The economic crisis is material, not ideological

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hawkeye
The economic crisis is material, not ideological
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The economic crisis is material, not ideological. The discussion was initiated by Hawkeye.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Hawkeye
On the material crisis in Britain

The website of the CPB-ML,  workers.org.uk   has an article 'For a 21st-century industrial revolution!'.  That is as from the Nov 2010 issue of their paper 'Workers'.  Here is a short quote from it :-

   'Are 61 million people going to go down with this shipwreck of capitalism?  No manufacturing means no wealth creation, which means no future.  Unless mass suicide is planned, then our responsibility is to the future and to say no to the economics of the insane.  We have to define the national and industrial plans in order to wrest Britain away from capitalism.' (end of quote).

On the same website, as from March 2010, from the report on their 15th Congress, the following appears, obviously related to the foregoing :-

   'Britain is the inspiration for, and the natural home of, Communism.  We have to think of Britain as a small component part of an eventual Communist world.  Communism can only exist as a world system; the State cannot wither away in a single country surrounded by others armed to the teeth.  Our own advance depends on the advance of workers everywhere.' (end of quote).

Beltov
Your point being?

Your point being?

Hawkeye
Reply to Beltov

On Nov 7, 2010, you asked 'Your point being?'  The point of my comment of Nov 7, 2010, 20.57  was to let readers know of what the CPB-ML had to say, as shown, but I suppose I should say that I do not belong to that party nor to any other at present.  Their point that 'the State cannot wither away in a single country surrounded by others armed to the teeth'  should, I reckon, be carefully considered by all who argue and struggle for a stateless world, asking whether a transition towards that would be via breakdowns of states by revolution or by agreements between states, which might be of a proletarian character, perhaps to form a workers' world government.  However, I haven't forgotten that the communist left argues that a communist world would not consist of states anyway.  May I tentatively also suggest that it might be better, now, to consider all this without having heads jammed in buckets of yesteryears' theories ?!

devoration1
Quote:May I tentatively also

Quote:
May I tentatively also suggest that it might be better, now, to consider all this without having heads jammed in buckets of yesteryears' theories ?!

Thats a pretty poor interpretation of what studying past struggles and theories is all about. If issues have been definitively put to rest decades, generations, ago- why rehash it all over again? Why let the opportunism of failed policies sneak in through the back door? I'm all for open and frank discussion on any topic. Though I think it would be a mistake to throw out the experience of revolutionaries and workers struggles in the process.

This happened in the late '60s and early '70s in Europe and the US- the entire of experience of the Kunerists, the March Action, the first Hungarian SR, 'Theory of the offensive', etc was left to the history books and Marxologists. Then we get adventurists wrapped in hippy and Maoist slogans repeating the exact same line of thinking all over again. Go back further and you get the Bakuninists and Blanquists; a comprehensive history of an idea that has been discredited.

I think the same line can be taken from Lassalle to Trotsky about 'proletarian states' to definitively prove this is an opportunistic, anti-working class theory that has been shown by history to not work in the favor of the working class and its historic mission to overthrow capitalism and abolish class society.

The idea that being a student of working class history and experience is analagous to a fetishistic reenactor of a bygone era is totally wrong.

Hawkeye
Unstuck

Well, of course what devoration1 wrote on Nov 8, 2010, 21.41, is largely a suitable response to assumed denigration of the values of workers' past experience in struggles, in both practice and theory, as long as we don't get so immersed in controversies over histories that we fail to study what is actually going on today, with a view to being useful to the working class now and onwards.

I would draw readers' attention to the article 'Unity in the fight against the cuts'  on the website  newworker.org.

Regards.  8-11-2010.

devoration1
New Worker Article

To make things easier for those involved in this discussion, here is the article Hawkeye mentioned:

Quote:

Unity in the fight against the cuts

THROUGHOUT Britain people who have never been involved in anything political before are thinking about joining the multitude of protests against the Con-Dem Coalition cuts. There has not been such an upsurge since the millions-strong popular struggle that defeated the poll tax. And that is the point — the strength of the working class lies in its numbers, its diversity, and the thousands of different but complementary tactics that arise through people’s ingenuity. These range from those prepared to defy the law and go to prison to those who write letters to papers and their MPs. All make a contribution and all are needed.

In the fight against the poll tax those willing to go to prison rather than pay hit the headlines but it was the hundreds of thousands who delayed paying, who bombarded the authorities with awkward queries and generally messed around that made the unjust tax totally unworkable and forced the Tory government to abandon it.

We need that kind of unity now. But as ever, there are forces fostered by the ruling class that wish to sow division and we must be very careful not to play into their hands. There are anti-cuts campaigns developing spontaneously in localities and various ultra-left organisations are setting up their own campaigns that are more to do with recruiting new members and attacking mainstream labour movement leaders in the unions and Labour Party.

Many people new to politics will join them because they want to protest at the cuts and these divisive organisations are the first they come across on the high street. And if we criticise them for this we play into the hands of the splitters and we become the unreasonable sectarians. We must welcome and support all actions against the cuts while emphasising the need for unity across the movement.

Many right-wing labour leaders lay themselves open to attack for lack of courage and enthusiasm in this fight; there are some who would have us sit on our hands until the next general election and trust to a new Labour government to deliver us. That will not happen — the working class has to organise, mobilise and deliver itself from this vicious ruling class attack on all of us.

Our role as communists is to take a full part in the struggle at all levels, injecting a Marxist-Leninist perspective, building class unity and class confidence. The ultra-left splitters and the right-revisionist cowards and traitors will show themselves up. We do not need to go around pointing fingers; that would confuse and discourage those who are new to the movement. We must focus on giving positive guidance of the correct way forward if we wish to win the respect of the newly politicised workers.

We must argue against artificial barriers between those who are willing to engage in strong tactics that defy the law and the millions who are more cautious but want to do something. We are all on the same side. We must support involvement and activity at all levels — experience in struggle is a process that leads to courage and commitment.

And we must continue to publicise the mass protests against cuts happening in places like Greece and France and hold them up as great examples of mobilised workers in action. We must strengthen our international links with workers all around the world who are engaged in similar struggles.

The TUC and the unions now could help by issuing an information campaign through leaflets or newspaper adverts giving central contact details to enable everyone to find out what is happening in their area and a range of activities they can get involved in. This would help to get new activists engaged in the mainstream of the struggle before the splitters can recruit them.

Within the labour movement there are differences between those who want to build a giant demonstration next 26th March and those who want a big demonstration before Christmas. There should not be a contradiction, the more activity the better. Certainly the March demonstration must be truly huge but that does not preclude other activity in the meantime. It all helps to raise awareness that protest is growing and encourages people to get involved.

The building of a mass, organised, mobilised, politically conscious and united working class movement is the greatest contribution we can make to securing the demise of capitalism and the achievement of socialism.

-The New Worker, Week Of 11/05/2010 issue

http://www.newworker.org/archive2010/nw20101105/unity_against_the_cuts.html

I'll add my take on the above post and this article shortly.