File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 700


From: brumback-AT-ncgate.newcollege.edu
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 21:40:17 -0800
Subject: Re: M-TH: Nancy on the longevity of Marxism; program andpractice


Thanks to Charles for his comments re: classical Marxism on "from each
according to work." I have attempted to fit my principles, program, etc. for
a revolutionary society into the classical framework insofar as is possible,
given the basic problem of Marx's relation of the economic relations to the
social relations, regarding which he did have the embryo of a materialist
analysis, but did not bring to a fully feministic conclusion. His failure to
do so may have been caused by the absence of any conscious women's
liberation movement during his time. Because he demonstrates his commitment
to women in many other ways, I give him the benefit of the doubt, as far as
intentions. But I continue to assert that domination is the essence of
capitalism; as long as patriarchal domination exists, there will be no true
socialism.

Charles also commented, "If "radical reform in a revolutionary manner" is
part of your framework, it would be interesting to see what parts of your
proposal are in what phase, before and after the revolution."

SOME OF THE RADICAL REFORMS THAT COULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE REVOLUTION:
The exact nature of these would depend on who is mobilized, and what their
interests are. The guidelines should be, what are the needs of the most
oppressed? To help eliminate domination, have educational programs in all
schools and workplaces re: anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-heterosexist,
anti-ageist, anti-worker ideas and practises, etc. The proportional
representation idea is a good one, in which each electoral candidate gets a
share of power depending on the number of votes they received. That way
there could be a socialist voice in government even before the revolution.

SOME OF THE RADICAL REFORMS FOR AFTER THE REVOLUTION:
To eliminate the material base of domination, the ownership and control of
the means of production should be given over to the present and future
generations, to be used by them for the purpose of meeting their needs.
Beyond that, to facilitate the withering away of the family, abolish the
inheritance of wealth.
Instead of government by representative democracy, have government through
the participation of all members of society.

Of course, this is not an exclusive list. But I hope it gives you an idea.

Nancy


>Hi Nancy,
>Continuing our exchange that started:
>Nancy,
>,
>>      What do you think of including in your program constitutional
>amendment or fundamental law change campaigns for the right to a decent job
>or income and a whole bill of economic rights, equal rights for women (as a
>whole bill of rights for women) for early on in the revolutionary process.
>>       Do you see going from "from each according to ability to each
>according to work" to "from each according to ability to each according to
>need " ?
>>       C.B.
>>
>>
>
> Nancy --The answer to all is yes.
>
>As you know, the program for revolution is intended as the end point of
>capitalism and the beginning point of a revolutionary society. Law change
>campaigns for the right to a decent job or income are progressive reforms --
>but reforms only -- as long as the means of production are owned by the few
>for the purpose of extracting a profit from the many. 
>
>Charles - Yes, I still think in terms of the struggle for radical reforms
in a revolutionary manner as a main form of working class struggle under
capitalism before the working class wins state power. The radical legal
reforms I mentioned , and a failed struggle for them would crystalize in the
minds of masses that the bourgeoisie and capital cannot tolerate these
elementarily sensible changes. And it would crystalize mass thinking on main
and inherent failures of capitalism.  The constitutional amendment is an
eminently legal form. This failing would give the working class a measure of
the need to "break" the law to really make the changes.
>     If  "radical reform in a revolutionary manner"  is part of your
framework, it would be interesting to see what parts of your proposal are in
what phase, before and after revolution.
>
>Nancy -  Your second question was, do I see going from "from each according
to ability
>to each according to work" to "from each according to ability to each
>according to need. A good question! But I didn't intend to advocate "from
>each according to ability and to each according to work." 
>
>Charles - Again , I was getting my classical bearings a little here. I
wanted to get an idea of what you are saying in relation to Marx's short
formula for the difference between socialism (transitional) and communism
(proper). However, the interesting thing is to see how your thoughts might
fillin some more specifics of what these formulas mean.
>
>
>Nancy -
>The reason why I do not advocate "from each according to ability and to each
>according to need" is that this slogan implies a supervisory layer of
>bureaucracy to determine (1) what the ability of each is and what work they
>should therefore do, and (2) what the need of each is and how that need
>should be filled. As we have seen, every socialist country has had such a
>bureaucracy. 
>
>Charles - Going classic again (which doesn't mean right) "to each according
to work" is supposedly socialism."To each according to work" is the same as
your "day's pay for a day's work."  
>   Also, for Marx the state whithers away under communism, so supposedly,
there would be no bossy bureaucracy left when we reach "to each according to
need" . The idea is that there would be great abundance , and you would just
get anything you need and there wouldn't be much dispute about what anyone
needs. I guess people would be real sensible about what they felt they
needed , matching it to what could be provided by society at that time.
>
>Nancy-
>I am trying to think of a way that the ownership of the means of production
>could be turned over to the people without a bureaucracy to supervise what
>work gets performed and who gets what products. Once implanted, these
>bureaucracies seem to stay in place until the bitter end, and beyond.
>
>Charles - My interpretation has always been that the negative role of
bureaucracies has been rooted in the existence of classes.  Disputes over
resources, production and distribution which take the form of bureaucratic
tyranny will end with the artificial scarcity of class society. Thus, the
"bureaucrats" under advanced socialism and communism are not powermongers,
just mature and responsible "administrators". The job would circulate among
people. See Lenin' State and Revolution  on this. (I'll look for it: I still
owe you some passages from Capital on domestic labor)
>
> Since
>it is the people themselves who have created all the wealth of society, they
>should have the say over how it gets distributed. As to what should be
>produced, that's where I got the idea that production should be determined
>by the needs of the people, as indicated by supply and demand. And finally,
>as to how that production should be carried out, that's where I got the idea
>for "a day's work for a day's pay," i.e., everybody gets paid the same no
>matter what work they do. That way, the needed production happens without
>the imposition of an external authority, but without perpetuating social
>hierarcies. And, since at the same time, everyone's basic needs are being
>met through the distribution of profits to the people, pretty soon money
>will wither away, along with the family and the state.
>
>Chas. - I will think about this a little more.
>
>Thank you for such an interesting question. I look forward to your response!
>
>Nancy
>
>
>Ciao, Charles
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005