An injury to one is an injury to all

Adam Turl chronicles the rich radical working-class history of Industrial Workers of the World.
http://socialistworker.org/2009/08/20/an-injury-to-one-is-an-injury-to-all

Turl goes through the entire article without mentioning Daniel DeLeon, whose theory of Socialist Industrial Unionism inspired the organizational structure of the IWW, without mentioning the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance, the SLP-organized economic organization that provided many of the key parts of the IWW outside of the Western Federation of Miners, and without mentioning the 1908 split in the IWW that led to the formation of the Workers' International Industrial Union -- the "pro-politics" side of the split, also called the "Detroit IWW" until 1915. These are not minor points, and leaving them out can only be seen as politically-motivated.

Anyway, enough complaining. I'll just end by listing the URL to the Workers' International Industrial Union: http://www.wiiu.org/.

i did not realize that, but you are right. I read a variety of socialist sources online and the politics between groups seems to creep in. I think that is why there are so many different socialist groups. For the movement to be effective politically, i think there needs to be some consolidation. I would like to see a socialist party in this country where its candidates can get elected to office. Socialist groups should decided between party and people and then members can act accordingly. In the long run, political action has to rise above purest ideology and become functional and able to participate in the political area. That is my frustration with the socialist groups, including my own. DSA campaigns for candidates through financial support and grassroots organizing and on-the-ground action. But, it is usually done covertly, in that the members act as a group, but not publicly as DSA due to the red-baiting that surely would follow. Among the socialist groups there are many issues they hold in common, especially labor and heath care issues. I think that can be the foundation for a consolidation which would increase their power and political presence. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Maybe i am a Pragmatic Socialist...LOL...

Note: This is a little long and rambling, but there is a lot to be said on the subject. -- Martin

I've been an active communist (not capital-C, like the Communist Party USA) for all of my adult life, and I've seen up-close and personal what the problems of the left are. The problem with the left is both organizational and political, since organizational structure, procedure and "culture" are all reflections of the political program and method being employed.

The organizations are run by "middle class" elements trained in management techniques that owe more to modern capitalist production than anything else, and this is because, in order for each of these "leadership" cliques to distinguish themselves from the others, they need something "unique" politically. Thus, tactical, historical and other secondary questions become elevated to the level of "principle".

The most burning question is no longer how best to organize against capitalism, but whether or not you saw the USSR as a workers' state or state capitalism (or whether or not Cuba is a healthy workers' state, a deformed workers' state, petty-bourgeois nationalist capitalism or just state capitalism). "Litmus tests" become the standard as each organization develops its own catechism and line of succession. "Continuity" becomes a central question, just as it does with the surviving heirs seeking to claim the estate of a dead relative. And in that sense, political method and program become a perverted form of private property that the various leaders fight over with Biblical zealotry.

This affects just about every organization out there. I don't think it affects mine, though, because we don't allow "middle class" elements (by that I mean managers, professionals, officials, cops, bureaucrats, professional politicians, small business owners, etc.) to become full members; they can support us, but they can't join us. Before we can create some cross-class unity against the exploiters and oppressors, we need a solid intra-class unity. Now, for us, this is a principle -- the principle of proletarian separatism. It goes back to Marx's historic statement: "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".

This view negates "vanguards" that are made up of learned "leaders" from the "middle class" entirely, but it opens the door to discovering what Marx (and Engels) really saw as the communist future: a free association of producers, a society of general freedom, democracy transformed from a form of governance to a daily practice. The truly liberating and democratic spirit of Marx is freed when the class line is restored to the level of principle.

I'd like to think that the Workers Party in America has been able to capture some of that spirit in its organization and work. But I'm biased, so I cannot make that judgment.

With the bulk of the self-described socialist and communist groups, there is an inherent contradiction when they run candidates for office: on the one hand, they all, more or less, run on the same platform; on the other hand, they all, more or less, attack each other's program in favor of their own. But it's actually not the platforms they are attacking, but the other group's unwillingness to adhere to the "litmus tests" the others uphold. DSA is just as guilty of this as any other organization. If there is a way to describe these organizations today, it is that they are avowedly "non-sectarian" sectarians.

Sectarianism, contrary to how some portray it, is about placing specific organizationally-specific issues above the interests of the working class. So, demanding support for a certain historical viewpoint, or the elevation of a tactic to a principle, that has more to do with making one's particular organization seem like "the leadership" is textbook sectarianism.

Those principles that are non-sectarian -- i.e., that are within the interests of the working class -- are those that educate workers about classes, the capitalist mode of production, the role of their class within society and the obstacles it has to clear in order to achieve its own liberation. Cuba, Russia, China, who was right in the Trotsky-Stalin fight (if either), etc., are not on that list.

This is not to say that workers have no interest in these issues, especially when they directly affect their ability to fight for their own interests. But the value of the historical argument ends at the boundaries of its real-world relevance.

In the end, though, it will be necessary to shake off the chains of pragmatism in order to accomplish your goals. If there is anything that has held back social progress in American society, it is pragmatism. I understand the temptation to hold on to it as an ideology, but it is a destructive one for those wanting a progressive future.

is doomed. Power is the goal. Like Lord Voldemort says...

There is no good and evil,
there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.

:toast:

Note: I originally had this as part of the other post, but I thought it best to break it into two for clarity. -- Martin

We do need a single political party of working people, led by workers, organized by workers and composed completely of workers. Since we are talking about working people taking power and acting as the caretaker "ruling class" in the transition to a classless society, it is in our interests as a class to be our own leaders -- to be the leadership we've been waiting for.

Moreover, we need an economic movement that serves as a school for that transition, where working people learn how to democratically control and administer their workplaces, industries and services, and the economy as a whole. We also need our own social programs and organizations -- our own aid and relief groups, food distribution groups, medical aid groups, legal aid groups, sanitation and recycling groups, sustainability groups, and so on and so on.

Our goal should be to build the new society within the rotting shell of the old, so that when the old one collapses it will not have a chance to reassemble itself to start the cycle of war, exploitation and terror over again without facing an organized and viable challenge.

Elections can play a role in that process, but that can't be the be-all-and-end-all of the work. The fact is that the American political system is set up to stop such a peaceful, Constitutional takeover from happening. You could have the strongest, most popular avowedly socialist political party mount the strongest challenge in a general election year (e.g., 2012), and the most you can accomplish is taking control of half of the federal government (the White House and House of Representatives; the Senate and Supreme Court would remain firmly in the hands of the capitalist parties and class), and from one-third to one-half of each of the state governments (the state legislatures and maybe a few governorships or elected state supreme courts; again, the rest would remain firmly in the hands of the capitalist class and its parties).

And then there's even the question of whether or not such candidates-elect would be allowed to take their seats, or would be denied their victory by the rump regime.

Most important for our purposes, though, is the fact that, in spite of such a sweeping gain, the polarized government, far from bringing the armed forces of the capitalist state -- the cops, courts, prisons and military -- such a division would free them to act in their own interests or, more likely, the interests of the newly (albeit partially) dispossessed capitalists. This is the Allende Scenario, and how Chile ended up with two decades of fascist rule under Augusto Pinochet.

At best, it would take two to four years (two to three election cycles) to oust enough of the old capitalist politicians from power to place an ostensible socialist party in control of the established political levers of society. And in that time, there is little doubt in my mind that the armed forces of the state -- the armed enforcers of "law and order" -- would stage a coup to restore the status quo. Unless you have something more than elections to rely on for achieving political power, unless elections are seen as a tactic and not a general strategy, there will be blood, unfortunately.

On the other hand, with a combined, all-sided approach, the situation can be radically different. A sweeping victory like I mentioned above can be seen as a barometer of the opinion of society -- a referendum on what kind of society people want. It would give impetus to workers on the job to further organize themselves into an economic movement, to demand more control over their jobs and lives, to take charge of their communities and its basic services. And if we were denied our duly elected positions, either by political trickery or extralegal barbarity, we could turn to society and say, "They are forcibly denying you your rights. What are you going to do about it?"

And what could they do? The economic movement could seize the industries and services where they are, and declare an indefinite strike until the new government is seated or establishes a new provisional government. If the armed agents of the state show up to dislodge them, their self-defense groups (organized and trained well in advance) could defeat them or fight them to a stalemate. The political party's winning candidates at all levels could meet as a de facto government and Continental Congress to establish a new provisional government and republic that is representative of the will of the working-class majority, presenting an ultimatum to those who are desperately clinging to power: walk away now and allow for a peaceful transition of power, or continue to resist and take responsibility for all future bloodshed.

This is a possible way that the next revolution in America will unfold, if working people choose to use elections as a means of building themselves up as a force in the political arena. They may choose to bypass the existing system altogether, concentrating instead on the organizing of revolutionary industrial unions at the workplace, which in turn organize and elect their own organs of political power, workers' councils, in anticipation of a collapse of the capitalist order. In the end, it's the working class that will choose the best path to their own liberation.