File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9708, message 304


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:53:08 -0700
From: "Workers' Voice" <WorkersVoice-AT-EarthLink.NET>
Subject: Re: M-I: Twilight of the labor movement


Louis R Godena wrote:
> 
> But that is not what concerns me this morning.  Rather, it is this feeling
> that fundamental criticism of the fetishization of the working class on the
> Left is somehow tantamount to disloyalty toward Marxism. 

Well, it wasn't the Left -- or even Marx -- that decided that the
working class "is the only really revolutionary class".  That was
history.  But I'm gathering he's equating the organized labor movement
with the whole of the working class, instead of being a Marxist and
seeing organized labor as a part -- a vital part -- of the working
class.

> It is true that,
> politically, I disagree to various extents with just about everyone on
> marxism-international.  This is fine with me.  Marxism-international is not
> the workers movement, nor is the Communist Party, nor the AFL-CIO, nor the
> myriad of organizations, large or ridiculous, where three or more gather in
> Marx's name.  (The "new" AFL reminds me a lot of Zhygonov's Russian
> Communist Party, similar to the old, but ultimately a caricature of its
> former self, "first as tragedy, then as farce.")
> 

Neither is Lou Godena, whose petty-bourgeois conceptions of the working
class have led him to throw his hands in the air and cry "enough!"  (See
below.)  I do, however, agree that M-I is not the whole of the workers'
movement, and neither is the AFL-CIO.

> And, anyway,  the workers movement itself, having fulfilled its historic
> role over the past 150 years, is now a spent force. 

New Left rubbish, anyone?  So much for Marxism!

> It is time to move on
> to other things, which the world is now doing very nicely. 

What, pray tell, is the *world* moving on to?

> I am much
> excited by the re-functioning of Communist and Workers parties occurring
> throughout Europe and Asia, though I am impatient for many of them to emerge
> from the shadow of a triumphalist capitalism.  But that will come, in time.
> 

Uhh ... these so-called "Communist and Workers parties" have "emerged
from the shadow of triumphalist capitalism" ... as partners!  All of the
"Communist" parties in Eastern Europe and the former USSR have exposed
their yellow underbellies, crawling before the Second International for
admission.  In China, the CCP is the caretaker of an emerging capitalist
system.  Everywhere else, these rotten sects and cults have been too
busy sucking up to imperialist-backed "liberation fighters" like Laurent
Kabila.  Or, worse, telling the working class to vote for bourgeois
parties.  Not exactly something to be "excited" about.

> I do not mean to ramble.  Following are my reasons, briefly stated, why I do
> feel that the labor movement *as it is currently constituted* is doomed to
> failure in this country.  This does not necessarily mean the end of the
> socialist project --far from it-- but it does demand a basic refunctioning
> of what we're about.
> 
> 1) The absence, or near-absence, of absolute poverty among the American
> working class.
> 

I've heard this before:  the "worse is better" approach.  Not only do
genuine Marxists condemn this as a fatalist outlook, but history has
thoroughly refuted this gutter ideology.  The mass struggles in the
mid-1930s and late-1960s occured in a period of relative economic
equilibrium and recovery.  Such periods of recovery provide the working
class an opportunity to test its illusions and, thus, have them
shattered.  This was the case even during the New Deal in the U.S.  The
formation of the CIO was met with even greater resistance by the bosses
than the KoL and the AFL.

> 2) The congenital inability of the working class to develop into a culture
> of a ruling class.
> 

I'm guessing by this you mean the inability of the working class, under
the present conditions, to develop into the class for itself, and desire
to take power.  If that's what you mean, then we agree.  But, somehow, I
think you mean something different.

> 3) The failure of the labor movement, and its concomitant Left parties, to
> concentrate on issues that resonate within American social traditions.
> 

Can you be specific?  What the hell do you mean by "American social
traditions"?  Are you asking Marxists to wave Old Glory and march in the
July 4 parade? 

Our organization, for example, does alot of work around issues relevant
and vital to the working class in the U.S.:  fighting to maintain public
education, strike support work, antiracist/antifascist work, etc.  These
resonate farther among the working class than any "Fourth of July
Barbecue" would.

> 4) The overweening presence of sclerotic, antiquated and corrupt union
> infrastructures.
> 

But what do you do about it?  Throw up your hands and cry "enough!"? 
Or, do you fight.  Someone once said "the point is to change it." 
Changing the situation -- especially *how* you change it -- is the key.

> 5) The absence of a competent, credible *lumpenintelligentsia* providing
> both the theory of revolution and a practical guide to action.
> 

#&(% this!  The working class does need some "lumpenintelligentsia" to
lead it around by the nose!  This is the same, typical petty-bourgeois
garbage that has degraded and degenerated the Left to the point it is
today.  The working class has the ability to learn and understand
Marxism, and apply it to their day-to-day conditions and struggles.  We
(the working class) don't need anything "provided" to us!  We don't need
any "condescending saviors"!

> 6) The innate conservatism of middle-class workers and, especially, their
> obstinate willingness to play the employer's game.  No matter what.
> 

It's amazing how Godena can say one thing I agree with one minute, and
make a thoroughly anti-working-class, petty-bourgeois statement the
next.  This political schitzophrenia is dizzying.

> 7) The American radical tradition, which is almost wholly individualistic,
> rather than collectivist.
> 
> Off the top of my head, this is how I percieve the problem of moving the
> working class towards socialism.  If anyone cares to argue these points (or
> their equivalent), fine.  In the meantime, please refrain from attributing
> to me views that are decidedly not my own.
> 

It's easier to argue against your views.  They are a congenital defect
of the Left today: a petty-bourgeois conception leads to great
expectations, which leads to catastrophic consequences, and eventually
giving up on the sliver of Marxism which was surrounded by middle-class
hogwash.

I may not have been on the earth as long as you, Lou, but I've seen my
share of class struggle and class battles.  Even though you do not
explicitly say that the "Western proletariat" is dead, that is the
implication, and the logical extension of your positions.  This is shown
in your use of "working class" and "organized labor" as synonyms.

I'm sure this will bring a sharp response from you.  That's OK.  I
expect it.  But, to be honest, there is nothing you can say to convince
me.  Your petty-bourgeois conceptions of "socialism" have no use to a
working-class Bolshevik like me.

> Louis Godena
> 

Odo Ital
-- 
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\XXXXXXXXXX||||||||||XXXXXXXXXX///////////////
\ Workers' Voice (U.S.)                     P.O. Box 44593 /
\ Detroit MI 48244-0593                      UNITED STATES /
> (313) 535-7161                       Fax: (313) 535-4212 <
/ workersvoice-AT-labornet.org     workersvoice-AT-earthlink.net \
/         http://www.geocities.com/~workersvoice/          \
/ Voz Obrera: http://www.geocities.com/~workersvoice/vozo/ \
///////////////XXXXXXXXXX||||||||||XXXXXXXXXX\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005