> >From Jo'burg...
>
> Can't this bifurcation can be resolved through struggles for
> non-reformist reforms, which have the effect of demonstrating that,
> for instance, even though the US is financially and logistically
> capable of generating a universal health care system, it apparently
> won't for political (class-power) reasons (the power that bosses
> retain, through their health insurance benefits, over workers). Hence
> the non-reformist character is in taking popular demands to their
> logical conclusion -- which is beyond the scope of capitalism to
> concede. In that sense, says my ex-colleague Vicente Navarro in his
> various writings, the national health insurance struggle is integral
> to developing socialist consciousness and establishing the issue base
> for more revolutionary activities. The new social relations --
> participatory planning boards and the like which Charles and Barclay
> mention -- must of course be integral to the development of the
> issues, and the more general programme.
>
> Here in South Africa, there is occasional strategising along these
> lines, from some in the SA Communist Party. But it doesn't often get
> to the point where serious, constructive conflict occurs. More
> typical is last week's "IMF riot" in a township (Tsakane) just east
> of where I live, in which thousands of residents held the cops at bay
> over their attempt to foreclose on dozens of people who didn't pay
> their municipal accounts. Very defensive.
We are nowhere near the level of South Africa in consciousness. But, that I think is the real question -- not whether to pursue reforms (of course we must) or whether a particular reform is "non-reformist" but how to pursue reform in a way that is also consciousness raising. That is, I do not think we can count on any particular reform by it's intrinsic nature to raise consciousness. Somehow we have to support these reforms in a way that while supporting the reform we are raising consciousness -- (our own included).
My intuition is that in the U.S. our problem is not a total lack of class consciousness. It is true that if you use Marxist terms you will get a very negative response. But if you say something like the fat boys are stomping all over everybody else -- and identify big business as the worst of the fat boys you won't get much disagreement. But where you meet resistance is in the idea that anything can be done. People really do believe that this is the best of all possible worlds -- in the pessimists rather than optimists sense of the word. People really do believe that there are no alternatives, that the market rules all, that if you win something else it will probably be worse, and that anyway you can't win. Given these premises, resistance to activism (sorry Carol -- but if you hate the term that much, you need to suggest a one word replacement) makes perfect sense. After all no one goes around circulating petitions to eliminate death, or demanding that a few months be added to everyone's life. The fact that everyone dies is part of life; you live with it (so to speak) , put if off for as long as possible, do what you can to make things as easy as possible for survivors.
If capitalism is seen as equally inevitable of course people will see anyone opposing it as loonies who on top of everything else are reminding them of one of the unpleasant truths they would rather not think about, and about which they can do nothing,
So that seems to be the prime consciousness raising task -- not to convince people that capitalism is bad, but to convince them that it is not necessary, and that it is not invincible. And it seems to me that while some reforms lend themselves more to this task than other, that for any reform there are better and worse ways to fight -- given consciousness raising as a secondary task in any given fight in which the immediate reform is your primary goal. What this "better way" is , or how to determine it ...............
> But in this, as my "debate"
> journal colleagues are exploring in neighbouring Tembisa township
> tomorrow with members of the mass-based community organisation, the
> possibility for furthering non-reformist demands (decommodified,
> destratified delivery of services) has lots of potential. Our
> coverage of these struggles in the current and next issues of debate
> has been pretty good. Anyone wanting subscription information or to
> join our listserve can be in touch with me...
>
> > Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 20:26:21 -0800
> > From: "Gar W. Lipow" <lipowg at sprintmail.com>
> ... I end up mostly as political dualist. In theory I
> > would like to see a revolution. In practice, I spend my time fighting for
> > "liberal" causes which most "liberals" have abandoned -- universal single payer
> > health, a more progressive income tax, a wealth tax, universal tax funded child
> > care, restoration of benefits cut by U.S. welfare deform, more environmental
> > regulation and more enforcement, a smaller military, any cuts I can win in the
> > U.S. torment of most of the third world, support for affirmative action, living
> > wage bills, support for union struggles. Now all these are good things. To the
> > extent that we win, they lessen the immediate pain; they shift the balance of power
> > slightly in favor of the working class (or prevent further shifts towards the
> > ruling class); they (possibly) delay environmental catastrophe long enough for us
> > to win a sustainable society. I suppose they also educate people about the long
> > term struggle. (Because of the top down way a lot of these battles are fought, I am
> > not as confident as I'd like to be that their educational values goes much beyond
> > the immediate issues.)
> >
> > Yet as a a socialist, I feel my immediate actions should somehow be more linked to
> > the long term goal. I gather that most of the people on this list have found a
> > synthesis of these two opposites that does NOT involve joining some loony cult
> > (sorry to you cult members -- not an option I care to contemplate). Or do you
> > simply live with the contradiction and hope for better days?
> >
> > Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > > I like to call this the Light Sides of Solidarity.
> > > Black is beautiful.
> > > Can we, with computer-telecommunications
> > > technology get so that people vote as often
> > > as they shop now,so that there could be
> > > considerably more direct democracy with
> > > the planning boards and all planning
> > > decisions, seeking to making them less
> > > oppressive and arbitrary. We've got
> > > to have some whithering away of the
> > > state in this advanced process.
> > > C.B.
> > >
> > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 05/08 5:04 PM >>>
> > > Louis,
> > > I don't wish to revisit old arguments about market
> > > socialism vs planned socialism, but in this context here is
> > > what looks reasonable.
> > > Let there be a planning board that determines the
> > > infrastructure and the general transportation layout. Let
> > > there be sufficient redistribution so that nobody is poor.
> > > Also make sure that there is excellent mass transit
> > > (determined by the planning board). Then let people have
> > > non-polluting automobiles and make them pay congestion fees
> > > by automatic Vickrey-style recording mechanisms.
> > > The basic problem with your "planning board rations
> > > car use" scheme is that it implies a horrendous degree of
> > > oppressiviness and arbitrariness. On what grounds will
> > > this be decided? Who will be doing the deciding? Who will
> > > make exceptions and how? How does one avoid corruption in
> > > such decisionmaking? etc. etc. etc.
> > > Barkley Rosser
> > > On Fri, 08 May 1998 11:29:59 -0400 Louis Proyect
> > > <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Louis Proyect's notion of a global planning board rationing the use of motor
> > > > >vehicles meanwhile strikes me as utter madness. I understand why socialists
> > > > >are reluctant to make use of the pricing mechanism. Yet it is far and away
> > > > >the most efficient method. Correctly pricing motor vehicles, not to mention
> > > > >electric cars, mass transit, and even bikes decentralizes decision-making.
> > > > It
> > > > >allows each and every user to decide what is the most cost-effective way
> > > > to go
> > > > >from A to B without having to await instructions from command central. It
> > > > >encourages "the praxis of everyday life" in which people, individually or
> > > > >collectively, are free to develop solution to a myriad of mundane problems.
> > > > >This strikes me as far more democratic and creative.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > (clip)
> > > >
> > > > >Personally, I want to change everything.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dan Lazare.
> > > >
> > > > Pricing, ie. market socialism, is the opposite of changing "everything." In
> > > > some respects, China embodies market socialism and the proliferation of
> > > > luxury automobiles among the red bourgeoisie shows that something different
> > > > is needed. Two years ago, at a Socialist Scholars Conference, David
> > > > Belkin--coauthor of a book on market socialism with Frank
> > > > Roosevelt--debated Harry Magdoff. Belkin argued that if workers wanted
> > > > cars, they should have them. This is not socialism, it is adaptation to the
> > > > current consumerist status quo, which favors the industrialized nations
> > > > against the third world. Pricing is besides the point as long as artificial
> > > > blocks to the free market exist, namely death squads and censorship.
> > > > Indonesia will produce cheap oil because the army and cops and fascists
> > > > murder trade unionists. The only way that prices will reflect reality is
> > > > when the bourgeosie is overthrown. A mind-blowing task, but we'd better
> > > > roll up our sleeves now or it will never get done.
> > > >
> > > > Louis Proyect
> > > >
> > > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > > rosserjb at jmu.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >