Forward on left politics

[Mauro junior <mauro.jr@xxxxxx>]

NOTE FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS As it's rarely possible for me to download the
"current file" from the list (too big for my poor equipments) I'd pray the
possible exzpounders to my posts or who wants me to read his/her posts to
mail not only to the list, but to my E-Mail address as well.I thank for that
Adam R. and Rakesh.

Now the reply to Adam. He wrote:
>
>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 ).

Mauro:
I see here a grave contradiction. How can you say that the thirty six hour
week >would represent a defeat for the capitalist class< in Italy while it
is not achievable but achieved in UK?
Engels wrote many years ago several articles for arguing that the syndical
demands by themselves can be also an instrument of the capitalist accumulation.
I do not want to think you believe in the revolution as an accumulation of
such defeats of the capitalist class.
 Now if it is true that
>during the progress of such a struggle all sorts of political
>issues come up which enable revolutionaries to win people to their ideas,
it also sure we have to define the revolutionary ideas; and the main point
is to raise the hate for capitalism. In this sense it is useless define the
demand as a goal in itself: either capital is able to afford it (and for
that the Unions exist) or it is not and we revolutionaries must indicate the
real goal: the destruction of capitalism.

Adam:
>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 ?

Mauro:
I don't agree at all with Trotskyist concept of transitional demands. We
cannot imagine a situation when the working class is strong (and moving)
enough for advancing general demands, able to hit the whole capitalist
class, but not for its own communist revolution. Such a perspective implies
an evolutionary view of the class struggle, class consciousness and class
strenght, which is since long denied by the concrete dynamics of the
bourgeois social formation.

Adam:
(on the definition of politics)
>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.
Mauro:
May be they are the same things in different language, but I think language
is or should be decriptive of concepts. In this sense the definition you
give of <bourgeois workers Party>, that is <a party which depends for its
support on the organised working class, but which operates within the
confines of the capitalist system>, is confusing two different reference
points: the class interests which are defended and the class composition.
But I don't think you actually support such definition, otherwise you should
define as bourgeois workers party even the Christian Democracy which defend
clearly bourgeois interests but depends mostly from the popular
organisations, included the strong union CISL.
Adam
>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.
Mauro:
Formally true but:
1) I/we define workers party only the party which carries on and fights for
the historical interests of the working class (the revolutionay attack to
the capitalism and its state, the emancipation from the chains of the
wage-labour, the communism;
2)the consciousness of the working class in a non revolutionary situation is
not mixed, is absent or bourgeois; in the consciousness he's not a worker,
he's a citoyen.
3) the political organisations do not reflect the mixed consciousness of the
proletariat but the different faction of the bourgeois social formation;
until the working class recognize itself as a class with at least different
interests than the bosses, it politically acts in support of the most
"progressive", leftwing, democratic faction of the bourgeoisie. When these
same parties have succeded in destroing in the w.c. even this awareness of
itself, they, the CP or SP stop also to refer to the workers as such. This
is the case of the PCI, but also of the PCF and the PCE. They explicitly
refer to the Country, the national economy and ... the citoyens.
About fascism and anti-fascism:
fascism is the last resort of capitalism when the class riots cannot be
controlled by democracy and social democracy. When theese do not work
anymore, the bourgeoisie in a compact way move to the dictatorial, military
form of government. At that time the pretended alliance of the leftists
(open and covert reformists) serves to nothing. Until that time no fascist
danger exists; it is only a mechanical hare for the people.
When fascism really grows as a possible rule of society either
revolutionaries have already lost their audience or they cannot gain it
through the levelling on the petty bourgeois democratic ideology which is
going to be smashed by the reaction. And also in the first case the
military-political defeat of the revolutionary programme should not be
transformed in the theoretical programmatic death through the going back to
the democratic ideology.
About the MMM I'll write once again and in a more worked out manner. Just
one question here:what do you mean to be with the marchers? To leaflet
inside the march or to be politically with the marchers? I don't agree at
all in saying <This march .. shows
the potential that exixts for fighting racism>. Right the contrary:this
march has been an enforcement for racism for both the fronts. The LA "riots"
two years ago has been much more significant from the class point of view.
But I'll come later to this and to the main point: the building of a
revolutionary party (mass party?).
Meanwhile read Workers Voice 78 for a glance to our polemics with the SWP on
Unions and State.
Rev. greetings



>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
>.
>.
>.
>>
>
>> Mauro
>> Of course. The problem is not to be or not to be on the practical level, but
>> what to do and to say on it. The example of the MMM is good: are we for the
>> "emancipation" of the blacks or for the emancipation of the workers (black,
>> white, latinos, yellos...)?
>
>Yes, both.
>
>> Has any of the so-called revolutionary groups in
>> the USA intervened clearly in this sense and THEREFORE opposing the spirit,
>> the goals and the sense of the MMM?
>
>We do have to oppose the politics of the people behind the MMM.
>However, in order to do that first we have to be with the marchers.
>
>The marchers will probably have one ear to Farakhan and his right wing
politics.
>They will also have one ear open to ideas along the lines "We need to oppose
>the Contract with America, we need to defend positive action, we need to fight
>alongside our black sisters and our white brothers + sisters".
>
>The first thing revolutionaries need to say is "This march is a good thing.
>It shows the potential that exists for fighting racism." Only then can we go
>on to talk about why Farakhan won't fight racism, how socialist politics
>offers a better way forward etc etc.
>
>I imagine the International Socialist Organisation in the US has been arguing
>something along these lines.
>
>> If so, let me know them. And I've
>> appreciated very much the Alan Spector contribution.
>> And now to the core of the problem. To <build a mass revolutionary party>?
>> No; not a mass party. In the social formation really-dominated by capital,
>> the working class cannot escape the social, ideological, political,
>> religious, psychological (too) domination, until the revolutionary collapse.
>> The German Ideology, the Grundrisse have not been clear enough?
>> The revolutionary party can be certainly stronger than now, but never a
>> mass-party, ultil the revolution. If you wait the communist mass
>> consciousness, the mass consciousness of the political, social and
>> economical programme of the communist revolution for leading it, you can
>> change your life and go back to try to enjoy the delights of this society.
>> >
>
>I agree. ! .
>
>But the aim now is to build revolutionary parties which can grow into mass
>parties in revolutionary situations. A reasonable aim is to build what Lenin
>described as vanguard party ie a party which gathers together the most
>class conscious workers in one party, although it is important not to confuse
>the aspiration to be a vanguard party with actually being one.
>
>Adam.
>
>
>Adam Rose
>SWP
>Manchester
>UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mauro Junior
Tel  (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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