Re:Re Left? Left Politics?

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

> >
> >...
> >On the other hand, if the working class as a whole demands a thirty hour
> >week, this is a political demand.
>
> >I am in favour of this sort of politics.
>
> Mauro:
> Let clarify some misunderstanding.That one you mentioned is a political
> demand, true.
> But what is its aim, as such? To improve the labour conditions in a
> bargaining with the capitalist class.
> Sure, I'm in favour of the demand of thirty hour week but I would add (and
> we're actually adding during the struggles for the 36 hours in Italy) that
> this demand
> cannot be anything else than a challenge to capitalism, which beeing in
> crisis, is able just to attack the w.c. And no doubt, the capital is hardly
> attacking the labor. The real problem is that the wprking class is neither
> able to defend itself as class in this period.
> Would we fight for such demand? Of course, because it's in the struggles
> that this truth can grow in the mind and .. consciousness of the w.c.. But
> this truth has to be stated at any and each step of the same struggle. Never
> a revolutionary can conceal or pretend to ignore the real meaning of a
> struggle, and its possible goals on the immediate terrain and on the
> strategical ground.
>

Hmm. I agree that a thirty hour week probably couldn't be implemented within
the constraints of capitalism today. It was a bit of an abstract question,
really.

However, the example you mention of a thirty six hour week is probably a better
one - this would represent a defeat for the capitalist class within the
context of capitalism. It's an achievable goal ( everyone in UK local government
works 35 hours already ).

Now of course during the progress of such a struggle all sorts of political
issues come up which enable revolutionaries to win people to their ideas eg
the role of the police in strikes, why union leaders don't lead the fight, etc
etc.

In revolutionary situations genuinely transitional demands, in Trotsky's
sense, can be raised. But not every political struggle is inevitably a
transitional demand. Surely you agree ?


> Adam:
> >This is because you have a different definition of politics, which is
> >essentially "politics == mediation". That is, you define politics as what
> >reformists do. So you are against it. I distinguish between revolutionary
> >politics and reformist politics, and am against reformist politics.
> Mauro
> No, Adam. It's not a MY definition. Politics in society is only that: is the
> proposal of a certain style and method for to manage the given social 
> formation.
> We could talk about proletarian or working class politics. That is: the
> specific proposal for carrying on and leading the w.c. movement.In this
> sense, our politics must be absolutely opposed to the reformist one. It
> cannot exist any approach.
>

I still think we're talking about the same things in different language, so
I won't continue this particular argument. However, if you think it has any
significance, please continue the discussion.


More importantly :

Adam :

( cuts, + editing ! )

> > Therefore I would define the CP's , SP's etc as "bourgeois workers" parties

> Mauro:
> I reject that definition. We could talk about the particular nature of
> Russian and national bourgeois politics of the CPI (or CPF or CPE...)in the
> sense that those parties defended at the same time the interestes of the
> national capital (against the working class, do not forget it) AND the
> foreign politics' interests of Ussr. They could do so; and the class nature
> was anyway the same: bourgeois.
>  But we cannot imagine the double class-nature of those parties.  A party
> either is bourgeois or is proletarian, in the substancial programme that it
> defends.
> This is a methodological issue. "Bougeois worker" may be a comfortable
> definition, but has nothing to do with the description of reality.

I think it has everything to do with reality.

By Bourgeois Workers Party I mean a party which depends for its support
on the organised working class, but which operates within the confines of
the capitalist system.

It would be nice and simple for revolutionaries if we could draw a line through
the middle of society and say "on this side is capitalist politics, on that
side is workers politics". However, precisely ( as you correctly point out
later ) because in non revolutionary situations the consciousness of most 
workers
is neccessarily a mixed one, sometimes organisations exist which reflect this
mixed consciousness.

It is reality which forces revolutionaries into a "with and against" position.
An important example is the fight against fascism. If we can convince
reformist organisations, or sections of them, to join us in the fight against
fascism, then good, we are with them. However, we don't ever hold back from
saying that reformist politics are a barrier to efectively fighting fascism,
nor do stop pointing out that capitalism in crisis breeds fascism and so the
only way of getting rid of fascism for ever is to get rid of capitalism.

But if we are not with them first, we have no audience. We have to be with them
first in order to have an audience.

<cut

     ------------------