Antiwar Debate over Antiwar Democrats and 'Revolution' vs 'Reform'

[This is about a month's worth of debate on the pof-200 yahoo e-group run by Ben Seattle. The main topic is the strategy and tactics of the antiwar movement, the role of anti-war politicians, and general matters of reform vs revolution. Anyone interested in the complete discuss, and others can go to pof-200 on yahoogroups.com]


Response to Marik from Carl Davidson:

The key to [Ben's Seattle's] argument against me is a quote from Tom Hayden that Marilyn Katz and I put in an article 'The Road Ahead' on the future tasks of the antiwar movement. Here's the link for anyone who care to read the whole thing:

http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/editorials/carl_editorial.htm

Your argument, Ben, seems to hang on this statement by Tom:

"We need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party."

First, notice that Tom calls for building a movement, not a party grouping or faction. Second he calls for that movement to pressure the Democrats to take a stand against the war in Iraq, implying that in that way they can become a real opposition to the GOP rather than the wimpy, faux opposition they are now. Third, notice that Tom is just talking about ending this war; he's not talking about the Democrats becoming an anti-imperialist party or an instrument for radical or progressive change in general.

My only criticism of Tom's statement here is that he only mentioned the Democrats; I would also argue for bringing pressure to bear on the GOP, the military and all other ruling class institutions to end the war. That's what an antiwar movement does, doesn't it?

Now Marik jumps in and starts of by commenting on my point, above, that what antiwar movements do is bring pressure to bear on the entire range ruling class institutions to end the war in question.

Marik says:

'Yes, when the bourgoise have pacified it. By going through 'normal' and 'legal' channels (lobbying corrupted politicians), revolutionary mass movement is prevented, as the mass movement is too busy writing meaningless letters. What we need is more mass movement, in order to move it into the revolutionary. This is also the core of Ben/Dj's discussion. The most important part to any mass movement, is not the idea behind, but the _movement_ of _masses_. Opposing a struggle to the draft is akin to Carl Davidson's idea of pressuring 'ruling-class institutions.' In both scenarios, mass movement is prevented. t is my belief that these mass movements will be the only way to spurn forth a revolution.'

Carl Replies:

Marik, if you read closely, you'll see I'm not limiting 'pressure' to 'normal and legal' means, and neither is Tom Hayden. I think we need a full range of tactics, including, at appropriate times, civil disobedience and other forms of opposition beyond the norms of legality.

But my first concern is mobilizing masses in the largest numbers, especially getting those who have up until now only been passively been critical of the war, to take the first steps of active opposition, and then growing that opposition as effectively as possible. By suggesting that the bourgeoisie has somehow 'pacified' the antiwar movement, however, you are suggesting that the vast majority of war opponents, not to mention those who haven't taken action yet, are somehow more militant and insurgent than the current antiwar leadership. I don't think so; perhaps for a minority of anarchist youth or some solidarity groups, but hardly for the large majority. In this way, you fall into the typical 'left' deviation of over-estimating the degree of radical or revolutionary consciousness of the masses.

I wish you were right and I was wrong on this estimate--we'd then both be further down the road of achieving our goals, either immediate or long-term--but I can't think of any measurable indicators to show it. You certainly haven't shown it.

The important lesson is that just because a given tactic has become passe for YOU doesn't mean its exhausted its effectiveness for EVERYONE who has yet to deploy it. Letter-writing? Not my cup of tea either, except an occaisional letter to an editor over some outrage or other. But in the struggle to get the Chicago City Council to Vote 'No' on the onset of the war, we organized dozens of neighborhood groups to bombard their Aldermen with emails to take the right stand, and a solid majority of Aldermen finally did so. Not only did almost all the letter writers later become demonstrators, we also asked a bunch of the Aldermen what was the most effective thing we did to get their vote. 'Flooding us with all those damn emails; it drove us all nuts," was a reply from more than one of them.

Marik says:

'Carl, I know your going to reply that by pressuring the 'ruling-class institutions' you really meant to say that pressure was mass protests against said institutions, with your good friends the "anti-war Democrats" as standard bearers.'

Carl replies:

I think I plead guilty on this one. First, I would like to see more antiwar Democrats, elected or otherwise, not less. And Republicans, too, for that matter. The idea is to utterly isolate the elected war supporters. Second, of the antiwar Democratic elected officials, I wish I was friends with more of them. They might listen to me more often! But I've only got 3 or 4 that I'm on a first-name basis with; perhaps things will change as time goes on, hopefully if and when they split from the DLC Democrats and work together with us to build a popular alternative.

As for standard bearers, we have a wide range of them in this antiwar movement. People are free to bring whatever standards they want to bear--religious, reformist, revolutionary--as long as they oppose the war. Other than trying to end the war, we don't march under a single standard. But you seem to suggest that we should, and that it should be your revolutionary standard for workers' rule.

Marik Says:

'Why should we, as people believing in the idea of workers rule, allow the bourgoisie to speak at mass worker protests?'

Carl replies:

First of all, Marik, these are not 'mass worker protests.' They are mass antiwar protests with people from all classes and strata--working class, students, elderly, middle class, small business owners, even an occaisional big capitalist. Allow the bourgeoisie to speak? If they break with the White House war policy and call for immediate withdraw of the troops, by all means, have a few of them speak, alongside those with views more to your liking. Why? Because it's a mass democratic method of work and it draws wider circles of people into the radicalization process in a step-by-step basis.

The basis of unity in the protests we are discussing is being against the war, against wider war, and against the costs of the war, not being pro-workers' rule and anti-capitalist rule. Again, your assessment is a 'left' overestimation of where things are at. The 'Million Worker March' people tried something close to what you are talking about a few months back, although even some of their leaders were criticized for not being pure enough. But it didn't get very far, did it?

That's because 'Which Class Rules?' is mainly a matter of propaganda work and revolutionary education with the advanced in today's conditions, rather than a matter of mass agitation and action for the vast majority. If you don't believe me, why don't you try to organize a militant, extra-legal revolutionary mass worker action against capitalism and war in your town, that takes a class vs class line, and discourages middle forces from 'bearing their standards,' and see how far you get? Let us know how it turns out.

Marik says:

'Should we not have enlightened workers, teaching other workers the truth of the society we live in, with the goal of making that protest into a revolutionary movement? I think if you were dedicated to a workers society, you would be forced to agree with me. But you do not agree with me.'

Carl Replies:

Marik, strategically, in the long run, I'm dedicated to a classless, stateless and marketless society, with a worker-run, mixed-economy, participatory democratic society as a form of transition to it. And I'm all for enlightened workers, and anyone else for that matter, teaching other workers, along with the whole population, the truth. The truth will set us free, along with an assist from popular power, full cybernation, and an appreciation for the interconnectness and impermanence of all beings. But, yes, 'forced agreement' is not my cup of tea. I prefer 'awakening' by summing up one's experiences, and with learning from the experiences of others. These forms of learning tend to last longer and take deeper roots.

Marik says:

'Remember here, that the goal of us Commie's, is a workers state.'

Carl replies:

That's a simple phrase, Marik, but just what does it mean? First, as already noted, I don't chisel it in stone. I think the 'workers' state' is a transitional goal, with the overall longer-term goal being the withering away of the state, including the workers' state. Second, here's some interesting questions for you: Where does the locus of sovereignty reside in your workers' state? In the governmental bodies? In the mass assemblies? Or in the people themselves? Is there a 'general will' that the individual is subordinate to, and if so, how is it determined? Is the punitive power of the state restricted or unrestricted in any way? Are rights natural and self-evident, or derived in some other way?

In case you haven't noticed, Marik, we've had a crisis in socialist theory of late that has made the term 'workers state' an essentially contested concept, sort of like 'Good Christian', meaning you have to define it in order to use it, and the definitions are all in dispute. I have some ideas of my answers to these questions, but that's a different topic from our current one.

Marik says:

'If we have the ruling elite speaking at our anti-war movements, we are not the ones winning, the elite are winning. Say that the anti-war movement is successful in 'stopping' the Iraq war, thanks mostly in part to our good friend, Said Democratic Senator. This 'withdrawal' of troops is done on the elite's terms. We do not have a say in how we withdraw because we are not in control. The elite have still successfully colonized Iraq. Their military bases will still be there, and their flunky politicians will be in power, just like Said Senator who wins election with the overwhelming support from pacified anti-war activists.'

Carl Replies:

This is a rather odd way to put things, Marik. When the elites split over whether to wage an unjust war or not, isn't the enemy camp weakened? If their camp is weakened and ours grows, does that means they are winning? Withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq, in the face of opposition here and oppsition in Iraq and the rest of the world, is really a victory for Bush and the bourgeoisie?

You also don't sound very hopeful about Iraq, even with US troops gone. Perhaps it's because you know that it's very unlikely that a secular 'workers' state' will be the result there, either. At best, we'll have an anti-West regime dominated by Kurdish nationalism and Shia religious perspectives. But the compelled early end of U.S occupation not a victory for popular forces around the world? I don't think so. But here's how you get to these strange notions:

Marik Says:

'Our goal, as Communists dedicated to a workers society, is not to stop the war in Iraq. It is to stop the rule of Bourgoisie. However, protesting the war in Iraq presents a mean to do this, through revolutionary mass movement aimed (by us) at stopping Bourgeois rule. The mass protests do not become revolutionary on their own. They have to be prodded in a direction. Presently, there are 2 directions it can go. With the Bourgoisie (Democrat influence) or us. Either we 'go-along' with the Democrats, or we turn our back on them, and end the war without their influence.'

Carl replies:

There is something REALLY odd with just about every phrase here. But before getting to them, let's ask a practical question: Suppose it takes longer to end the war 'without bourgeois influence' rather than with it. Would you still insist on doing it your way? How would you run down that line to a neighborhood group of Iraqi mothers, or, for that matter, a bunch of US GIs in a bar in Georgia?

But at least you're straight-foward in saying you're goal is not to stop the war, but to overthrow capitalism and, I suppose, although you don't say so, all wars. No wonder you're unhappy, and with this line you always will be.

It's a line called ultimatism, best represented in US history by Daniel Deleon and the SLP. Only DeLeon at least had the sense to realize that he and the SLP did not 'prod' the workers to become revolutionary. The workers became revolutionary at times of revolutionary crises, and it was their incredible suffering, their inability to live in the old way, and the ruling class's inability to rule in the old way, that brought them, en masse, to a revolutionary awakening.

'Prodding', Marik, is something best left to getting cattle out of a truck, not getting workers to do your bidding. Which leads to the next point, your option of 'with the bourgeoisie or (with) us?'

Just who, might I ask, is 'us'? Last time I looked, there wasn't any revolutionary party worthy of the name in the US, certainly not one that had won over and recruited any significant number of the advanced workers or had developed a revoltionary program that anyone knew much about, let alone had a chance to deliberate and decide upon. Without those conditions, your talk of 'them' or 'us' is just bluster, Marik. It just makes you look foolish.

Marik says:

'Cynthia (McKinney), probably a well-meaning woman, is not focused on ending Bourgeois rule. She's interested in continuing it, most likely because she doesn't know any better. If she is, somehow dedicated to workers rule, then why isn't she speaking with us, those who are also dedicated to it? Why does she endorse the corrupted system? Wow, she mobilized the black working class vote? But for what? To go out and support the corrupted system. The battlefield is not the poll booths, it is the mass movements. If you think you can turn her point of view, your a fool. She would never willingly give up her seat of power (as she proved by getting herself re-elected), which convorting with revolutionary activists would do.'

Carl Replies:

I think McKinney probably knows considerably more about class struggle, both in the streets and in the voting booth, than you do, Marik, so we'll just let your chauvinistic patronizing of her intelligence bounce right back on you. Endorsing the system? Listen to her speak sometime; check out her voting record. She doesn't support a corrupt system, Marik, she fights it, and has probably done more to enrage and upset the Democratic party bigwigs in a week than you ever have. Like I said to Ben, you talk and talk about class struggle, but you don't even know where the battlefield is, and if you did find it, you'd probably attack the folks on the wrong side. You don't have to analyze real conditions or develop a real game plan; you just have a little set of reductionist definitions you use to pin nasty labels of folks you should be getting to know, if you were serious, rather than playing, with revolution.

Here's what it all boils down to, Marik. Are we in a revolutionary or non-revolutionary situation?

To you, it probably doesn't much matter; you're going to try to 'prod' a revolutionary movement into being in any case.

To me, it makes a big difference. Strategy and tactics appropriate to one set of conditions are not appropriate to the other. Today, in my view, our tasks divide into two: socialist tasks and mass democratic tasks.

Our socialist tasks are primarily theoretical and propaganda work, especially in working to break through the crisis in socialist theory and developing an intermediate program, and building a global and national network of activist-theorists to do so in an organized fashion.

Our mass democratic tasks are developing the forms of struggle on all the issues of the day that enhance the degree of organization, understanding and fighting capacity of the working class and its allies, especially in developing the counter-hegemonic bloc of the majority of people to the most reactionary and powerful sectors of the bourgeoisie, finding ways for working-class people to fight that increases their capacity to rule society and create new wealth, both on the macro and micro level, rather than simply militantly demanding a redistribution of existing wealth, ie, redividing the pie through liberalism, however militant it may appear.

Reformism? I don't think so. Rather, it's trying to find the best way to do revolutionary work in non-revolutionary conditions, rather than either becoming the tail of liberalism or isolated in the cul-de-sac of ultraleftism.

Anyone interested can go to

http://www.solidarityeconomy.net

and read the piece, 'Where to Begin.'

***********

Now Marik's April 11 Rejoinder to Davidson:

Carl wrote: 'By suggesting that the bourgeoisie has somehow 'pacified' the antiwar movement, however, you are suggesting that the vast majority of war opponents, not to mention those who haven't taken action yet, are somehow more militant and insurgent than the current antiwar leadership. I don't think so; perhaps for a minority of anarchist youth or some solidarity groups, but hardly for the large majority. In this way, you fall into the typical 'left' deviation of over-estimating the degree of radical or revolutionary consciousness of the masses.'

Marik says:

I did not suggest the anti-war movement was pacified, I stated that, when you let Democratic speakers lead them, they become pacified because they do not become revolutionary. That is because the movements move away from threatening the system, but to endorsing it through whatever politician they stand behind. No current antiwar leadership promotes ending Bourgeoisie rule, that I know of.

You will notice throughout Carl's reply that he always moves away from mass protests (although he pretends to support them) and towards working through the system. I am saying we need to stand in the forefront as workers against this capitalist rule.

How do you plan on putting pressure on these institutions? You say you are for 'civil disobedience and other forms of opposition beyond the norms of legality' but only as a minor threat or a last resort.

I say these are our only weapons, our being people like me, who work for a living in this system of capitalism. Our weapons are not politicians that pander to the system, atleast, that's what I believe. You talk of raising revolutionary consciousness, but you choose the wrong means to do it. Why is it that it must be Democrats, supposedly caring about the workers, who raise the consciousness? Why shouldn't it be workers who refuse to endorse the system? Because they don't have 'influence'? We need not influence politicians. We need to influence the working-class.

Carl wrote: 'Letter-writing? Not my cup of tea either, except an occaisional letter to an editor over some outrage or other. But in the struggle to get the Chicago City Council to Vote 'No' on the onset of the war, we organized dozens of neighborhood groups to bombard their Aldermen with emails to take the right stand, and a solid majority of Aldermen finally did so. Not only did almost all the letter writers later become demonstrators, we also asked a bunch of the Aldermen what was the most effective thing we did to get their vote. 'Flooding us with all those damn emails; it drove us all nuts," was a reply from more than one of them.'

Marik says:

And has all this done anything successful? The U.S. is still, as of April 10th, killing Iraqi's opposed to the U.S. occupation. The U.S. still has military bases throughout the country in order to continue it's Imperialist goals in the middle east. The supposed Iraqi government still has yet to formally do a god damn thing. Have they even picked a speaker yet? Last I heard the hadn't but I digress. The point is, for all your 'successful' letter writing, I havn't seen much success in ending 'the war.' And when the war does 'end' it will be on the Bourgeoisie terms. The only way to change that is by directly threatening the system with mass revolt.

Carl Wrote: 'Second, of the antiwar Democratic elected officials, I wish I was friends with more of them. They might listen to me more often! But I've only got 3 or 4 that I'm on a first-name basis with; perhaps things will change as time goes on, hopefully if and when they split from the DLC Democrats and work together with us to build a popular alternative.'

Marik says:

I think you seriously underestimate the Bourgeoisie. I do not think you understand just how far they will go to keep their power. All your hopes lie in 3 or 4 democrats, that your hoping will split from their powerbase, and work with you? I would think that political suicide. Like I said in my previous post, I would welcome to hear a supposed anti-war Dem speak of their hopes with us for a class-less society, but I don't see them anywhere.

That, again, would ruin their reputation and make running for election difficult. That is precisely how they are Judas', so to speak. Because they are elected officials, in power under the current system, there is leverage against them. Will they give up their power? I don't think they will.

Carl wrote: 'As for standard bearers, we have a wide range of them in this antiwar movement. People are free to bring whatever standards they want to bear--religious, reformist, revolutionary--as long as they oppose the war. Other than trying to end the war, we don't march under a single standard. But you seem to suggest that we should, and that it should be your revolutionary standard for workers' rule.'

Marik says:

That is exactly what I say. If you let the Democrats in, they will turn it into a propaganda piece, pushing their platform. The media machine will descend, shouting how the Democrats got the U.S. out of Iraq. Now the workers have faith again in the Bourgeoise system - via the Democrats. Now, you seem to hope that, from here, the Democrats will split from the rest of their Capitalist allies, and push forth a popular workers agenda. It seems like a brilliant idea, but the Democrats who will be leading the movement will sabotage it. I doubt they will be willing to give up their precious seats of power to elevate those below them. A Bourgeoise lead movement will never overthrow itself. Only the massive amounts of workers can do that. That is why I say we should march under the standard of workers-rule.

Carl wrote: 'The basis of unity in the protests we are discussing is being against the war, against wider war, and against the costs of the war, not being pro-workers' rule and anti-capitalist rule. Again, your assessment is a 'left' overestimation of where things are at. The 'Million Worker March' people tried something close to what you are talking about a few months back, although even some of their leaders were criticized for not being pure enough. But it didn't get very far, did it?'

'First of all, Marik, these are not 'mass worker protests.' They are mass antiwar protests with people from all classes and strata--working class, students, elderly, middle class, small business owners, even an occaisional big capitalist. Allow the bourgeoisie to speak? If they break with the White House war policy and call for immediate withdraw of the troops, by all means, have a few of them speak, alongside those with views more to your liking. Why? Because it's a mass democratic method of work and it draws wider circles of people into the radicalization process in a step-by-step basis.'

Marik says:

Yes, the protests are anti-war, but the protest is made up of 'workers i.e. proletarians. That is what I meant by worker's protest. I get the feeling, Carl, that you would lead the masses through deception. You do not want to mention 'workers-rule' to them, although that is, supposedly, what you want. You will not march under an 'anti-capitalism' banner with them, although again you say that is what you desire.

I say we should march under said banners because that is honestly what I believe. If our goal is to eventually 'awaken' a revolutionary consciousness in the masses, we will not reach it by hiding our intentions from the very people we are trying to wake up! That is what is meant by transparency. Carl wishes to deceive.

You say "The truth will set us free, along with an assist from popular power" but why would popular power, willingly give itself up? For the good of man? Have you seen ANY instances of this in history? It will not happen. Only the workers can set themselves free, through an understanding of the truth of society. That truth cannot be taught by people supporting the very system we are trying to destroy. It will be tainted and distorted.

Carl wrote: 'Second, here's some interesting questions for you: Where does the locus of sovereignty reside in your workers' state? In the governmental bodies? In the mass assemblies? Or in the people themselves? Is there a 'general will' that the individual is subordinate to, and if so, how is it determined? Is the punitive power of the state restricted or unrestricted in any way? Are rights natural and self-evident, or derived in some other way?'

Marik says:

I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions. Your obviously a skilled debater, trying to lead me into some sort of word trap. But I do know the idea behind this list was to discuss these questions, which I advocated in my last post. You say you have answers to these but you wont give them? Yet you are dedicated to resolving the socialist theory crisis?
I would very much be interested in hearing what you have to say concerning these questions, as would I be interested in any one elses opinion on the matter.

Carl wrote: 'In case you haven't noticed, Marik, we've had a crisis in socialist theory of late that has made the term 'workers state' an essentially contested concept, sort of like 'Good Christian', meaning you have to define it in order to use it, and the definitions are all in dispute. I have some ideas of my answers to these questions, but that's a different topic from our current one.'

Marik says:

I very much have noticed the lack of socialist theory. And this would be a perfectly good forum for you to experss your answers. I think the answers will come from trial and error, through physically trying to make it happen.
You promote the idea of waiting for some far-off day, when the Masses will magically wake up, ready to shake off their invisibile chains. I promote the idea that the masses should push for that day NOW, instead of some random day in the future. We will not be able to practice revolutionary theory until we are in a state of revolution. I believe we must make that revolution happen, by turning protests (currently anti-war) into protests directly against the Capitalist system.

Carl wrote: 'When the elites split over whether to wage an unjust war or not, isn't the enemy camp weakened? If their camp is weakened and ours grows, does that means they are winning? Withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq, in the face of opposition here and oppsition in Iraq and the rest of the world, is really a victory for Bush and the bourgeoisie? You also don't sound very hopeful about Iraq, even with US troops gone. Perhaps it's because you know that it's very unlikely that a secular 'workers' state' will be the result there, either. At best, we'll have an anti-West regime dominated by Kurdish nationalism and Shia religious perspectives. But the compelled early end of U.S occupation not a victory for popular forces around the world? I don't think so. But here's how you get to these strange notions:'

Marik says:

You twist my words, Davidson. I said that when the ruling-elite speak at anti-war demo's, that is when they have won. They are not 'split' so to speak, over the war, they have simply used the movement against itself.

Perhaps there are a few Democrats who are genuinely dedicated to ending the war in Iraq because it is 'unjust'. They are definitely NOT the majority of Democrats, nor would they support a socialist agenda. That is where the corruption comes in. The fuel of the movement goes into those who supported it, in this case, the Democrats. They will turn it into a media frenzy, with convenient videos to run during election time. Now the workers, who've been duped once again, cast their votes for the continued existence of Bourgeoiuse rule. I do not have high hopes for Iraq because the withdrawal of U.S. troops will be done on the Bourgeoise's terms. They will not do a full withdrawal of all troops, nor dismantle all military bases. That is because we are not threatening them with the crippling of their system.
They will pat us on the head and say 'good job ending the war' and life will continue on.

You are daydreaming Carl. If the U.S. somehow, decides to pull every last soldier out of Iraq, and willingly dismantle its base of operations for the rest of the Middle East, then it STILL has its corrupt political flunkies in the Iraqi government.

Carl wrote: 'Prodding', Marik, is something best left to getting cattle out of a truck, not getting workers to do your bidding. Which leads to the next point, your option of 'with the bourgeoisie or (with) us?'

Marik says:

We are the workers. Do you not work for a living Carl? I'm pretty sure everyone on this list does. I am also opposed to Bourgeois rule, supposedly like you. We have a difference of opinion, but you say you are dedicated to eliminating Bourgeoise-rule. That is what I mean by the term 'us'.

I am a worker. Most people I know work for a living. You ridicule any movement of workers dedicated to a 'revolutionary program' saying they have done nothing, that there is no such movement worthy of the workers attention. I do believe that is what the purpose of this list is for.

Maybe you think bending over and sucking Imperialist dick will bring about social change, but I think discussions pointing out how you poison and sabotage the workers will do more to enlighten the workers then begging a few Democrats to speak at protests. This discussion worked for me. But your not going to be happy with that answer.

Carl wrote: 'I think (Cynthia) McKinney (D-Ga) probably knows considerably more about class struggle, both in the streets and in the voting booth, than you do, Marik, so we'll just let your chauvinistic patronizing of her intelligence bounce right back on you. Endorsing the system? Listen to her speak sometime; check out her voting record. She doesn't support a corrupt system, Marik, she fights it, and has probably done more to enrage and upset the Democratic party bigwigs in a week than you ever have. Like I said to Ben, you talk and talk about class struggle, but you don't even know where the battlefield is, and if you did find it, you'd probably attack the folks on the wrong side. You don't have to analyze real conditions or develop a real game plan; you just have a little set of reductionist definitions you use to pin nasty labels of folks you should be getting to know, if you were serious, rather than playing, with revolution.'

Marik says:

I do not try to denounce Mrs. McKinney, like I said, she's probably a very well-meaning woman. But I think it's a dire mistake of hers (and yours) to try to influence the Democrats. I think the battlefield is the mass protests, you think it is voting booths. That is simply the difference. I do not recall labeling Mrs. McKinney anything, but she does run as a Democrat. She did run with the support of other Democrats. It was the Democrats who sided with Republicans on war in Iraq.

You will say that it was because of the lies by George W. Bush. Personally, because I'm not mentally handicapped, or maybe because I'm a 'leftist-nutjob' I didn't believe in Weapons of Mass Destruction anymore then I believed any other lies from the current leaders, nor did I think it was a valid reason to occupy Iraq. But apparently, those naieve, foolish Democrats did. Why is that? Are they really stupid and naive? I get the sinking feeling they aren't..maybe it is people like you being naive, Carl? As for 'game-plan' I have said it over and over again; pushing mass movements into movements aimed against the Bourgeoise.

Also, as a side note to Mr. Davidson, I did do some researching on Cynthia McKinney. It is true, she did not support the Iraqi war, or even the Afghanistan war. She does seem to be on our side. But for all her hard work, where has it gone? We are still currently, 3 years later, killing innocent Iraqi workers, and those opposed to the U.S. occupation. I do not doubt the validity of Cythnia's beliefs but my point is that, because she works within the system, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED! That is what my point has been all-along. I did not ridicule her, I simply said that she is wasting her hard work by trying to convince the Bourgoise to pull out of Iraq. Again I say when this happens, it will be done on their terms, not hers or ours. I would be MORE then happy to have this very conversation with Mrs. McKinney herself, but she would never commit political suicide.

Carl wrote: 'Reformism? I don't think so. Rather, it's trying to find the best way to do revolutionary work in non-revolutionary conditions, rather than either becoming the tail of liberalism or isolated in the cul-de-sac of ultraleftism.'

This revolutionary condition will not appear while you pander to the corrupted leaders. Only by enlightening the workers will it ever appear. Yet you preach against it. You preach our need to support a few of your Democratic friends who have 'real power.' The real power is in the millions of masses. These could be extreme revolution conditions, but only if we try to create it. My belief is that we can create those conditions by changing our movements away from the Bourgoise and towards an idea of workers-rule.

You disagree. How do others feel?

I hope some of you will notice how Carl tries to turn everything I say into 'ultraleftism' because I simply argue that our emphasis should be on workers instead of politicians. When I say we need more mass movements, he says we need to pander to officials who supported the Iraq war (not too mention Afghanistan and a thousand other illegal warcrimes). Where I say we need to support workers, Carl says we should throw our support at these elected officials. He says he supports a class-less system, but not until the Bourgoise give it to us. They havn't given it yet, but he thinks they can be convinced. That is the only cul-de-sac I see.

Marik 4/11/2005

*******

Finally, Davidson's 4/17 Replies to Marik & Others

Marik: 'I did not suggest the anti-war movement was pacified, I stated that, when you let Democratic speakers lead them, they become pacified because they do not become revolutionary.'

Carl Replies:

Marik, since when is it a question of 'letting' anyone lead anybody, just by putting a range of speakers with opposing perspectives on a speakers platform? If I put only revolutionary speakers with revolutionary speeches on the platform, does that mean the crowd is 'lead' into 'becoming revolutionary'? Hardly, unless you think people are sheep. I think people chose their own leaders based on what they think and learn, through practice, makes most sense to them and will most help them achieve their goals. And a democratic method of work means that, in a mass democratic action, like an antiwar rally, the range of speakers should reflect the range of antiwar views among the participants, and those you would like to participate--reformist, religious and revolutionary. Otherwise, how do ALL the participants come to view the event as something that they want to build and as something that is not alien to them, at least in part?

Marik says: 'No current antiwar leadership promotes ending Bourgeoisie rule, that I know of.'

Carl replies:

Of course, ast least in their vast majority. That's because, in your view, there are only a teeny number of folks who are really revolutionary and not infected with reformism of one sort or another. If you tried to put just one of these true revolutionaries in every city of over 50,000 and every campus over 5000, there wouldn't be enough to go around, would there?

As I suggested, you're welcome to organize a revolutionary action of workers against war and capitalism that attacks and excludes people with reformist views or from other classes and strata, and calls for the end of bourgeois rule, if you like, but I don't think you'll be very successful. Why don't you try it and prove me wrong in practice, where it counts?


Marik says: 'You will notice throughout Carl's reply that he always moves away from mass protests (although he pretends to support them)
and towards working through the system. I am saying we need to stand in the forefront as workers against this capitalist rule. How do you plan on putting pressure on these institutions?'

Carl replies:

For someone who 'always moves away from mass protests', it seems a bit strange that I would help organize so many of them, over the years and up to today, doesn't it? But I'll just leave that with a chuckle...

How do you go about 'putting pressure?' Well, Marik, the Constitution says we have the right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances, bringing out hundreds of thousands, even millions, to demand an end to a war while its going on. Does that mean we're 'working through the system' when we do it? The same Constitution permitted some of us, in the 1960s, to walk 250 miles through Mississippi, getting teargassed by police and whupped by the Klan, for just walking and demanding the right of Blacks to vote in bourgeois elections. Well, I suppose that was 'working through the system,' too, by your definition, wasn't it? Especially since we weren't doing anything beyond the bounds of legality? In fact, the local forces of 'law and order' were doing illegal things to us! But we certainly helped mount a great deal of 'pressure' or social force against the bourgeosie anyway, didn't we?

Marik: 'You say you are for 'civil disobedience and other forms of opposition beyond the norms of legality' but only as a minor threat or a last resort. I say these are our only weapons, our being people like me, who work for a living in this system of capitalism.'

Carl replies:

'Minor threat and last resort' are your terms, Marik, not mine. I prefer 'a full range of tactics, using what is most appropriate to time, place and circumstances,' if you want a quote from me on the subject. But by saying 'these are our only weapons,' in the context discussing of extra-legal tactics like civil disobedience, you are not only partially disarming yourself, you are also falling into the one-sidedness of semi-anarchism. Believe me, you'll find plenty of support in Lenin for making the most of legal tactics, even if common sense doesn't make a good enough case for you without referring to an orthodox text.


Marik says: 'Why is it that it must be Democrats, supposedly caring about the workers, who raise the consciousness? Why shouldn't it be workers who refuse to endorse the system? Because they don't have 'influence'? We need not influence politicians. We need to influence the working-class.'

Carl replies:

It's not to hard to figure out, Marik. It's both/and, not either/or. Put simply, there are far more workers in Chicago that would come to hear both you and Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) denounce the war, than would just come to hear just you, or a local worker here with your views, alone. You and McKinney each give the other a wider audience, and then all the folks in the audience get to decide for themselves who makes sense and who doesn't. It's called mass democracy--and no one person or group controls it completely; they have to win over their potential adherents, which is the point, after all, isn't it?

Marik says, in relation to getting politicians to oppose the war: 'And has all this done anything successful? The U.S. is still, as of April 10th, killing Iraqi's opposed to the U.S. occupation. The U.S. still has military bases throughout the country in order to continue it's Imperialist goals in the middle east. The supposed Iraqi government still has yet to formally do a god damn thing. Have they even picked a speaker yet? Last I heard the hadn't but I digress. The point is, for all your 'successful' letter writing, I havn't seen much success in ending 'the war.'

Carl replies:

I went to my first anti-Vietnam war protest in 1964, Marik. By, say, 1971, seven years out and millions of protesters later, I suppose I could have said, 'What good was it? Aren't Vietnamese still being killed? The U.S. still has military bases every, etc.' I appreciate your anger and impatience, but you just have to 'keeep on keepin' on' as the old civil rights slogan goes...

Marik says: 'And when the war does 'end' it will be on the Bourgeoisie's terms. The only way to change that is by directly threatening the system with mass revolt.'

Carl replies: Maybe, maybe not. But I would be careful of 'the ONLY way.' The Vietnam war certainly didn't end on the bourgeoisie's terms, and while there was considerable militant antiwar insurgency among Blacks, youth and GIs themselves, the working class itself was split over the war--probably about 60% antiwar and 40% prowar by 1970--and hardly 'directly threatening the system with mass revolt.' You may recall that Nixon won the elections in 1968 and 1972, and the electorate began shifting rightward. Still, the antiwar movement could justly declare victory when that last helicopter left the US embassy in Saigon.

Marik: 'That is why I say we should march under the standard of workers-rule...Yes, the protests are anti-war, but the protest is made up of workers i.e. proletarians. That is what I meant by worker's protest.'

Carl replies: I don't know what you've been smokin' at your protests, Marik, but in Chicago, we get all kinds of folks, workers, students, self-employed, employers, housewives, anarchist dumpster-divers and grandmas with baby carriages. Unfortunately, like many of the protests around the country, they suffer from being disproportionally white and middle class, and hardly what I would call 'proletarian.' I have been in mass proletarian actions and, believe me, as valuable as these peace marches are, they are not the same.


Marik says: 'I get the feeling, Carl, that you would lead the masses through deception. You do not want to mention 'workers-rule' to them, although that is, supposedly, what you want.'

Carl replies: No, Marik, there's no deception here. It's what's appropriate to the situation. I talk about socialism, or my version of it anyway, to workers and others all the time, but in the context of theoretical work and propaganda circles with the advanced elements among both workers and intellectuals. You can raise the slogan of socialism, or sell socialist newspapers and books, at antiwar protests if you want. There are at least a dozen groups who do, and they wave red flags as well. It just that I don't think socialism is a matter of MASS AGITATION at this time. It's not that I want to hide anything; it's just a waste of time in this venue.

That's what I meant when I asked if you though we were living in a revolutionary or non-revolutionary situation right now. It's also why I asked you some pertinent questions--'Where does the locus of sovereignty reside in your workers' state? In the governmental bodies? In the mass assemblies? Or in the people themselves? Is there a 'general will' that the individual is subordinate to, and if so, how is it determined? Is the punitive power of the state restricted or unrestricted in any way? Are rights natural and self-evident, or derived in some other way?'--on what a worker's state actually might be, to which you said you didn't know the answers.

That's fine and also honest, not knowing the answers. Neither do a lot of other people calling themselves revolutionary socialists these days. That's what a crisis in theory means, and we haven't even touched on the economic issues yet. That's also why none of the revolutionary groups--on this list or outside it--has a revolutionary program that answers these questions, or gives us any convincing outline of strategy and tactics appropriate to today's world.

Take the poor LRP: they call for 'Resurrecting Marxism.' The last thing we need is a resurrection of our program from the dead past. One thing I'll grant to Ben: At least he understands that there has been a revolution in the productive forces--cybernetics--and that something new has to be born, not the resurrection of old dogma. Unfortunately, he understands this in terms of media, but not much else.

As for DJ and 'party-building as the central task,' I know this line well, having worked to carry it out for at least ten years, and I know where all the bodies are buried around it, and I still work on it to a certain extent.

Here DJ likes the phrase 'the working class is objectively revolutionary' and that, therefore, the task is forming revolutionary leadership. But when you can't give sensible answers to the questions I posed above, this is just dogma imprisoning you in the ultra-left cul-de-sac. 'Objectively revolutionary' has nothing to do with the starting point and ABC of Marxism, the concrete analyis of concrete conditions--what are the trends of thinking in the working class today? What are the views on the issues of today of the advanced, middle and backward sectors? What actions are each sector likely to support? How did they vote in the last election? What is the proportion of strength of each sector?

Those are the tough questions that are passed over with the phrase 'objectively revolutionary,' which has been true since the early Marx first raised the idea that the working class was a class 'bound with radical chains,' meaning that by freeing itself, it would free all humankind and abolish all classes, including itself. This is wonderful philosophy, and an orientation on our final aims that will help us change the world, but it is no substitute for the answers to the concrete questions of program, strategy and tactics for today.

I would be more than happy to get into these matters, especially how to fight the theocratic right, which got me on this list to start with. But we can't seem to get beyond the 'Johnnny One-Notes' who think the Alpha and Omega of revolutionary politics is encapsuled in electoral tactics in the last and whether antiwar Democrats speak at antiwar rallies. Rather pathetic, I think. Again, for anyone who seriously want to look at my views and those I work with, go to:

www.solidarityeconomy.net
www.cyrev.net
www.noiraqwar-chicago.org

Carl Davidson Read more!

Debate: From Walmart to Quantum Mechanics...

Debate: From Walmart to Quantum Mechanics, Stopping at Stations Lenin, Imperial, Reform and Revolution in Between

Available on:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/marxism/209241.html


Carl Davidson starts off, replying to DJDialectic's use of a quote from Lenin's Imperialism:

You correctly call attention to:

"It is characteristic of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the application of capital to production, that money capital is separated from industrial or productive capital, and that the rentier who lives entirely on income obtained from money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and from all who are directly concerned in the management of capital."

But what are the implications for strategy and tactics today for segmenting, in nonrevolutionary conditions, the capitalist class, say, between 'speculative' capital and 'productive' capital? Or, to use the more popular current terminology, 'low road' and 'high road' corporations?

Typical low-roaders, for instance, are big on plant closings, gutting industries and the race-to-the-bottom export of capital, making their profit in speculation by whipsawing the margins, similar to the 'rentiers' mentioned by Lenin. The high roaders are similar to the 'entrepreneur' mentioned above. They actually want to make or expand factories, hire and train workers, have them make products for the market, and make their profit the old-fashioned way, by exploitation, i.e., by extracting it from the surplus value produced by their workers.

This is not to say there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' here, just different sorts of capital as described by Lenin.

Now here's the interesting question: When we, as part of the working-class and grassroots community-based movements, raise the demand for "jobs" -- either for the unemployed, underemployed or for those threatened with plant closings -- aren't we implicitly making an indirect tactical alliance with productive capital vs speculative capital? Should we make it explicit? Or should we not raise the demand for jobs? Or should we just raise a demand for income, regardless of whether the income is from an actual productive job or from a make-work, phoney job?

If we do fight for real jobs, we are definitely calling for the expansion of productive capital, whether we say so or not. If so, should we raise additional conditions to increase the organizational strength of the workers and give them some measure of control over the terms and conditions of the capital expansion? Or should we just say that's the bosses business, not ours, and instead we want socialism somewhere down the road, and making these kinds of demands will just corrupt us?

In brief, is there a valild distinction to be made between 'reformist' reforms and 'revolutionary structural' reforms in nonrevolutionary conditions, as discussed by Gramsci and later by Gorz? Is this implicit in Lenin, opposed by Lenin's analysis, or an open question not foreseen or substantively addressed by Lenin?

***********

Reply from DJDialectic:

First off, I copied this comment onto the livejournal discussion

(http://www.livejournal.com/community/marxism/209241.html).

Second off, though Carl writes very clearly--which I appreciate, he strikes me as someone with an ossified/dead understanding of Marxism (I would guess of the Maoist variety). To be more precise, his understanding appears to be thoroughly non-dialectical (see this post of mine for links

http://www.livejournal.com/users/djdialectic/10033.html ).

His main point is to ask about the division between productive and speculative capital, which are different--but the whole point of Lenin's book is that finance capital dominates productive capital in the imperialist epoch!
I cannot think of anything concrete that calling for an alliance of productive capital against speculative capital would mean--and truth is always concrete.

In very abstract terms, of course communists 'favor' productive capital--in the sense that we're striving to create a society based on the production of use-values. But to put it like that--like Carl does--is completely misleading, because productive capital is completely and utterly bound to finance capital.

*The rule of finance capital cannot be broken by going back to productive capital but only by going forward to the rule of the working class!* This--as can be seen partially and will be seen fully--is the point of Lenin's work Imperialism.

As far as what reforms we should call for--we should call for the best we can get. Trotsky's Transitional Program would summarize the jobs demand as: jobs for all, a full program of public works, a sliding scale of hours (divide available work among everyone), escalating scale of wages (tied to increase in prices of goods). What is most important though--and this is why it's called the transitional program--is that imperialism in its deeping economic crisis cannot solve these problems--certainly not permanently, socialist revolution is required to solve them and solve them permanently. The transitional program provides a link between the workers' consciousness in motion with the need for socialist revolution.

********

Dobrovolets adds a comment, directed to DJ:

I think it's a mistake to characterize transitional demands as "the best we can get". They are "the best we can get within the continued framework of capitalist social relations". And it has to be noted that "the continued framework of capitalist social relations" is not identical to "continued capitalist state power"--capitalist social relations will survive the taking of state power by the working class, which will have to use state power as a weapon for reshaping them.

It is only episodically and exceptionally that transitional demands can be achieved under the continued rule of the capitalist class, and then only temporarily. In a certain sense, they are the program of the workers state as refracted through the prism of the capitalist-ruled present, which through commodity fetishism, ideological propaganda and proletarian misleadership is misrepresented to the mass of workers as an eternal fact. By directly connecting the workers' present necessities with the program of the future workers' state, transitional demands can, through joint struggle between revolutionaries and reformist-led workers, be used to disrupt the spell of capitalist rule. But if misused, as a substitute for the revolutionary program rather than a supplement to it, they can serve to fortify reformist (false) consciousness instead. This was the case with Ernest Mandel's interpretation of the Transitional Program as "structural reforms," which he shared with Gorz. (I'm loath to toss Gramsci into the same basket.)

To connect this back with imperialism: so long as a progressive improvement of workers' conditions is compatible with continued capitalist rule, then what is needed is not a transitional but a minimum program, a system of demands explaining what the workers' party will fight for on this side of the revolution in order to politically cohere the working class and prepare it for the seizure of power, while improving its material conditions. But the dominance of finance over productive capital in the imperialist epoch expresses the culmination of capitalism's deeper tendency to the decline of rates of profit. Where capitalism was once a progressive social system, it becomes reactionary. And so while minimum (democratic) demands are not unimportant, their former strategic role, of preparing working-class revolutionary consciousness, is increasingly taken up by transitional demands.

A final note on attribution: while the Transitional Program properly so called was written by Trotsky, the discussion of transitional demands dates at least as far back as the Fourth Congress (1922) of the Communist International.

********

CarlD Replies to DJ:

Reply to DJ Dialectic:

From Carl Davidson

> DJ Quote:...though Carl writes very clearly--which I appreciate, he strikes me as someone with an ossified/dead nderstanding of Marxism (I would guess of the Maoist variety). To be more precise, his understanding appears to be thoroughly non-dialectical.<

Sorry if I stike you as 'ossified' and 'non-dialectical,' DJ. I try my best, as an admirer both of the 2nd Law of Themodynamics and Chaos Theory a la Ilya Prigogene, to stay on the cutting edge of science in the 21st Century, and I've admired dialectics going all the way back to Heraclitus and the Buddha.

I will admit, however, to a questioning of 19th century dialectics a la Hegel, Marx and Engels--mainly that it's based on the science of its day, as it only could have been, and things have progressed scientifically since then. The American pragmatists, especially Dewey and Mead, wrestled with this and developed the instrumental theory of truth as a third, 20th century option to either 19th centery idealism or materialism, coherence theory or correspondence theory, dialectical or otherwise. Yes, Mao made some contributions as well, and he and Dewey actually had some influence on each other when Dewey was in China in the early days of the Chinese student movement. So I would consider myself as one who held more to instrumental and pragmatic dialectics, as in Dewey, than the left Hegelian variety. Do you still think, in 19th Century terms, that the universe is made up of swirling chunks of 'matter'? I find that a bit 'ossified.'


> DJ: I cannot think of anything concrete that calling for an alliance of productive capital against speculative capital would mean--and truth is always concrete. ,

I put it quite concretely, I thought, i.e., the present day fight for jobs and against plant closings, etc. You reply by summing up Trotsky's transitional program (which seems to have more uses than aspirin as a cure-all) but even here, Trotsky's expanded "public works" programs would most likely be build by private firms under capitalism, which would then help these firms to grow. Hence the implicit alliance with productive capital is even imbedded in Trotsky.

> DJ: *The rule of finance capital cannot be broken by going back to productive capital but only by going forward to the rule of the working class!* This--as can be seen partially and will be seen fully--is the point of Lenin's work Imperialism. <

This 'going forward,' through the path of structural reform, in nonrevolutionary conditions, was exactly my point, although, since I'm a market socialist, I'm sure we might disagree on what, precisely, constitutes 'the rule of the working class' these days. I'm sure we've all got far beyond Stalin's notion of what it means, and perhaps Trotsky's too. And I'm also sure that, with the possible exception of a few liberatian Greens, that none of us want to go back to pre-imperialist productive captial days.

Yes, there is a difference between 'minimum program' and 'transitional program.' I'm not quite happy with either. That's what I'm trying to get discussed here in the context of Lenin, imperialism and present-day realities--I know most folks here are anti-reformist, but I'm also hope most of you aren't anti-reformist ultimatists, like, say, Daniel DeLeon. What exactly should be our approach to reform, as opposed to simply opposing reformism? That's what I'm interested in for today. Minimum programs tend to be simply oppositionist, redivide the pie programs without challenging the prerogatives of capital, while the transitional program is more agitational and nonpractical, ie, its not meant so much to be implemented as to be put out there as a means of exposing capital's limitations.

But thanks for letting me know that Ernest Mandel saw the transitional program of Trotsky from the perspective of Andre Gorz and structural reform. Mandel was one of the few Trotskyists I liked when I met him in NYC in 1968, even though I was a budding Maoist at the time, and now I have a reason to hang it on...

*********

DJ Back to CarlD:


Carl wrote:
"Do you still think, in 19th Century terms, that the universe is made up of swirling chunks of 'matter'? I find that a bit 'ossified.'"

DJ: That question doesn't even begin to make sense. You admit that you hold to dialectics, just not of the 19th century variety, and then accuse me of holding to 19th centurty dialectics based on nothing. This is simply a straw man argument--though a particularly insipid one.

CD: "Trotsky's expanded 'public works' programs would most likely be build by private firms under capitalism, which would then help these firms to grow. Hence the implicit alliance with productive capital is even imbedded in Trotsky."

I'll just quote what I said the first time:
"In very abstract terms, of course communists 'favor' productive capital--in the sense that we're striving to create a society based on the production of use-values. But to put it like that--like Carl does--is completely misleading, because productive capital is completely and utterly bound to finance capital." To be even more concrete, thos private firms don't constitute productive capital as segmented from financial capital--but are merely productive firms owned and controlled by finance capital. To speak of an "alliance with productive capital" is to speak in 19th century terms, if it ever made sense.

As for the rest of your comment, you seem more worried about reforms and alliances with certain segments of capital than about increasing the consciousness and organization of the working class. Dealing with "reforms" is simple--like I said, on the one hand, we fight with the workers for the best they can get, but on the other (at the same time), we fight against the reformist leadership and fight for revolutionary class consciousness and leadership (which means in the fight with the workers for certain reforms, we must tell them the truth, which is that capitalism cannot meet their needs and must be overthrown).

********
From Carl Davidson

DJ, I didn't mean to ACCUSE you of holding to a 19th Century view, but since you seem to stick to the classics, I meant to ASK you a question about 'swirling chunks of matter' that, in a shorthand way, expressed some of the limitations Engels faced in Anti-Duhring and the Dialectics of Nature that resulted from the fact that quantum mechanics and E=MC2 had yet to be discovered. To do away with the shorthand, here's Engels in his book the Dialectics of Nature:

"Matter moves in an eternal cycle, completing its trajectory in a period so vast that in comparison with it our earthly year is as nothing; in a cycle in which the period of highest development, namely the period of organic life with its crowning achievement - self-consciousness, is a space just as comparatively minute in the history of life and self-consciousness; in a cycle in which every particular form of the existence of matter - be it the sun or a nebular, a particular animal or animal-species, a chemical combination or decomposition - is equally in transition; in a cycle in which nothing is eternal, except eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws of its movement and change. But however often and pitilessly this cycle may be accomplished in time and space, however many countless suns and earths may arise and fall, however long it may be necessary to wait until in some solar system, on some planet appear conditions suitable for organic life, however many countless beings may fall and rise before, out of their midst, develop animals with a thinking brain that find an environment that permits them to live, be it even only for a short period, we are, nevertheless, assured that matter in all its changes remains eternally one and the same, that not one of its attributes may perish, and that that same iron necessity which compels the destruction of the highest early bloom of matter - the thinking spirit - also necessitates its rebirth at some other place, at some other time."

This is generally very good, until Engels gets to the part about 'matter in all its changes remains eternally one and the same..." A bit metaphysical, don't you think? What about light? Matter or motion? A wave or a particle? Or let's set aside 'either-or,' and look at the 'both-and' solution, a photon?

Now at this point you can wrangle incessantly between coherence and correspondence theories of truth, or you could take a different route and raise the instrumentalist option, ie, what actual problem are you trying to solve with these questions. One issue might be resolved productively one way (light as a wave) while another resolved productively another way (light as a particle). In brief, instead of looking for absolute truth, look for the truths that help you operate productively in dealing with the real problems presented by life, while keeping to an 'open systems' view that always encourages you to push the envelope hiding the universe's mysteries further and further away.

In a nutshell, that's my Zen pragmatic dialectics, for want of a better term, and I was simply trying to find out, with my question, as to whether you thought modern science was mainly a further exposition on Engels, or whether there was something new under the sun of human understanding and problem solving.

**********

DJ back to CarlD:

Carl says: "DJ, I didn't mean to ACCUSE you of holding to a 19th Century view, but since you seem to stick to the classics"

DJ: But that just's the thing: you have no ground for assuming I "stick" to the classics.

As for changing your theories of truth because of wave-particle duality, that doesn't really make sense sense the "truth" is that matter and energy are neither wave nor particles, those are just metaphors of a sort. There are mathematical equations that predict their behavior (both kinds)--the current theory being Quantum Electrodynamics, which last I checked had been experimentally verified with to a degree of precision exceeding any other theory. Meaning the behavior of light and matter corresponds to QED's set of equations and constants.

Basing a theory of truth on conflicts at the level of appearance (wave-particular) is senseless.

CD: "whether there was something new under the sun of human understanding and problem solving."

Well just so you'll be clear, I have a decent understanding of a broad swath of modern science, have done large amounts of reading on quantum physics, and understand computers and programming extremely well. So I don't think there's been nothing new under the sun, but I do still think people would do better to read Hegel & Engels on philosophy than just about anybody else.

***********

CarlD back to DJ:


But let's get back to the more interesting and popular issue of reforms and reformism...

As for your other point to me -- "you seem more worried about reforms and alliances with certain segments of capital than about increasing the consciousness and organization of the working class.." Why put them in simple opposition rather than, to use the dialectical lingo, putting them forward as an interpenetration of opposites?

I admit that I'm partial to Lenin's idea of class consciousness, i.e, whereby the workers not only come to see, through struggle and revolutionary education, their own position, future and interests, but also become aware of their interrelations with all other classes and strata, precisely for the purpose of forming alliances, however temporary and wavering, to advance their socialist vision, strength and fighting capacity.

Lenin also often put forward the dialectical view that, on one hand, every reform contained a 'police snare,' but, on the other hand, the fight for reforms, especially in ebb periods, for gains that enabled the masses to secure 'strong points' for themselves , however temporary, were exceedingly important. (See his fight with the Otsovists) In brief, I'm arguing, until you convince me otherwise, that workers can best learn how to be the masters of society mainly through the process of winning reforms, dealing with all classes and strata, and discovering the limitations of reforms in the process (i.e., resisting and foiling Lenin's 'police snares'), but also by gaining vision, strength, allies, and fighting capacity in the process.

But let's make it very concrete, DJ. Say Walmart wants to come to town, and some folks oppose it while others are for it. This is an actual battle going on all over the country. Where would you stand on it? What perspective would your analysis have you put out to the masses who want to change Walmart's ways, one way or another?

**********

DJ Back to CarlD:

Carl wrote: "As for your other point to me -- "you seem more worried about reforms and alliances with certain segments of capital than about increasing the consciousness and organization of the working class.." Why put them in simple opposition rather than, to use the dialectical lingo, putting them forward as an interpenetration of opposites?"

Because just because two things oppose each other doesn't meant they interpenetrate each other. Believing that music is the best way to change the world and dedicating one's life to writing music is opposed to a materialist understanding of change and then one's life is opposed to fighting for revolutionary consciousness.
There may be a certain, small, sense in which the two things you refer to interpenetrate, but if so, it's only in the sense that it's completely subordinated to the fight for revolutionary consciousness.

To take the Walmart example, I would recommend reading the latest issue of Proletarian Revolution. The particular struggle against Walmart requires a classwide struggle, it requires "a political strategy for spreading and building solidarity with other workers: it has to be part of a fight for a decent living union wage for all workers; it must demand equal pay for equal work for women and men, for Black, Latino, and white." The unions must work together on this--esp. to help with organizing strikes and picket lines. Explain that a militant strike at one Walmart that shows and gets solidarity could spark other strikes across the nation, that the key for the strike's success is to be classwide.

And at the same time tell the truth to the workers: that the gains won through these battles can only be temporary, that the union bureaucracy will either fail to fight or fail to fight well, that there is a need for revolutionary leadership, etc.

*******

CarlD back to DJ:

Let's leave our discussion of quantum mechanics to the side for the moment. I'll agree that you've made the break with the dogmatists on this question. You may or may not see me in the same camp as you here, but that's OK...

But on the more concrete issue of Walmart and anti-reformism; the article your refer to isn't online yet, so I'll go with your summary until I can find an issue somewhere in town.

DJ Says "Walmart requires a classwide struggle, it requires "a political strategy for spreading and building solidarity with other workers:..."

The first question of strategy is 'who are our friends, who are our adversaries'? To me, that means more than just the uniting the workers. For starters, it could also mean small businesses in the area about to be crushed by Walmart. Just saying 'unite all the workers,' especially when 85% of the workers in the US don't even have the most basic organization, the trade union, doesn't help much in the current situation, does it? Do this mean your strategy is just 'class vs class?' Even Lenin said in his time 'Workers of all countries and oppressed nations of the world, unite!', which was quite broader by pulling in the masses of peasantry and other strata in the third world against imperialism.

DJ says: "It has to be part of a fight for a decent living union wage for all workers; it must demand equal pay for equal work for women and men, for Black, Latino, and white."

Of course. This is ABC of simple reformist trade unionism. But before a union wage, it helps to have a union. But even this doesn't get much beyond redistributing the profit pie, does it? That's what I meant by the minimum program, in most cases, just being 'oppositionists' and not challenging the prerogatives of capital.

DJ Says: "The unions must work together on this--esp. to help with organizing strikes and picket lines. Explain that a militant strike at one Walmart that shows and gets solidarity could spark other strikes across the nation, that the key for the strike's success is to be classwide."

Amen. Again, militant, class-struggle unionism is fine and needed. But what do you do when many of the unions concerned are too weak or too corrupt? Walmart shut down the one site in Quebec that had a union, and some of the Quebec unions and their allies are trying to do something about it. There are no Walmarts with unions here in the US. But do we wait on this battle until we change the unions into something we'd like them to be, rather than what they are? If we don't wait, what plan do we put forward just to compel Walmart to unionize, rather than, even more ambitiously, change its business plan more fundamentally?

DJ Says: "And at the same time tell the truth to the workers: that the gains won through these battles can only be temporary, that the union bureaucracy will either fail to fight or fail to fight well, that there is a need for revolutionary leadership, etc."

Of course the gains are temporary, but with your limited objectives, you have to have a plan to win them first. Everything in the universe is temporary. Tell the workers they need revolutionary leadership? That would be fine, if there was a revolutionary leadership out there of some consequence, which we know there isn't yet. But let's say you are a revolutionary leader. So far you haven't said much more than "all workers unite and fight militantly, replace leaders who won't fight, but don't count on anything until we have workers power." This is an agitational slogan, not a strategy. What's more, it's ALWAYS true, and thus does little to address the concrete, living situation. It would have gotten a few chuckles at our worker-community meetings on Walmart here, but not much more.

You're making my case, DJ. Once you dig a little deep behind the rhetoric of the revolutionary anti-reformists, there's not much there that's useful in waging an actual class struggle in the actual arena where it's going on. Some of us do have a plan for dealing with Walmart--and even it may not make it, at least right away, since Walmart is the tough case for those fighting capitalism. But I'll save that until I see your response to this.

******

DJ back to CarlD:

Carl said: "You're making my case, DJ. Once you dig a little deep behind the rhetoric of the revolutionary anti-reformists, there's not much there that's useful in waging an actual class struggle in the actual arena where it's going on. Some of us do have a plan for dealing with Walmart--and even it may not make it, at least right away, since Walmart is the tough case for those fighting capitalism. But I'll save that until I see your response to this."

Let's see your reformist strategy then in this concrete case.

********

CarlD back to DJ:

On the Walmart Case & Reforms:

Walmart is a low-road, bottom-feeder, crass exploiter, here and around the world, of the first order. They are the largest employer in the country, with over a million employees, and the poster child of everything wrong with American global capitalism.

The unions in the retail sector, other unions and their community and business allies should make them target number one to attack, and in that battle, Walmart competitors, i.e, unionized firms like Costco and even more forward-looking non-union firms like Whole Foods, can even be tactical allies.

The company has so far successfully resisted union attempts to organize workers at its 1,353 U.S. Wal-Mart stores. It also operates 1,713 Supercenters and 551 Sam's Clubs in the United States.

Walmart expansion has to be stopped cold until they unionize and change their business plan. We have to mobilize a broad front, first, to prevent them from entering our communities, and second, to change them or shut them down where they exist.

At the same time, what we really need is a 'Co-Mart' alternative to Walmart, where clusters of worker and consumer cooperatives can put together larger retail sites that can offer the same or better goods and services as Walmart, but in a more progressive, 'high road' fashion.

This is not pie-in-the-sky, since coop operations like these already exist in Canada, Italy and Spain, and are doing quite well. More info is at:

http://www.clcr.org

This is the site of the Center for Labor & Community Research based here in Chicago, which has produced excellent analytical work on Walmart and the alternatives to it.

Of course Costco and Whole Foods are capitalists and in business to make a profit. All businesses are. I'm sure there are probably also outrages at Whole Foods that make a good case for workers having a union there. You can probably find a few outrages at Costco, too, even with a union.

But my point is not whether it's better for workers to have unions. Of course it is.

My point is that any abuse at Whole Foods or Costco, et al, pales in comparison to Walmart, and that Walmart is where we should aim our main blow. Otherwise, if we aim most of our efforts at Walmart's smaller competitors, mainly because they're easier, while letting Walmart slide, because they're too tough, who are we really helping strategically?

What the 'Co-Mart' option does, in the places where something like it exists or can be developed, is offer an alternative development--under capitalism to be sure--but in the direction of Economic Democracy, where workers, consumers and community stakeholders increase their allied organizational strength and thus have some important measure of control and input, including but beyond simple unionism, even under capitalism.

That, to me, is what represents the best counter-hegemonic project--waging war of manuver and war of position, ala Gramsci--with Walmart, rather than just straight-up traditional unionization.

We should want to fundamentally change the business plans of these 'low-road' companies with greater and great worker control, not just win a bigger wage-benefit package for the workers while hoping for socialism to show up some day, a kind of 'waiting for lefty' who never shows up, if you're familiar with the Odets play...

Yes, all these firms need better labor standards, but cracking Walmart, the 'dragger-downer' par excellence, is the key link in getting better conditions elsewhere. Plus some real competition from the 'Co-Mart' opton, should it ever come into being...

Here's a link on applying the Spanish Mondragon Coop model to rural America:

http://www.cfra.org/resources/strategies_6.htm

But, once again, here's my broader point of debate over simple 'oppositionist' labor and community tactics vis-a-vis Walmart and others like them. They don't do so well. Many of the old-style demands wouldn't do when Walmart bogarted its way into the West Side of Chicago. We're still holding them off on the South side.

We had a broad, if somewhat unstable, coalition opposing them, including unions. But Walmart was and is more than willing to make deals. Some unionists here were willing to cave if Walmart just agreed to use union labor to put up the building, setting aside any effort to unionize the work force for later. And when community groups listed needs for local jobs or their favorite neighborhood or school projects, Walmart was all set to write the checks; they were just asking how much, and were probably willing to give lots more than some of the askers even thought possible to ask for. In that skirmish, Walmart divided the coalition and we lost a round.

This is the key for us to keep hammering away at in our educational, base-building work: Despite their 'donations' and their warm-and-fuzzy media campaign, Walmart would not budge an iota on their basic, low road business plan, which includes not only union busting, but also covert government subsides, racism, sexism, plundering third world suppliers, starving third world workers, ruining environments, destroying local communities and small business, and on and on. And on a scale larger than anything the world has ever seen!

Whole Foods or Costco, whatever their labor practices, are bit players by comparison, and on some union or sustainability issues, they are on our side of the barricades.

That's why I'm suggesting mobilizing all forces--unions, communities, local government, and rival businesses that are a bit better on some issues--to make Walmart the main target and stop them from expanding at all.

At the same time, we need to present a practical alternative of what a high road, pro-union, pro-consumer, pro-environment retail cluster would look like. With labor at the center, we could begin to mobilize the grassroots forces and to leverage the capital and allies to launch the 'Co-Mart' option.

Of course, the option is always on the table for Walmart to fundamentalally change their basic business plan. But then, in that case, they wouldn't be Walmart, would they?

*********

DJ back to CarlD:

"A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer".

I think it's proverb Lenin once used responding to a reformist.

Your goal is to create a cooperative alternative to Walmart (or get Walmart to become like that)--a high roader. Quite simply, your goal is utopian reformist nonsense. It ignores the domination of finance capital and the deepening economic crisis brought on by the falling rate of profit.

Talking abstractly of high vs. low roaders sounds clear but is misleading. Both kinds of companies are dominated by finance capital, and Walmart isn't rogue capital, it's at the vanguard of capitalism. Your goal simply can't be achieved under capitalism today--yet due to the low level of class consciousness, it seems more viable (this is partially the fallacy of misleading vividness).
Just because co-ops exist in marginal sectors of capital, doesn't mean they can expand to include more central sectors (& thereby drive the rate of profit even lower).

I think the goal should be socialist revolution. The immediate tasks are therefore to build the revolutionary party which is the central element of the fight for revolutionary class consciousness.
This may appear utopian--it is swimming against the current--but appearances can be deceiving. There are deeper forces at work and the currents can change. Those swimming against it will be swept ahead--and those that were swimming with it...won't.

Again, I'll say that Carl is a very, very clear writer--much moreso than I am. I'm sorry I'm not better able to present my views.

*******

CarlD back to DJ:

Let's wrap up this round, DJ.

You're in favor of militant classwide, class struggle trade unionism in fighting Walmart, for socialism now or in the near future--depending on how quickly the 'falling rate of profit' has its maximum impact in producing revolutionary conditions--as the only real solution to the problem of Walmart and capitalism generally, and for party-building as the central task in the meantime. Fair enough?

I'm in favor of a broad multiclass front against 'low road' capitalist practices in fighting Walmart, that includes both miltant unionism, community activism and a 'Co-Mart' economic democracy structural reform. I'm for market socialism, but I stress building a revolutionary organization, along with mass democratic organizations, that know how to fight, develop and grow in nonrevolutionary conditions.

If 'utopianism' is the measure we're using in distinguishing our two approaches to Walmart, I think your plan is far more 'utopian'--in the sense of how difficult it might be to win a few rounds with Walmart--than mine. But practice will settle it--we could both be off base.

I used to think, in my younger days, that the revolutionary situation was right around the corner, brought on by war, the falling rate of profit, or some other feature of the 'general crisis,' but I don't cling to that dogma anymore. But I would love to be proved wrong, since revolutionary upsurges are much better fields of struggle all around. So I've decided the wiser course is to recognize that even 'moribund' capitalism also has shown tremedous resiliance, and thus I'm preparing for what Gramsci called 'the long march through the institutions' to get to the point of radical transformation.

In any case, this has been a good thread. If you like, I'll repost it to Ben's list next week; in the meantime, I'd love to hear from any others out there...Meanwhile, there's Chapter 4 of Lenin's Imperialism coming up. Read more!

Tactics on Walmart & Whole Foods: A Debate

Debate Over Retail Sector Organizing:
Walmart and Whole Foods

From Chicago Indymedia

Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still Center
Piece of New Gay Center

by Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network
11 Feb 2005

Despite union and gay community opposition, the Center board and its director, Robin Burr, forge ahead with the anti-labor Whole Foods a center piece of the extravagant project.

The up-scale Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, continues to rear its ugly head in the proposed new gay Center on Halsted.

Despite union and gay community opposition, the Center board and its director, Robin Burr, forge ahead with the anti-labor Whole Foods a center piece of the extravagant project.

Contact the Center to tell them that the plan needs to be changed to drop an anti-worker outfit as anchor tenant if the project is to have any credibility within the gay and wider community. Tell the Center that a smaller project is also required so as to not drain funds from other worthy community organizations.
__________________

WINDY CITY TIMES
Center on Halsted:
Groundbreaking in the Spring

by Andrew Davis
2005-02-09

The Center on Halsted’s ( COH’s ) new building plans are complete and the groundbreaking ceremony is expected later this spring, according to a press release by the facility.

The statement not only trumpeted the completed building plans but also mentioned that the Center has applied for demolition permits. The release also urged readers to visit the Web site ( www.centeronhalsted.org ) to look at the drawings rendered by the architectural firm Gensler.

In addition, the Center mentioned that it has hired Power Construction to erect the new energy-efficient building. According to its Web site, the Center will encompass more than 93,000 square feet, spread out over three stories. The new building, at 3640 N. Halsted, will feature a retail area [ including Whole Foods, which has sparked protests from pro-labor groups ] ; meeting and office space; performance area; multi-purpose gym; and a rooftop garden.

Comments

*****

Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Carl Davidson

Bob, if you want to attack the retail sector, aim your fire at Walmart.

Attacks on 'Whole Foods' as an 'upscale Walmart' are off base and only tell part of the story.

It's true that they, Whole Foods, are not unionized, and should the workers there want a union, we should support them.

But you neglect to mention a few points. Whole Foods is a profit-sharing, open information firm. Everyone who works their has access to all the financial information. That's because, in addition to their base pay, each work team gets a piece of the profit each month. What's more, hiring and firing is done by the workers in the work teams themselves--the managers are only to enforce non-discriminatory guidelines on the part of the workgroups. (Don't hire just whites, etc.) Mainly, the workgroups don't like to hire or put up with slackers, since the logic of the system ups their piece of the pie if everyone works more efficiently.

Unions often have a hard time figuring where they fit in in this sort of system, which is one of the reasons their organizing campaigns haven't done so well there. They have to do some fresh thinking.

In any case, Walmart is a low-road, bottom-feeder, crass exploiter, here and around the world, of the first order. They are the largest employer in the country and the poster child of everything wrong with American global capitalism. The unions and their community and business allies should make them target number one to attack, and in that battle, unionized firms like Costco and even more forward-looking non-union firms like Whole Foods, can even be tactical allies.

What we really need is a 'Co-Mart' alternative to Walmart, where clusters of worker and consumer cooperatives can put together larger retail sites that can offer the same or better goods and services as Walmart, but in a more progressive, 'high road' fashion.

This is not pie-in-the-sky, since Coop operations like these already exist in Canada, Italy and Spain, and are doing quite well. More info is at http://www.clcr.org , the site of the Center for Labor & Community Research based here in Chicago, which has produced excellent analytical work on Walmart and the alternatives to it.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Observer
11 Feb 2005

Carl is right on the money. Nevertheless, people with a blatant and anachronic Marxist ideology like Bob's will still reject WholeFoods as it is a private enterprise and not a collective. You just can't teach new tricks to an old dog.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Plumber

Carl-

You are way off.

First: All publicly traded companies have open books. Whole Foods is a publicly traded company (I have stock)

Second: "Work Groups", as you call them, "Teams" as the company does, do NOT hire or fire. The "team Leader" or departmental manager hires, the team can then reject the new member after 30 days. This is only in the case of the very worst employee, if the manager likes him/her they just slide them into another department. As an employee of "will" WFM can fire you for ANY reason, ANY time.

As far as profit sharing one gets two bonus's regularly. A Team Bonus that is based on quarterly profit for the department and for the BEST/Most profitable is never more than $250 per quarter or $5 per day for taking on the responsibilty of profitability for the investor.

Secondly is the "Labor Bonus". This can be quite high for a while. My department (when short staffed and woefully busy) got as much as $300.00 a month, of ten dollars a day- or about a dollar an hour for taking on the responsibility of higher productivity.

Of course each year we'd have to give back some of our labor %. (A formula based on how much we sell, for foodservice we started with a 33.5% of sales, when I seperated it was down to 31.25%, wiping out all hope for a monthly labor bonus but in the most shoprt staffed and hairyed departments.)

All given the $7.00 and hour employee at WFM would still do better as a union member, with full benfits. (I payed $480 a month for the worst damned HMO possible and that was 6 years ago)

The team is just there to keep unions out. Progressives that hear the real story change their tune quickly.

Third: Unions don't fit in because those that try to unionize get fired. Managers have complete control of their feifdoms. As long as the numbers come out right you can get away with anything as a manager. The real impetus for WFM Corp. is profit. The stakeholder closest to Bob Mackey's (CEO) heart if the investor.

I can sit here typing Carl or if you like I can sit down with you and tell you stories of signs in the breakroom telling emoployees that they will be fired if they talk union on company property, of pregnant women fired just before they're eligible for maternity leave, of a team leader fired for filing an EEOC complaint.

I experienced some of the most herrendous stories myself, so if you'd like to meet just say the word, I've got your number.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Carl Davidson
11 Feb 2005

Reply to Plumber:

Thanks for correcting my mistake about team manager hiring, with group approval after thirty days, rather than straight up team hiring. But nothing you say really goes against my main point.

(Although I'm certain that just because I own some shares in Cisco, I am NOT allowed to inspect the books, pay scales, etc, at any given Cisco plant. I'm entitled to there is a sanitized annual report once a year.)

Nor do I disagree with the facts you present about WFM. Of course Whole Foods is capitalist and in business to make a profit. All businesses are. I'm sure there are probably additional outrages at Whole Foods than you mention that make a good case for workers having a union there. You can probably find a few outrages at Costco, too, even with a union.

But my point is not whether it's better for workers to have unions. Of course it is.

My point is that any abuse at Whole Foods or Costco, et al, pales in comparison to Walmart, and that Walmart is where we should aim our main blow. Otherwise, if we aim most of our efforts at Walmart's smaller competitors, mainly because they're easier, while letting Walmart slide, because they're too tough, who are we really helping strategically?

I also presented the 'Co-Mart' alternative that does, in the places where something like it exists, does offer alternative development--under capitalism to be sure--in the direction of Economic Democracy, where workers, consumsers and community stakeholders increase their allied organizational strength and thus have some important measure of control and input, including but beyond simple unionism, even under capitalism.

That, to me, is what represents the best counter-hegemonic project--waging war of manuver and war of position, ala Gramsci--with Walmart, rather than just straight-up traditional unionization.

We should want to fundamentally change the business plans of these companies with greater and great worker control, not just win a bigger wage-benefit package for the workers while hoping for socialism to show up day, a kind of 'waiting for lefty' who never shows up, if you're familiar with the Odets play...

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Farlefty
11 Feb 2005

As an employee of a Whole Foods competitor, I can say that even though my store isn't union, the employees at Whole Foods are not treated particularly well. About the only good things that Whole Paycheck has going for it are some of the products, which tend to be organic and they carry some fair trade products. Is it as bad as Wal-Mart? Nope. Is it pretty shitty? Yep. The important distinction that Bob isn't making is that Whole Foods actually sells some decent shit and that it doesn't treat it's vendors like catch-cloths. Additionally, Whole Foods isn't likely to destroy local economies, although I can see how an entire town might instantly be converted to yuppiedom. There are many legitimate criticisms to make of Whole Foods and they need to be made. Comparing it to Walmart isn't quite on the money but I can think of no good reason why it shouldn't be opposed for the community center. Mr. Davidson, I'm missing what makes attack Walmart and Whole Foods mutually exclusive. They both needs better labor standards.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Carl Davidson
11 Feb 2005

Reply to Farlefty:

Yes, they all need better labor standards, but cracking Walmart, the dragger-downer par excellence, is the key link in getting better conditions elsewhere. Plus some real competition from the 'Co-Mart' opton, should it ever come into being...

Here's a link on applying the Spanish Mondragon Coop model to rural America:

http://www.cfra.org/resources/strategies_6.htm

Also FYI, here's the latest on Walmart from the wires, via Drudge...

WAL-MART CHIEF VOWS
TO BE 'EVERYWHERE WE ARE NOT';
SAYS EMPLOYEES DON'T NEED A UNION

Thu Feb 10 2005 21:03:25 ET

"The chief executive of WAL-MART on Friday will defended the retailer's decision to close a Canadian store after its employees voted to form a union.

"You can't take a store that is a struggling store anyway and add a bunch of people and a bunch of work rules that cause you to even be in worse shape," H. Lee Scott Jr. explains in an interview set for Friday editions of the WASHINGTON POST.

Scott says WAL-MART saw no upside to the higher labor costs and refused to cede ground to the union for the sake of being "altruistic."

"It doesn't work that way," he said.

WAL-MART'S decision has infuriated the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which was negotiating a contract for the Quebec store's 190 employees. If it had succeeded, the store would have become the only WAL-MART store in North America with a union contract.

Scott says WAL-MART'S strategy for growth is to be "everywhere we are not."

In the United States, that means edging closer to major cities, such as Los Angeles, New York and Washington, where the chain is likely to find less land, higher costs and stiffer resistance from labor unions and neighborhood activists.

Developing..."


So, break these reactionaries and everyone has a better shot of moving forward.

One final interesting point: Walmart has set up a China division that says it will recognize the China Federation of Trade Unions, and the Chinese Unionists have raised the idea of a global trade union alliance on the issue. Too many unions in the West, however, won't deal with the 'official' Chinese unions, in spite of the fact that it might be in their own best interest to do so. Worth exploring in any case...

******
Opposing Wal-Mart Does not
Exclude Opposing Whole Foods

by Bob with the "blatant and anachronic Marxist ideology"
11 Feb 2005

Carl, remember a few years ago when Whole Foods refused to support the farm workers boycott? That was my first clue that WFM may be bad for workers, while employing all the correct rhetoric about "teams" and stocking expensive organic foods.

There are good reasons to oppose a WFM in the new gay center. This in no way diminishes my opposition to Wal-Mart.

The United Food and Commercial Workers along with other unions have strongly backed gay rights in Illinois and elsewhere. They oppose Whole Foods in the gay Center. Gays ought to repay their support with backing to union shops. Secondly, since most gays are workers not stock brokers, we would likely benefit from a union shop.

Workers in the Madison, Wisconsin Whole Foods Mkt tried to organize but were absolutely stonewalled by the John Mackey management. This guy has even written a book about why unions are bad for business. For that and for keeping unions out, he has been honored by the business community. One could call Mackey "blatant" in his trumpeting of boss rule.

Better pay and workplace democracy are not anachronistic. Except to the bosses bottom line and those who applaud boss rule.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Carl Davidson
11 Feb 2005

I'm not denying any of your points, Bob. Labor needs to organize and the gay community also has every right to shape its center as best serves its interests and those of its allies.

I'm just saying if I were going to take on a retailer/food seller, I'd put Walmart at the top of the list, and Whole Foods would be quite a few notches further down.

But, once again, here's my broader point of debate with simple 'oppositionist' labor and community tactics vis-a-vis Walmart and others like them. They don't do so well. Many of the old-style demands wouldn't do when Walmart bogarted its way into the West Side.

We had a broad, if somewhat unstable, coalition opposing them, including unions. But Walmart was and is more than willing to make deals. Some unionists were willing to cave if Walmart just agreed to use union labor to put up the building, setting aside an effort to unionize the work force for later. And when community groups listed needs for local jobs or their favorite neighborhood or school projects, Walmart was all set to write the checks; they were just asking how much, and were probably willing to give lots more than some of the askers even thought possible to ask for. In that skirmish, Walmart divided the coalition and we lost a round.

This is the key for us to keep hammering away at in our educational, base-building work: Despite their 'donations' and their warm-and-fuzzy media campaign, Walmart would not budge an iota on their basic, low road business plan, which includes not only union busting, but also covert government subsides, racism, sexism, plundering third world suppliers, starving third world workers, ruining environments, destroying local communities and small business, and on and on. And on a scale larger than anything the world has ever seen!

Whole Foods, whatever its anti-union practices, is a bit player by comparison, and on some sustainability issues, they are on our side of the barricades.

That's why I'm suggesting mobilizing all forces--unions, communities, local government, and rival businesses that are a bit better on some issues--to make Walmart the main target and stop them from expanding at all.

At the same time, we need to present a practical alternative of what a high road, pro-union, pro-consumer, pro-environment retail cluster would look like. With labor at the center, we could begin to mobilize the grassroots forces and to leverage the capital and allies to launch the 'Co-Mart' option.

Of course, the option is always on the table for Walmart to fundamentalally change their basic business plan. But then, in that case, they wouldn't be Walmart, would they?

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Plumber

Carl -

I've got to disagree with you once again.

WFM's vision of a workplace is especially virulent. The idea that all workers should have a say in the workplace and a piece of the profit is a minimum for a future in which I would want to live.

The problem lies in what WFM is really trying to do with this vision. The vision that the worker should b responsible for profitability with out having a say in how margins raised, products are bought or merchandising is done is ridiculous. IT IS A CAPITALIST VENTURE. The worker is not there to further his/her understanding of a better future, the worker is there to spoon feed and wipe the chin of some yuppie.

A worker should not be held liable for labor productivity for a whole department, not for a dollar and hour. This causes the workers to pit themselves against the others. (I can't tell you how many times my employees would rat each other out for extra long breaks and slacking.)

Yeah Carl, I was a manager. $57,000 I made in the last year i was there. I can tell you about all kinds of meetings, I can tell you about destroying towns ala Wal-Mart (does anyone remember Oak Street Market in Evanston?? Food Co-ops in Ann Arbor, MI, St. Paul, MN and in Madison, WI.

Yeah not only do I have first hand knowledge but I have the broader picture (albeit from a few years ago).

I started out there at $6.00 and hour and lived the American Dream. I was a manager within a few yers and then filled a vacuum in the regional office. So the offer for coffee is still there, just let me know.

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Carl Davidson

To Plumber:

Again, you make my point. Even your own story, with all its hassles and pressures, shows how you did better at Whole Foods than you probably would have with a similar effort at Walmart.

You say:

'IT IS A CAPITALIST VENTURE. The worker is not there to further his/her understanding of a better future,' Of course, I never claimed otherwise, only that their capitalist practices were different and better in some ways than than those at Walmart. Unless you're claiming they're the same or worse than Walmart, which I don't think you are.

You also say: "The worker is there to spoon feed and wipe the chin of some yuppie."

I find this curious. Since it isn't literally true, you seem to be complaining that they pressure you to make a big priority of making the customer happy by taking care of the customer's perceived needs as best as you can.

Since I run a small computer repair business of my own, I have a handful of guys working with me, and I always stress to them that I want happy customers, first through decent work, and second, by never making the customer feel stupid, even if the customer made a mistake or did something stupid. Instead, raise their understanding about caring for their machine in a friendly, noncondescending and educational way. If they don't know what I mean, I tell them to try to put themselves in the place of the customer and imagine how they would like to be treated. Is this what you mean by 'spoon feeding' and 'wiping chins'?

Although I like to think I'm practicing a little Buddhist or socialist 'right livelihood' here, it's also sound capitalism, since happy customers not only come back, they tell other people that your work was good and you treated them well, and so they bring you more customers.

It also sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about 'yuppies' (Young Urban Professionals? I think that's the origin of the term, even if it morphed into 'Die Yuppie Scum!'). Lighten up on them. Not only did they help you earn a living for a while, they're part of the human race, too, and a significant part of the peace and environmentalist movements to boot. Like any other sector, they have a left, right and middle wing. Hell, I'd like to be one myself and could thus relax a bit about paying my bills, but I'm way past the 'young' part!!!

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Farlefty
12 Feb 2005

Dear Mr. Davidson,

I can think of no reason why both cannot be confronted about labor conditions. I agree that a focus should probably be put on Walmart but Whole Foods, a fairly large company by now, should also be confronted. As yet, there is no Walmart in Chicago (although it's going to come to damn soon, just like me [hangs head and sighs]) so it would make sense for Chicago activists to do their local bit against other, lesser, retail wage-theives like Whole Foods. Even if Bob does have a "blatant and anachronic Marxist ideology" his objections to the WHM in the COH seems to me to be quite justified.

regards, Mr. Farlefty

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by DR
12 Feb 2005

Timely discussion. Read on

Quebec Unions Call for Wal-Mart Boycott

by Martin Croteau
Reuters

QUEBEC CITY - Unions for thousands workers in northern Quebec have urged a boycott of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over its plans to close a store that last year became North America's first unionized Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart Canada, the Canadian unit of the Bentonville, Arkansas company that is world's biggest retailer, plans to close its store in Jonquiere, Quebec, on May 6, laying off 190 workers.

Workers at the store, about 215 kilometers (130 miles) northeast of Quebec City, obtained union certification six months ago and were in talks with Wal-Mart on their first contract. Negotiations bogged down earlier this month, and the union turned to the Quebec government for arbitration.

Wal-Mart Canada said the application for arbitration indicated the two sides were not likely to deal a deal.

Officials for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, a branch of the Quebec Federation of Labour said they may file a complaint with the government's labor relations board and union leaders at local metals and forest products companies said they deplored Wal-Mart's decision.

The Quebec Federation of Labour is the largest union group in Quebec,

Local mayor Jean Tremblay accused Wal-Mart of being a "bad corporate citizen."

"There are labor rules that everybody follows in Quebec. Other large-surface retailers follow them as well," he said.

"I'm disappointed that Wal-Mart decided to shut down the store instead of negotiating an agreement."

The company has resisted union attempts to organize workers at its 1,353 U.S. Wal-Mart stores. It also operates 1,713 Supercenters and 551 Sam's Clubs in the United States.

Unions for other big employers in the Saguenay region also called for a boycott of the three Wal-Mart stores in the area.

"We ask you not to go there anymore. They kill jobs, small stores, they come here and have no respect for the workers," Claude Patry, president of the National Aluminum Workers Union of Arvida, told members on Wednesday, according to Radio-Canada.

"We are going into a meeting tonight, and I plan on asking our members not to buy anything at Wal-Mart," said Richard Cote, an official with the union at the Fjordcell pulp plant owned by Cascades Inc..

The 100 workers at Fjordcell have been locked out since Nov. 1 over stalled contract talks.

Quebec is North America's most heavily unionized jurisdiction, and more than 40 percent of its wage and salary workers belong to unions. That compares with an average 32 percent rate in Canada and 12.5 percent in the United States.

In January, another Wal-Mart Canada store in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, won union certification and said it hoped to deliver contract proposals by mid-February.

At the time, the big retailer said it was considering all options to block the certification, including legal action against the Quebec Labour Relations Commission.

The National Union of Public and General Employees, which has 340,000 members across Canada, said on Thursday it would support efforts by the United Food and Commercial Workers union to organize workers at more than a dozen of Wal-Mart's 235 stores in Canada.

($1=$1.25 Canadian)

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by Solution
12 Feb 2005

Yeah, let's drag Wholefoods down the drain so Walmart will finally monopolize the retail sector.

Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by robert rabbits
12 Feb 2005

plumber, i'd like to talk to you more about the whole foods labor issue. robertrabbits (at) gmail (dot)com

*****
Re: Up-Scale Wal-Mart Still
Center Piece of New Gay Center

by DR
13 Feb 2005

Interested in Whole Food's track record in recognizing the right to union representation and collective bargaining for their employees? A glimpse at these story links from Madison IMC might be instructive. Read on.

Whole Foods Workers and Supporters Picket for Union Recognition - Madison IMC

and visit Whole Food Workers Unite at:

http://www.wholeworkersunite.org/ Read more!