Savage liberalism is the policy most favorable to the development of communism. It must be encouraged.

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Savage liberalism is the policy most favorable to the development of communism. It must be encouraged.
Printer-friendly version

In the 21st century, we find ourselves in a situation similar to the 18th, where corporations artificially restrict the supply of labor through expensive training and immigration restrictions.

This situation is both anti-liberal and anti-communist, because we need a clear separation between the capitalist class and the proletarian class, we need a homogeneous proletariat, with a similar class situation, with international exchanges and equal access to employment and vocational training.

On the contrary, the corporations block access to the professions of executives and technicians through restrictive diplomas and immigration restrictions, thus artificially increasing their wages to the detriment of foreigners and non-graduates who vegetate in poverty.

In so doing, they increase the social incidentals and prevent the entry into the labor market of large numbers of workers in the most productive sectors of the global economy. Indeed, wages are higher in the most productive sectors of society; recruitment and training restrictions in these sectors slow their growth and reciprocally slow down the degeneration of the less productive sectors.

It is the modern bourgeois-proletariat, the nomenklatura of diplomas, vocational training and chauvinism.

Lowering wages, or an

Lowering wages, or an acceleration of the "most productive" economic sectors, might favor (or not) the development of communism, but leaving that aside, my first point would be that these phenomona, just as the intended homogeneziation of the proletariat that you see as allegedly such a vital precondition, are largely determined by structural processes, and not by hiring practices of enterprises, state policies regarding education and immigration, or even, by a choice of the educated layers of the Western working class itself (to give itself higher wages and become bourgeoisfied).

But for argument's sake, supposing all this were in the hands of political movements to change/reform; it would not only be a mere reformist demand, but a "savage" (your term) capitalist reformist demand at that. The development of communism requires a *conscious* break with capitalism, even under the "best" objective conditions.

Your basic logic is nothing new. For example there was the argument that, given that a world war would develop conditions that would lead to revolution, therefore socialists must support the war.

In fact the typical Maoist ("radical") argument about a bourgeoisfied Western working class, simply accepts the Western chauvinist bourgeois propaganda (that the Western workers have an interest to side with their ruling class) as true.

Liberalism increases average

Liberalism increases average wages, but decreases high wages and increases low wages.

The conscious break with capitalism requires objective conditions: it is not the product of pure reflection.

These economic conditions are the homogenization of the living conditions of the proletariat on an international scale.

However, corporatism, unionism, universities and training centers on the one hand, nationalist parties, the government and the state on the other hand, tend to create an elite on the basis of diplomas and nationality, without another reason than to create a buffer layer between the mass of the proletariat and the capitalists.

It is this layer which prevents the communist revolution, and not a purely ideological deficiency. Either way, this layer has the ideology that matches their situation.

Although this is part of its program because of its internationalism and anti-Stalinism, I think the ICC should put more emphasis on its struggle for freedom of migration and against the nomenklatura.

His anti-unionism is too vague and misses the point.

You're speaking of

You're speaking of corporatism and liberalism (+internationalism, Stalinism, anti-unionism, and so on) like they're policy demands, and aren't determined by objective economic conditions. Consequently even the state, as a superstructure, is determined solely by itself, for, in your view, the purpose of "heterogenizing" the proletariat into privileged sections and this in order to win their ideological support. Again, "objective conditions" in your view turn out to be actually conscious policy choices. And such a policy change can be "encouraged" (your term) by conscious struggle (eg emphasising it in programmatic demands). Here you have the assumption that a consciousness (of poorer proletarian sections) is able to determine/change objective conditions. But if it is already capable of achieving such a big reform through conscious struggle, then surely it is capable of directly overthrowing capitalism.

I don't think the proletariat

I don't think the proletariat has ever really been "homogenous" in its socio-economic condition and I don't see any reason to expect that capitalist development (or even the crisis) will create that in the future. In fact, one of the features of our times appears to be a restructuring ("recomposition') of the proletariat that is splitting into distinct sectors: i.e., educated/professional/multi-cultural/metropolitan; blue-collar/rust-belt/native born; immigrant/service industry, etc. The point of communist politics is to argue that despite these differences, there is a unified proletarian intertest in transcending capital, beyond any reformist impulse specific to any of these sectors.