Ask A Red: The IVth International

[Masada]

My bad.

 

[Traitorfish]

Could you tell us a little more about the distinctions between these two traditions, and who you see as the influential voices in the American syndicalist movement? Are you referring to the handful of American socialists like Eugene Debs and Victor Berger who were active in the political arena, or a more union-focused arena?

Well, you could fill a book with a detailed examination of how the two traditions differ and overlap (and people have), but I think the essence of it is how they approach the issue of class struggle.

The social democratic tradition regards this as a political struggle in the traditional sense, that is, a struggle conducted around and within the apparatus of the state. The question of working class organisation is thus for them a question of party organisation, of the development of a mass-party capable of assuming and administering state power. Industrial disputes, while certainly regarded as significant, are secondary, because they represent only an economic, pre-political level of conflict.

The revolutionary syndicalist tradition regards this is a struggle conducted around and within the point of production itself. For them, industrial struggles take on absolute primacy, so the question of working class organisation is thus a question of industrial organisation, of the development of mass industrial organisations capable of assuming direct control of production, what was known in the American parlance as the "One Big Union". Electoral politics are regarded as having purely strategic value, if even that.

It's hard to identify any particular theoretical authorities in the American syndicalist movement, because it was very much a grass-roots thing, and most of its ideas were developed through the mass-discourse of its participants. The best records of the movement tend to be found in the papers and pamphlets of organisations like the IWW, rather than being packaged neatly into any particular text. (Honestly, this is really true of the social democratic movement as well, it's just that in that case most of the major themes and positions can be hung off prominent individuals, which makes for easier narratives.) That said, we can name a few big names to illustrate some broad divisions, of which I'd say Eugene Debs, "Big Bill" Haywood and Daniel De Leon are the most significant.
Debs was essentially a syndicalist, and always placed more value on industrial organisation than electoral success, but regarded electoral organisation as important for providing a platform for socialist ideas and for achieving strategic ends. He also believed that some form of explicitly political organisation was necessary to give the movement a coherent program, although his preference was something like a radicalised Labour Party than a classical social democratic party, with unions rather than party functionaries still calling the shots.
Haywood represented the more radical, grass-roots wing of the movement, associated specifically with the IWW, who tended to be hostile towards electoralism and placed a much greater emphasis on direct action like strikes and sabotage. They also saw the party-form as an unnecessary encumbrance, arguing that the One Big Union model was sufficient to develop a coherent program. (They were also noted for their enthusiasm for working class folk and counter culture, whereas a lot of moderate socialists had a preoccupation with "uplifting" workers to "high culture".)
De Leon represented a more explicitly Marxist strain of syndicalism which attempted to synthesise it with elements of European social democracy, specifically in laying a strong emphasis on the party as the central organisation of a revolutionary working class, although still (and, over time, increasingly) emphasising the practical primacy of industrial organisation. These guys never had as much clout as the others, but they were relatively influential for their size, especially in bringing a lot of German and Scandinavian immigrants who were more familiar with social democratic politics over to a syndicalist outlook.

Guys like Berger really represent a more moderate, parliamentary tradition, and although they shared a party with Debs (and even Haywood, for a while, until he was kicked out for advocating sabotage), there were some serious political divisions between that were never patched up. Their attitude towards industrial organisation was always as a way of achieving particular reforms and marshalling support for socialist electoral politics, rather than as a the primary means of organisation itself.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's hard for me to imagine why you would think Marx's legacy is better placed being associated with European social democracy, when American syndicalism seems to more closely represent his idea (or at least my understanding of his idea) of socialism and how capitalism is to be ended. It's certainly why I identify more strongly with my domestic socialist tradition than any other.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

It's hard for me to imagine why you would think Marx's legacy is better placed being associated with European social democracy, when American syndicalism seems to more closely represent his idea (or at least my understanding of his idea) of socialism and how capitalism is to be ended. It's certainly why I identify more strongly with my domestic socialist tradition than any other.

Here's a little something Marx rewrote (from an inferior text by Le Lubez) as rules adopted by the International Workingmen's Association (aka the First International)

Considering,

That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, [RT highlighted that one to show my solidarity with TF] that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence;

That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means;

That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries; [Emphasis RT]

That the emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced countries;

That the present revival of the working classes in the most industrious countries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and calls for the immediate combination of the still disconnected movements [Emphasis RT];

For these reasons —
The International Working Men's Association has been founded.
It declares:
That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men, without regard to color, creed, or nationality;
That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights; [RT Note: These were what stood of Le Lubez' text, Marx "put them somewhere they woudl do the least damage..."

Draw your own conclusions...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Draw your own conclusions...

Isn't that the purpose of the One Big Union, and furthermore, the Party itself? Social Democracy includes a buy-in to the present political structure. A total rejection of that structure seems to preclude membership in the social-democratic family, wouldn't you say? The Party, or the OBU, can give the "hitherto disconnected labor movement" just as much political direction as a "proper" political party functioning within the present framework; probably more, because it is not encumbered by the limits of the present framework.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that Marx is referring to the trade union movement, which separates different workers by trade, rather than the labor union movement, which brings together all workers within an industry. Since we really haven't had a strong trade union presence in the US since the Knights of Labor imploded, and it was already on the sharp decline by then (thanks in no small part to the Big Three that TF already mentioned: Haywood, Debs, and DeLeon, all of whom were big labor union organizers), I think it's safe to assume that this riposte is not entirely applicable to the present situation.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Isn't that the purpose of the One Big Union, and furthermore, the Party itself? Social Democracy includes a buy-in to the present political structure. A total rejection of that structure seems to preclude membership in the social-democratic family, wouldn't you say? The Party, or the OBU, can give the "hitherto disconnected labor movement" just as much political direction as a "proper" political party functioning within the present framework; probably more, because it is not encumbered by the limits of the present framework

Correct. But, to clarify:
I refer to Social Democracy as "left cover" of the bourgeoisie. If you read about the history of the 2nd International, the German SD party, with its 600,000 members and 11,000 paid functionaries, 41 weeky newspapers and over a dozen dailies coiuld NOT make a revolution in the year preceding the war, and when Ebert and the Weimar Republic took over, THEY crushed Luxembourg/ Liebknecht in the North and Levine in the south.
Also per the 21 Conditions, I also refer to social deocracy as social fascism.
Also, the right and center of "the" social democracy as they called themselves were too heavily fixated on the determnism of Marx -- that "Socialism is inevitable" but ignored the clause "but it takes a revolution to bring it about.
Also, Engels' clarified in I believe the preface to the 1888 German edition of the Manifesto that Socialism was a petit-bourgeois movement, Communism was a working class movement.

It was Lenin's Party formulation that combined the clandestine core of revolutionaries with an open end to the masses. Marx, imho, was trying for that with the International -- because he saw the failure of purely mass movements, like the Chartists in England, as well as the purely conspiratorial, like 1848. Marx wanted a broad movement but with narrow leadership -- as he was living in a time of great peril for sociakists -- who were outlawed in Germany until 1890.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that Marx is referring to the trade union movement, which separates different workers by trade, rather than the labor union movement, which brings together all workers within an industry. Since we really haven't had a strong trade union presence in the US since the Knights of Labor imploded, and it was already on the sharp decline by then (thanks in no small part to the Big Three that TF already mentioned: Haywood, Debs, and DeLeon, all of whom were big labor union organizers), I think it's safe to assume that this riposte is not entirely applicable to the present situation.

Marx didn't have the example of the OBU, yet -- which is why the International -- which did its job in some instances by preventing French workers from scabbing on English strikers in the 1860s or so. Marx called it a trade union movement because that's what they had -- no one was organizing the peasants yet. If I take it as written, Marx was not discriminating -- he wanted more worker organization, not less.

However, in the point about a strong trade union presence, we actually had quite a surge with machinists in the 1930s -- they were AFL -- who were 1/3 of the SF General Strike leadership. But the main body of AFL were reactionary, which how the CIO got its wings. Buy since 1947, no Communists were allowed as union leadership, so you had the American Exceptionalism of a union movement with reolutionary leadership.

That changed with the farm workr movement and with my movement -- "unrecognized workers" those who fall outside of the constraints of NLRA, LMRDA and Taft-Hartley.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's hard for me to imagine why you would think Marx's legacy is better placed being associated with European social democracy, when American syndicalism seems to more closely represent his idea (or at least my understanding of his idea) of socialism and how capitalism is to be ended. It's certainly why I identify more strongly with my domestic socialist tradition than any other.

Oh, no, I agree entirely! I think that the American syndicalists were light-years ahead of the Europeans, both theoretically and practically, and that the most robust forms of European working class organisation where those that paralleled if not outright imitated American syndicalism, such as the Spanish CNT. A lot of Marxists assume that the social democratic tradition was/is more advanced because it looks more like what they assume politics is "supposed" to look like, but I'd say that it's the very reverse: that the depth of the investment of that tradition in the state and electoralism reflects their immaturity, their inability to break in a conclusive way with bourgeois political logic.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This is a post from the Unipolar to Multipolar... thread that is worthy of the Ask a Red Thread:

Genuine question: If you feel the trend is toward socialism, how do you respond to the various European welfare states/socialist parties all pursuing more 'capitalist' ideas and operating under a capitalist framework (ie: They appeal to voters based more on pragmatism and morality than ideology) ?

It is a good question... I am pasting it over Ask a Red.

In regards to the question of social democratic parties pursuing capitalist ideas, this just reaffirms my post aboive:
1. "Socialism" itself was a petit-bourgeois movement.
2. Social democracy is an opportunist bourgeoisie ideological trend.
3. Social Democracy is social fascism

What the Paris Commune proved, according to Marx and Engels, is that one cannot simly occupy the bourgeoisie apparatus of government -- it is designed to work for the bourgeoisie. When I pack up a vehicle for a plumbing job, I don't take the Benz, I take the van -- it's the right vehicle for the job.

You can't have a workers' government within the shell of the old -- it must be built on the ashes.

c.f. my above quote from Marx n the General Rules of the International Workingmen's Association.


Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh, no, I agree entirely! I think that the American syndicalists were light-years ahead of the Europeans, both theoretically and practically, and that the most robust forms of European working class organisation where those that paralleled if not outright imitated American syndicalism, such as the Spanish CNT. A lot of Marxists assume that the social democratic tradition was/is more advanced because it looks more like what they assume politics is "supposed" to look like, but I'd say that it's the very reverse: that the depth of the investment of that tradition in the state and electoralism reflects their immaturity, their inability to break in a conclusive way with bourgeois political logic.

Great. You and I are of one mind on this.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Oh, no, I agree entirely! I think that the American syndicalists were light-years ahead of the Europeans, both theoretically and practically, and that the most robust forms of European working class organisation where those that paralleled if not outright imitated American syndicalism, such as the Spanish CNT. A lot of Marxists assume that the social democratic tradition was/is more advanced because it looks more like what they assume politics is "supposed" to look like, but I'd say that it's the very reverse: that the depth of the investment of that tradition in the state and electoralism reflects their immaturity, their inability to break in a conclusive way with bourgeois political logic.

Great. You and I are of one mind on this.

And with Superman out of the way, WE* can rule the world! Muhahahahahaha!

Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.



*"WE" being the international proletariat, of course!

 

[caketastydelish]

There's one particular part of anarchism (which form my understanding, anarchism and communism go hand in hand) that makes me anxious about it.

In particular, if we are to remove the state itself, we are going to remove the law. The law (in a good society, not to say we are a part of one though) is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. What I'm saying here is if the American government were gone tomorrow and replaced with anarchy, women, the elderly, children, and people of color/minorities that are likely to be discriminated against would all be the first to suffer from violence and hate, and yes, I'm asserting that it would be much worse than it is even now with the government in place.

In America we sadly have paranoid rednecks who think the government is going to 'take away our guns'. They literally have their houses filled with guns and ammunition and I'm not even joking, these people are scary. Removing the government to allow them to do whatever they want is going to make things worse, not better.

I understand where anarchists are coming from, but for reasons like what I just mentioned above I'm afraid it lacks real-world application. Any rebuttals?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There's one particular part of anarchism (which form my understanding, anarchism and communism go hand in hand) that makes me anxious about it.

In particular, if we are to remove the state itself, we are going to remove the law. The law (in a good society, not to say we are a part of one though) is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. What I'm saying here is if the American government were gone tomorrow and replaced with anarchy, women, the elderly, children, and people of color/minorities that are likely to be discriminated against would all be the first to suffer from violence and hate, and yes, I'm asserting that it would be much worse than it is even now with the government in place.

In America we sadly have paranoid rednecks who think the government is going to 'take away our guns'. They literally have their houses filled with guns and ammunition and I'm not even joking, these people are scary. Removing the government to allow them to do whatever they want is going to make things worse, not better.

I understand where anarchists are coming from, but for reasons like what I just mentioned above I'm afraid it lacks real-world application. Any rebuttals?

Naturally we here are not anarchists, although many of us have knowledge of their methods and mindsets.

There are myriad strains of anarchism, so it depends on which kind of anarchist you ask. Some consider any constraint upon the absolute freedom of action of a person to be tyranny. Others merely disdain hierarchical structures and desire consent in all parts of life, at all levels of society. In this latter sense, most communists are anarchists. I doubt I would hear any objection from my comrades if I said that communism was inherently anarchical. However, the difference between us and the anarchists is that anarchists disdain dialectical materialism, and think that humans possess the innate knowledge - indeed, instinct is the common word used - to govern themselves effectively, and that "rediscovering" this knowledge will only take a short amount of time, once the overbearing state is removed. Communists understand that people are molded by the society they exist in, and by their material relations to one another. Thus, eroding the old way of thinking and building the new takes time.

Since you specifically mentioned police, I will point out that The State and its police force do not exist to "protect and serve," they exist to control and subvert. When the state ceases to exist, the role of the police will be served by organizations existing outside the realm of what was once the state, synonymous with what we might today call the "government." Accountability to the people will be paramount. In this topic, communists and anarchists are of one mind.

As for the state itself, it would be too long a post here to adequately explain what "The State" fully entails. I would say, since you are an inquiring gentleman, to read State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin. It's not long, but it methodically covers just what The State is, and how society relates to it in capitalism, and how it will in socialism/communism. It's worth your time.

 

[Flying Pig]

Since you specifically mentioned police, I will point out that The State and its police force do not exist to "protect and serve," they exist to control and subvert. When the state ceases to exist, the role of the police will be served by organizations existing outside the realm of what was once the state, synonymous with what we might today call the "government." Accountability to the people will be paramount. In this topic, communists and anarchists are of one mind.

Obvious follow-up: what does today's police force in a functioning western democracy do which the law enforcement bodies of a communist society would not do? I mean actual actions rather than loose interpretations of their motives: it's easy to spin acting as riot control on a violent protest as either 'protecting the people' or 'oppressing the people'.

EDIT: thought I was in the wrong thread, but the question holds.

 

[ParkCungHee]

We do have an ask an anarchist thread up now, in case you want to direct your questions about anarchism there.

Not, that I'd want to take away from Cheezy's thread, mind you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Obvious follow-up: what does today's police force in a functioning western democracy do which the law enforcement bodies of a communist society would not do? I mean actual actions rather than loose interpretations of their motives: it's easy to spin acting as riot control on a violent protest as either 'protecting the people' or 'oppressing the people'.

EDIT: thought I was in the wrong thread, but the question holds.

I assume you literally mean communism, and not "communism," aka, socialism.

"Protect and serve" is a good description. Police will be elected officials, as there will be no state to appoint them. It's a public position, it should not be left to "professionals" any more that politics should be. That leads to corruption and the rise of a political class. Election allows the population to remove police officers who terrorize the community and do not protect nor serve. And above all, because they are empowered by the working class, they will serve the working class, or lose their office.

I know what you will say to that. But the difference between them and presently elected officials like Congressmen is that police officers interact with their constituent population every day. That's the core of their job. They aren't representatives off in another city making decisions on behalf of the people, they're doing a job next to the people who empower them. That's a constant check on their integrity.

We do have an ask an anarchist thread up now, in case you want to direct your questions about anarchism there.

Not, that I'd want to take away from Cheezy's thread, mind you.

I feel like this thread and its participants can answer some of those questions. As I noted in the anarchist thread, communism is anarchistic by nature; anarchists and communists have their differences but they agree mostly on the end result (although I do not agree that all the contributors to that thread are anarchists, but that is not my decision to make). I feel that the onus is on the questioner to understand the distinction when asking the question, as to which thread to put it in. If I or any others feel that they are unable to answer the question, as with all things, they should redirect them to the appropriate place.

 

[Gary Childress]

It seems to me that a common theme among many "reds" is a certain disdainfulness of "individualism"? Would most "reds" agree with this assessment? When I say "individualism" I generally mean putting the interest of oneself before that of the larger community. This seems to be a common phenomena in America where I live. I find myself generally of that persuasion.

Do reds more or less universally view individualism as a kind of disintegration or erosion of society?

EDIT: Also, do you see a link between violent crime in America such as school shootings and excessive individualism? I must say it seems to me, at first glance, like there must be a pretty tight causal connection between the two.

 

[Hygro]

It seems to me that a common theme among many "reds" is a certain disdainfulness of "individualism"? Would most "reds" agree with this assessment? When I say "individualism" I generally mean putting the interest of oneself before that of the larger community. This seems to be a common phenomena in America where I live. I find myself generally of that persuasion.

Do reds more or less universally view individualism as a kind of disintegration or erosion of society?

EDIT: Also, do you see a link between violent crime in America such as school shootings and excessive individualism? I must say it seems to me, at first glance, like there must be a pretty tight causal connection between the two.

It begs the question, should we care about only the individualism of the person who is on top, or the best circumstances for successful individualism for the many, or the all?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

It seems to me that a common theme among many "reds" is a certain disdainfulness of "individualism"? Would most "reds" agree with this assessment? When I say "individualism" I generally mean putting the interest of oneself before that of the larger community. This seems to be a common phenomena in America where I live. I find myself generally of that persuasion.

Do reds more or less universally view individualism as a kind of disintegration or erosion of society?

EDIT: Also, do you see a link between violent crime in America such as school shootings and excessive individualism? I must say it seems to me, at first glance, like there must be a pretty tight causal connection between the two.

In America, where I also live, we are inundated with "me first" messages all over the airwaves, which is not unique to Americans, but it is a common and growing trend in America, which exports it's media all over the world.

However, in many societies, the idea of putting forward the individual before the larger community is an anathema to the survival of the larger community -- such as what was documented by Margaret Mead, et al. (She is the author, btw, of one of my favorite quotes, see below).

The uniquely "American" phenomenon was the rugged homesteader out west who could defend his land from Indians or rustlers -- which Teddy Roosevelt used to remake his image from an old money dandy into a "rough rider." (Read, if you can., The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley, which details some of Teddy's chillingly racist philosophy and his "makeover")

The reality was that as long as America still had unexploited land, it could mitigate the influence of "radical syndicalism" and "communistic" ideas coming over with immmigrants form Europe. So, America gave out land out west, and the west was "won" but corralling the Native Americans and having big-money cattle and later gold interests scoop up the land and the only people homesteaders were defending themselves against were robber barons.

The wealthy would like us to believe that you can make it on your own, but the reality is we can't (most Americans need to work FOR someone else to earn a living, e.g.) -- the wealthy know that they need to stay organized to fend off modern day versions of "radical syndicalism" and organized labour, but they keep saying for YOU to look after yourself, like in the Fidelity commercials: "They helped me fix MY economy, in MY house."

I call it "Socialism for the rich, free entrerprise for the poor," since the very wealthy have the apparatus of government on their side, but they encourage the average Joe to look after yourself.

I don't begrudge people for looking after themselves -- we are humans and the idea of free will is far too strong -- it's just that even as early as Aristotle, humans realized that we really depend on each other. My point is that all of our decisions are based on self-interest. There is immediate self interest and there is historic self-interest. I chose my life for the latter -- I would fare, and I do fare, far better when I look out for others than if I just look out for myself -- but it is and always shall be MY choice to do so.

I don't think this is an "erosion" of society, but it is a sign of the influence of those who profit more when you never look outside of your house -- which is all they need to keep going (for us to do nothing) -- than decide that the world is NOT right, and decide to do something to fix it. It tells me that their days are numbered for beiong in power, because they know we are stronger together than as individuals.

The rise in gun violence is not easily explained by any single phenomenon and I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I do know that when alternatives to "powerlessness" do not exist for people, those alternatives can "explode" into being with tragic results. When I was 11 years old, Barbara Ann Spencer, a 16-year-old, shot up her school yard and in her defense she said "I don't like Mondays." That was in 1979. I don't think we are a worse society for it, just a more frequently violent one, and I think that can change with organization.

I hope this helps.

 

[Takhisis]

Some of the visions of a communist (or 'communist'? I don't know which is which) society remind me a lot of the Athenian 'democracy'.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Some of the visions of a communist (or 'communist'? I don't know which is which) society remind me a lot of the Athenian 'democracy'.

More correctly put: why is it that bourgeois historians characterize communism as being paternal - a la Athenian democracy - but say nothing of the patronizing attitudes of bourgeois governments to the poor and working people of the world. Read up on the Cuban and Chinese systems, as I have written oft before , and you will see how truly democratic they are.

My point is that when the working class decides to organize, people scream bloody murder about how "unions are driving costs up" in the US when in fact costs have been going UP and wages down -- along with Union membership (socialism for the rich, free entrerprise for everyone else) which is now at about 7% of the private workforce.

Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.