Comments on: The Current Relevance of an Old Debate http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate // Culture. Consciousness. Critical Thought. // Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Life on the Fringe: An Inauguration Day Story | The Activist http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-74207 Life on the Fringe: An Inauguration Day Story | The Activist Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:01:14 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-74207 [...] to pose the question of power, I’d take the safe bet and say absolutely not.  But, there can probably be a more effective politics.  A good start would be working towards a regroupment of a democratic, internationalist, [...] [...] to pose the question of power, I’d take the safe bet and say absolutely not.  But, there can probably be a more effective politics.  A good start would be working towards a regroupment of a democratic, internationalist, [...]

]]> By: The “Vulture Theory” of Socialism — The Activist http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-50097 The “Vulture Theory” of Socialism — The Activist Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:12:46 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-50097 [...] support.  Harrington called it “visionary gradualism”, Kautskyists refer to it as a “strategy of patience”, must this undergraduate recite to his favorite academic Engels’ appraisal of Blanqui?  [...] [...] support.  Harrington called it “visionary gradualism”, Kautskyists refer to it as a “strategy of patience”, must this undergraduate recite to his favorite academic Engels’ appraisal of Blanqui?  [...]

]]> By: Jacob Richter http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-46662 Jacob Richter Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:52:26 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-46662 In terms of reviews of the book: http://www.revleft.com/vb/debating-kautskys-legacy-t103122/index.html (Thread combining two web articles by Permanent Revolution) http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/revolutionary-strategy/ In terms of reviews of the book:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/debating-kautskys-legacy-t103122/index.html (Thread combining two web articles by Permanent Revolution)

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/revolutionary-strategy/

]]> By: Chris Cutrone http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-44886 Chris Cutrone Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:53:12 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-44886 I think Jason Schulman's argument is interesting but neglects some issues pertinent to the "revisionist" debate. I am aware that Kautsky came to see himself as the "center" against the Bernstein Right and the Rosa Luxemburg Left. What this neglected, however, was how the gradual growth of the SPD -- and the 2nd International social-democratic parties more generally -- as part and parcel of the growth and social strength of the working class movement, as integral to the growth of capital, contributed to and was actually fundamental for the crisis of "imperialism" that exploded in WWI, something that Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and others were keenly aware of. As Trotsky put it in his 1906 pamphlet Results on Prospects, on the social-historical situation for the Russian Revolution of 1905, the (international, global) prerequisites of socialism not only develop non-synchronously, but also come to work against each other as they develop: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm Please let me reference a very good short article on the history of the SPD by Luxemburg's biographer and liberal (non-Marxist) political scientist J. P. Nettl, "The German SPD as Political Model:" http://platypus1917.home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/nettljp_spd.pdf Best, Chris I think Jason Schulman’s argument is interesting but neglects some issues pertinent to the “revisionist” debate. I am aware that Kautsky came to see himself as the “center” against the Bernstein Right and the Rosa Luxemburg Left. What this neglected, however, was how the gradual growth of the SPD — and the 2nd International social-democratic parties more generally — as part and parcel of the growth and social strength of the working class movement, as integral to the growth of capital, contributed to and was actually fundamental for the crisis of “imperialism” that exploded in WWI, something that Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and others were keenly aware of. As Trotsky put it in his 1906 pamphlet Results on Prospects, on the social-historical situation for the Russian Revolution of 1905, the (international, global) prerequisites of socialism not only develop non-synchronously, but also come to work against each other as they develop:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm

Please let me reference a very good short article on the history of the SPD by Luxemburg’s biographer and liberal (non-Marxist) political scientist J. P. Nettl, “The German SPD as Political Model:”

http://platypus1917.home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/nettljp_spd.pdf

Best,
Chris

]]> By: Bhaskar Sunkara http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-43004 Bhaskar Sunkara Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:00:34 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-43004 As far as this discussion, what separates us from most of the Trotskyist movement is that we aren't printing something that resembles a high-school newspaper and aspiring for it to be the impetus for a world revolution :) On the contrary, if we are serious about socialism, it's natural to discuss what kind of tactics may work, as opposed to rehashing the ones that failed in the past. All of us are active in organizing, so we have a firm grip on the reality around us. I have no idea how groups like the French NPA can move forward as an oppositional entity. I would imagine by getting an even larger student base and through gaining a foothold in the organized labor movement (replacing the faltering PCF and PS). Right now they are polling at around 10 percent. If any of these parties ever manage to come into power no matter how unlikely and launch a major transformative program, it would be a huge boon for the international left. This discussion is premature of course, but since a lot of the international left is confused about what happened in, let's say, Italy, and how the left can ameliorate itself, it's a discussion that's worth having. One point where people might disagree with me is I believe it's important, if not now, then down the line for the movement to have a coherent set of ideas for a post-capitalist future, not just a vague call for "transcending capitalism." People are rightly skeptical after the historic failures of state-socialism. (Also, I'm softer on Lula and the "neoliberal" left in the developing world than I have a feeling Jason is.) As far as this discussion, what separates us from most of the Trotskyist movement is that we aren’t printing something that resembles a high-school newspaper and aspiring for it to be the impetus for a world revolution :)

On the contrary, if we are serious about socialism, it’s natural to discuss what kind of tactics may work, as opposed to rehashing the ones that failed in the past.

All of us are active in organizing, so we have a firm grip on the reality around us. I have no idea how groups like the French NPA can move forward as an oppositional entity. I would imagine by getting an even larger student base and through gaining a foothold in the organized labor movement (replacing the faltering PCF and PS). Right now they are polling at around 10 percent. If any of these parties ever manage to come into power no matter how unlikely and launch a major transformative program, it would be a huge boon for the international left.

This discussion is premature of course, but since a lot of the international left is confused about what happened in, let’s say, Italy, and how the left can ameliorate itself, it’s a discussion that’s worth having.

One point where people might disagree with me is I believe it’s important, if not now, then down the line for the movement to have a coherent set of ideas for a post-capitalist future, not just a vague call for “transcending capitalism.” People are rightly skeptical after the historic failures of state-socialism.

(Also, I’m softer on Lula and the “neoliberal” left in the developing world than I have a feeling Jason is.)

]]> By: Jason Schulman http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-42998 Jason Schulman Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:54:02 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-42998 To Chris and Adrian -- all I can say is "look at the evidence." Participating in coalitions with "neoliberalized" soc-dem parties (and even ruling class parties) has been BAD for the smaller left parties. The Swedish Left Party, the New Zealand Alliance, and the Italian Refounded Communists have lost deputies and members. The PT in Brazil, no longer small, is now so far from its founding principles that we see things like the Mensalão scandal occur. I expect a similar outcome in Iceland with the Soc-Dem Alliance/Left Green government -- right-wing economic policies implemented by a "left" neoliberal government supported by a smaller socialist party, leading ultimately to defeat at the polls, putting the Right back in power and leaving the socialist party in a worse state than it started out with prior to entering the coalition government. Time will tell... To Chris and Adrian — all I can say is “look at the evidence.” Participating in coalitions with “neoliberalized” soc-dem parties (and even ruling class parties) has been BAD for the smaller left parties. The Swedish Left Party, the New Zealand Alliance, and the Italian Refounded Communists have lost deputies and members. The PT in Brazil, no longer small, is now so far from its founding principles that we see things like the Mensalão scandal occur. I expect a similar outcome in Iceland with the Soc-Dem Alliance/Left Green government — right-wing economic policies implemented by a “left” neoliberal government supported by a smaller socialist party, leading ultimately to defeat at the polls, putting the Right back in power and leaving the socialist party in a worse state than it started out with prior to entering the coalition government. Time will tell…

]]> By: Chris Maisano http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-42997 Chris Maisano Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:14:04 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-42997 Barring unforeseen developments, I don't think any of the new left parties in Europe would have any chance of governing any country alone, in the medium and even long term. Because of that, they are all going to be faced with the question of whether or not they will serve in coalition governments with the traditional social democratic parties, and a couple of them have already done so or are planning on doing so in upcoming elections. To maintain their socialist cred, they'd have to stay out of government, but to maintain and grow their support, they'd likely have to demonstrate the capability of actually participating in government. They'll all likely wind up doing the latter, unless they are content with never appealing to more than a relatively small group of committed leftists. Barring unforeseen developments, I don’t think any of the new left parties in Europe would have any chance of governing any country alone, in the medium and even long term. Because of that, they are all going to be faced with the question of whether or not they will serve in coalition governments with the traditional social democratic parties, and a couple of them have already done so or are planning on doing so in upcoming elections. To maintain their socialist cred, they’d have to stay out of government, but to maintain and grow their support, they’d likely have to demonstrate the capability of actually participating in government. They’ll all likely wind up doing the latter, unless they are content with never appealing to more than a relatively small group of committed leftists.

]]> By: Adrian Bleifuss Prados http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-42996 Adrian Bleifuss Prados Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:56:00 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-42996 I actually don't disagree with most of the points Jason is making, I just think that, as he himself makes clear in the first paragraph of his post, his general scope is a bit ambitious for our times. As far as my question "If we were to remain pure and uncompromising ...?" goes, that was a good-faith question that has real implications for how, say, a minor party in Europe would act if its deputies would make or break a government by joining or abstaining from a parliamentary coalition. I actually don’t disagree with most of the points Jason is making, I just think that, as he himself makes clear in the first paragraph of his post, his general scope is a bit ambitious for our times.

As far as my question “If we were to remain pure and uncompromising …?” goes, that was a good-faith question that has real implications for how, say, a minor party in Europe would act if its deputies would make or break a government by joining or abstaining from a parliamentary coalition.

]]> By: Jason Schulman http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-42989 Jason Schulman Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:29:09 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-42989 1) Who is the working class? The "working class" is the whole social class dependent on the wage fund, including employed and unemployed, unwaged female ‘homemakers,’ youth and pensioners. It does not just mean employed workers, still less "productive" workers or workers in heavy industry. This class has the potential to lead society forward beyond capitalism because it is separated from the means of production and hence forced to cooperate and organize to defend its interests. This cooperation foreshadows the free cooperative appropriation of the means of production: socialism. Within the U.S., the working class is over 60% of the population (see Michael Zweig's writings). 2) Aren't nonelectoral progressive movements "class-coalitionist"? Not in the sense that I've been talking about. When I am talking about coalitionism I am talking about coalitionism *in government.* The Social Democrat/Christian Democrat coalitions in (West) Germany, for example. But within the independent feminist, LGBT, African-American, etc. organizations, we should be fighting the dominance of the professional-managerial strata and dependence on corporate sponsors; i.e. we should be seeking working-class hegemony (hello, Gramsci) within the organizations. Example: the most prominent LGBT rights group in the U.S. is the Human Rights Campaign. It is very white, very upper class, and very dependent on corporate cash: http://www.hrc.org/about_us/sponsors.asp Unsurprisingly, HRC (uncritically) supports all sorts of capitalist politicians - even Rudy Guiliani - provided those politicians are "good" on narrowly-defined LGBT issues. Those of us who demand that the needs of working class queers be prioritized within the movement are not going to easily "coalesce" with HRC. Most of the time we are going to be fighting their influence. 1) Who is the working class?

The “working class” is the whole social class dependent on the wage fund, including employed and unemployed, unwaged female ‘homemakers,’ youth and pensioners. It does not just mean employed workers, still less “productive” workers or workers in heavy industry. This class has the potential to lead society forward beyond capitalism because it is separated from the means of production and hence forced to cooperate and organize to defend its interests. This cooperation foreshadows the free cooperative appropriation of the means of production: socialism. Within the U.S., the working class is over 60% of the population (see Michael Zweig’s writings).

2) Aren’t nonelectoral progressive movements “class-coalitionist”?

Not in the sense that I’ve been talking about. When I am talking about coalitionism I am talking about coalitionism *in government.* The Social Democrat/Christian Democrat coalitions in (West) Germany, for example.

But within the independent feminist, LGBT, African-American, etc. organizations, we should be fighting the dominance of the professional-managerial strata and dependence on corporate sponsors; i.e. we should be seeking working-class hegemony (hello, Gramsci) within the organizations.

Example: the most prominent LGBT rights group in the U.S. is the Human Rights Campaign. It is very white, very upper class, and very dependent on corporate cash: http://www.hrc.org/about_us/sponsors.asp

Unsurprisingly, HRC (uncritically) supports all sorts of capitalist politicians – even Rudy Guiliani – provided those politicians are “good” on narrowly-defined LGBT issues.

Those of us who demand that the needs of working class queers be prioritized within the movement are not going to easily “coalesce” with HRC. Most of the time we are going to be fighting their influence.

]]> By: Chris Maisano http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate/comment-page-1#comment-42988 Chris Maisano Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:13:14 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1385#comment-42988 I think that everyone is in agreement on the need to build up some sort of oppositional movement that stands outside the official political system (it would be spectacular if the labor movement wasn't completely in the pocket of the Democrats, for example). But it seems to me like this argument is a recipe for maintaining some sort of sense of ideological and strategic purity that shuns many of the forms of important coalition work that DSA has engaged in over the years. I also don't think the kind of workerist language and perspective used to frame this sort of argument is very useful either. Aren't feminism and other movements based on oppression not based (or at least exclusively based) on class "class-coalitionist" in some inherent sense? Isn't anti-war activity inherently "class-coalitionist?" Aren't we going to have to organize across class lines around a number of issues in order to make any sort of reform under capitalism, much less move in the direction of socialism (unless one's idea of "working class" is so broad to eviscerate the concept of a working class itself)? I don't think I'm nit picking here. I think the perspective that Jason advances is too narrow, and too wedded to the orthodoxy of the past. This argument is making us all talk like Trotskyists, and that's kind of frightening. I think that everyone is in agreement on the need to build up some sort of oppositional movement that stands outside the official political system (it would be spectacular if the labor movement wasn’t completely in the pocket of the Democrats, for example). But it seems to me like this argument is a recipe for maintaining some sort of sense of ideological and strategic purity that shuns many of the forms of important coalition work that DSA has engaged in over the years. I also don’t think the kind of workerist language and perspective used to frame this sort of argument is very useful either. Aren’t feminism and other movements based on oppression not based (or at least exclusively based) on class “class-coalitionist” in some inherent sense? Isn’t anti-war activity inherently “class-coalitionist?” Aren’t we going to have to organize across class lines around a number of issues in order to make any sort of reform under capitalism, much less move in the direction of socialism (unless one’s idea of “working class” is so broad to eviscerate the concept of a working class itself)? I don’t think I’m nit picking here. I think the perspective that Jason advances is too narrow, and too wedded to the orthodoxy of the past.

This argument is making us all talk like Trotskyists, and that’s kind of frightening.

]]>