

[mk12]

My point about sowing illusions is that if you put forward the need for reforms but don't link it to revolutionary politics/long terms goals then surely there is the danger that this will re-enforce illusions in reformism? The IWCA has a manifesto which is essentially very similar to a left social democratic programme. Now of course they don't say that getting IWCA officials elected will see the end of capitalism, but if you just fight for reforms in the here and now do you not think that will have an impact?

I don't think it's "sowing illusions" in anything. I think you're trying to apply trotskyist categories to a group completely outside that tradition.

 

[butchersapron]

See my post 146.

Ok

"These movements of the socialised worker, Negri says, take forms completely different from the factory struggles of the mass worker..."

so a) it doesn't say what you claim and b) it's not even negri.

 

[butchersapron]

This thread is a perfect example of why the left is fucked as fucked can be btw.

People no longer think in the terms that this thread assumes. People don't act as the moron-left imagies that they do. It's like reading something from the 1930s. The class struggle goes on - it's just left the left far far behind.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I don't think it's "sowing illusions" in anything. I think you're trying to apply trotskyist categories to a group completely outside that tradition.

I'm not trying to apply anything. I think that because you were in a trotskyist group you now see all trotskyists in a certain light.

All my point is that if you build a reformist organisation or use a reformist method then I think there is a danger that reformism ends up being the end goal. Don't you think this is even a possibility?

Indeed for someone like LLETSA this is the very point. Capitalism is here to stay and anything else that might come along is likely to be even worse, so reforms are the best we can get.

This thread is a perfect example of why the left is fucked as fucked can be btw.

People no longer think in the terms that this thread assumes. People don't act as the moron-left imagies that they do. It's like reading something from the 1930s. The class struggle goes on - it's just left the left far far behind.

What do you mean that people no longer think in the terms that this thread assumes? How are people assuming that people act and how do people act?

And actually I agree that the far left is fucked, but that goes as much for a models you support (the IWCA and the Anarchist Federation) as any other group or method.

Also if you think people are wrong, why not suggest positive alternatives rather than just criticising?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Lookm it's quite hard to argue about this because it all seems a bit hypothetical. What most of us seem to agree on is having working class people, activists, trae unionist etc have a say in how our services, our workplaces, our communities are run.

So if they go for privatisation, or scakings, or cuts or whatever what should we do? If we can pull it off, of we've got enough support we should oppose this through militant tactics- all out strike, mass demos, mass pickets. When the bosses or the government says there's not enough money - like Blair did over the NHS or Brown does on public sector pay, can't cause inflation and all that shit (wages don't cause inflation)- we say open the books, show us how the system's run at the moemnt and we'll run t for you. Questions of reform and revolution come in when the state begins to use not only the media, but the riot cops and ultimately soldiers against us- then all the work for democratic independent working class organsations comes in to play. We are for the conquest of power from the capitalist class.

But as I say it can all seem abstract. We need in the here and now to organise for taking power where we can in our workplaces, organising ourselves as working class activists, organising links with others, making links with other workers, other struggles.

 

[urbanrevolt]

The class struggle goes on - it's just left the left far far behind.

what do you mean by this?

 

[fanciful]

It is a summary of Negri by someone who agrees with him. And it does say what I said. Tho' I'll accept that Negri's semi-Hegelian style isn't exactly accessible and deliberately designed in my view to be unclear.
The point is though irrespective of Negri or not, are the industrial working class still that sector of society with the social power to challenge the capitalists? We believe they are and hence base our orientation on that.
And in a sense I agree with you the class struggle has left the left behind, it's been living in a weird catastrophist never never land for a long time. It's about time it came back to earth.

 

[butchersapron]

It is a summary of Negri by someone who agrees with him. And it does say what I said. Tho' I'll accept that Negri's semi-Hegelian style isn't exactly accessible and deliberately designed in my view to be unclear.
The point is though irrespective of Negri or not, are the industrial working class still that sector of society with the social power to challenge the capitalists? We believe they are and hence base our orientation on that.
And in a sense I agree with you the class struggle has left the left behind, it's been living in a weird catastrophist never never land for a long time. It's about time it came back to earth.

Fucking hell. It doesn't say what you said. It doesn't say anything like:

"Random wants a diffuse organisation based on the wider community, without any particular priority for the working class (at least that's what Negri said and I take it that you agree with him)"

It says:

"These movements of the socialised worker, Negri says, take forms completely different from the factory struggles of the mass worker..."

They're entirely different.

And it gets worse. Negri is an anti-hegelian. Not a 'semi-Hegelian' which you're clearly just using here as a term to denote 'difficult' and sos to cover your arse.

And no, the point is that you're using a total misreading, an almost 100% total misreading, of someone to dismiss a whole host of objections to you and your practice. I don't think i've ever read such daft intepretations of Negri or 'autonomism' outide of Callincios or Hari. Is it tactical or genuine ignorance?

And that's why you try to fit him and everything else into your 'new' perspective - which is simply your old perspective turned upside down - and still of course trapped in all the old catergories.

Things have changed but you want to play the same games, with a new cast. You don't realise that you're not the players now and you haven't been for some time.

 

[JoePolitix]

Who are the "players"?

 

[butchersapron]

The players are the working class. I thought you were some sort of marxist? The old left thought (and some still clearly think) that *they* were though.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Butchers I think this stuff about negri is essentially a bit of a diversion (whether or not fanciful has got stuff wrong on him), but the main point fanciful is making is about the centrality of the organised working class.

I just think the way you write sometimes sounds a bit like a sociology essay, I don't mean that as a dig I just find it quite hard to work out what you're getting at sometimes.

You say that people are stuck in a time warp but are the politics of the Anarchist Federation or the IWCA so different to anything else that the left is offering?

You don't realise that you're not the players now and you haven't been for some time.

Again this seems like you've just got pre-set ideas of the far left. Who on the UK far left who isn't deluded would they think that they're "the players".

Also, as said earlier, if you think that what people are suggesting is wrong, rather than just criticising why don't you offer a positive alternative?

 

[fanciful]

Well I don't agree but I'm not going to read Negri to find out. I've tried in the past and its not been worth the effort.

 

[Random]

Well I don't agree but I'm not going to read Negri to find out. I've tried in the past and its not been worth the effort.

Not really worth using a reference to Negri to criticise someone's position, then, is it?

FWIW, I think there's a big difference between not concentrating on big industrial enterprises and abandoning the working class. There's a huge industrial enterprise in East Oxford - the Cowley Works, one of the biggest factories in Britain. The trots that still leaflet there (Workers' Fight, iirc) still think they should lead these mini-workers to victory. Are PR saying that with the right leaflets - easy on the catastrophism - this could still happen?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Not really worth using a reference to Negri to criticise someone's position, then, is it?

I think that's a fair point but as I was saying to butchers I think what Negri says is a distraction to this thread.

FWIW, I think there's a big difference between not concentrating on big industrial enterprises and abandoning the working class. There's a huge industrial enterprise in East Oxford - the Cowley Works, one of the biggest factories in Britain. The trots that still leaflet there (Workers' Fight, iirc) still think they should lead these mini-workers to victory. Are PR saying that with the right leaflets - easy on the catastrophism - this could still happen?

And this is the point, well the first sentence anyway.

Of course you can't change leaflets, do you seriously think that's what we're saying? The point about economic catastrophism is that it underpins much of how the far left act today, and some of the left tie themselves up in even further knots through the idea of state capitalism and are unable therefore to understand what happened in the 90s and 00s. And no butchers is wrong, PR haven't turned WPs position on its head, it's a different way of looking at economics, not the opposite though.

The other side of the above is that many others, because of the defeats, end up abandoning revolutionary politics together, or shelve it for some unknown future dates. That's my problem with mk12 statement that a revolution isn't around the corner. Well obviously not, but revolutionary politics aren't just about when that's the case, anything but.

The point fanciful is making is that it's still the industrial working class who have the most power, giving the example of the health workers and the RMT. Of course that doens't mean you ignore other struggles but the point is that some of the quotes that people have put up on this thread seem to point more towards not recognising this and have the "different moles" position or whatever the phrase was.

 

[Random]

Of course you can't change leaflets, do you seriously think that's what we're saying?

Pretty much everything you post about the different between your group and the other trots points to this.