On a Marxist listserve, one Marxist stated:
Actually I don’t think you have a accurate understanding of critical support. Critical support is not about trying to maintain an ideological purity– it’s a tactic designed to expose the reformists as being incapable of defending the workers; of advancing the struggle for workers power.
In response, a supposed Marxist argues the following:
I thought I had already made clear on a number of occasions that calling for the overthrow of an existing leadership depends on the relationship of forces – more specifically, when you have accurately assessed that the base has lost confidence in the leadership. If your assessment is wrong, unlike on social media, you will at best be further isolated from the ranks or expelled from the organization and at worst imprisoned or liquidated. It is a tactical question and not, as you suppose, a matter of principle to call for the overthrow of the existing leadership from the beginning and always.
In fact, if we care to admit it, even the most astute Marxists have historically had very little success in displacing the reformist leadership of mass working class organizations.
The alleged “Marxist” did not even understand what the Marxist was saying. The Marxist never used the verb “overthrow.” He stated explicitly that the purpose of critical support was to expose the social reformists as incapble of defending the interests of workers–not overthrow them. It would be up to the workers to overthrow their leaders.
Even with a more accurate rendering of what the Marxist said, the alleged Marxist does not even see the limitaitons of his own point of view:
more specifically, when you have accurately assessed that the base has lost confidence in the leadership
How does the base lose confidence in the leadership? The Marxist answers:
[by exposing[ the reformists as being incapable of defending the workers
The alleged Marxist does not see that such exposure constitues part of the very process for undermining reformist leaders. He in effect proposes to tailwag social reformists rather than exposing their limitations.
Let us take some concrete scenarios.
First scenario: I posted yesterday a post on the limitations of the militant union leader Mick Lynch (see Does Being a Militant Union Leader Justify the Silence of the So-called Radical Left?). What is the alleged Marxist’s position with respect to the social-democratic statements of Lynch? What would the alleged Marxist’s position be with respect to Lynch’s statements? Silence? Or something else? If something else, what would it be. Why?
Second scenario: The issue in Canada of coupling the fight for a minimum wage of $15 with the concept of “fairness.” As I wrote in another post:
What of the coupling of the campaign of “$15 and Fairness?” In the U.S., as far as I know, there was a movement for $15—but they did not link this to “fairness.” In Canada, by contrast, they did.
I had the following conversation with a leftist here in Toronto some time ago, Tim Heffernan, member of Socialist Alternative:
Fred raises some interesting points. However, I think he’s confusing social-democratic/reformist demands with transitional demands. There’s a difference which I can elaborate on if needed but the practical contrast between them can be seen in Seattle itself where I would argue that Rosenblum encapsulated an honest and militant social democratic approach while Kshama Sawant & Socialist Alternative (also militant and honest) pushed the movement to its limits by raising the demand for 15/taxing the rich to the need for a socialist transformation of society. But I will concede that there are some in the US left who label SA as reformist too.
Also, we need to look at the concrete not the abstract. The “15 movement” in North America has seen different manifestations and the slogans/demands put forward have varied in time and place. So in Seattle in 2013-14, it was “15 Now”, in other parts of the US it became “15 and a union” and in Ontario it was ” 15 & Fairness”. Fred objects to the term “fairness” presumably because of its association with the old trade union demand of “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”. Engels dealt with this demand back in 1881 where he recognized the usefulness of it in the early stages of developing class consciousness of the British working class, in the first half of the 19th Century, but saw it as an impediment at the time he was writing.
To today and “15 and Fairness”. I think the addition of “fairness” to the straight “15” demand was an excellent move. Fairness wasn’t understood as an airy fairy, feel good notion but came to be seen as shorthand for a series of extra and linked demands that could mobilise low paid and exploited workers:
– paid sick days
– equal pay for equal work (full time vs part time)
– the right to a union
– the fight against racism and discrimination
and more. If the above be bullshit, so be it. I like to think that Engels, were he alive today, would have his criticisms of the limitations of 15 & Fairness but would be overwhelmingly positive about what it has achieved so far.Tim
To which I responded:
Hello all,
Tim’s justification for “fairness” is that it is–somehow–a transitional demand. Let him elaborate on how it is in any way a “transitional” demand. I believe that that is simply bullshit.
He further argues the following:
“Fairness wasn’t understood as an airy fairy, feel good notion but came to be seen as shorthand for a series of extra and linked demands that could mobilise low paid and exploited workers:
– paid sick days
– equal pay for equal work (full time vs part time)
– the right to a union
– the fight against racism and discrimination
and more”How does Tim draw such conclusions? It is a tautology (repetition of what is assumed to be true) to say that it is fair if “paid sick days, equal pay for equal work (full time vs part time), etc. is considered “fair.”
Why should these goals be tied to “fairness”? I had paid sick days at the brewery, I belonged to a union (there was, however, evident racism among some of the brewery workers and there was also a probationary six-month period before obtaining a full union-wage). Was that then a “fair” situation? I guess so–according to Tim’s logic. Why not then shut my mouth and not complain since I lived a “fair” life at the brewery? But, of course, I did not shut my mouth.
But does Tim believe that merely gaining “paid sick days, equal pay for equal work (full time vs part time), the right to a union, the fight against racism and discrimination and more” is fair? If he did, he would then presumably cease being a member of Socialist Alternative since he would have achieved his goals. However, he likely does not believe that it is fair. What he proposes, then, is to lie (bullshit) to workers by not revealing what he really believes as a “transitional” demand. He does not really believe that it is fair, but he believes that such rhetoric is a useful tool in developing a movement. Frankly, I believe that such a view is both dishonest and opportunistic. Workers deserve better–it is they who continue to be exploited despite “paid sick days,” etc. Receiving paid sick days is better than not receiving paid sick days, but all the demands obtained cannot constitute “fairness.” And yet workers who buy into the rhetoric (bullshit) of fairness may believe this fairy tale (it is, after all, a fairy tale presented by social democrats often enough, among others). Rather than enlightening the workers about their situation, such rhetoric serves to obscure it and to confuse workers–support for the Donald Trump’s of the world in the making.
Such low standards. Rather than calling into question the power of employers to direct their lives by control over the products of their own labour, it implicitly assumes the legitimacy of such power. Ask many of those who refer to the fight for $15 and Fairness–are they opposed in any way to the power of employers as a class? Not just verbally, but practically? Or do they believe that we need employers? That we need to have our work directed by them? That working for an employer is an inevitable part of daily life? That there is no alternative? That working for an employer is not really all that bad?
When working at the brewery, I took a course at the University of Calgary. The professor was interested in doing solidarity work for the Polish organization Solidarity at the time. I told him that I felt like I was being raped at the brewery. He looked at me with disgust–how could I equate being raped (sexually assaulted) with working for an employer? I find that radicals these days really do not seem to consider working for an employer to be all that bad. If they did, they probably would use the same logic as their opposition to sexual assault. Sexual assault in itself is bad, but there are, of course, different degrees of sexual assault. Those who sexually assault a person may do so more violently or less violently; in that sense, those who sexually assault a person less violently are “better” than those who are more violent. However, sexual assault is in itself bad, so any talk of “fairness” in sexually assaulting someone is absurd. Similarly, any talk of fairness in exploiting someone is absurd. But not for the “radical” left these days, it would seem.
Fred
How would the alleged Marxist respond in such a situaiton? Would he respond in an opportunistic manner similar to that of Tim Heffernan? With silence? Something else? If so, what? Why?
Third scenario: The issue of union leaders calling for support of striking brewery workers by using social-democratic rhetoric. As I wrote in another post:
When I tried to bring up the issue of whether striking brewery workers could ever except to obtain “a fair deal, good jobs, pension security and fair benefits” (verbatim by Tracy McMaster, (union steward, former president of the Greater Toronto Area Council, to which are affiliated 35 local unions of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), and former vice president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), I was met with hostility.
How would the alleged Marxist respond in such a situaiton? With silence? Something else? If so, what? Why?
My basic view is that only in exceptional circumstances should Marxists refrain from critically supporting the social-reformist left; the general strategy should be to engage constantly in criticism in order to expose the limitations of such reformists. Otherwise, workers will realize that so-called Marxists bullshit them.
What do you think of the alleged Marxist’s theoretical position? Is his position Marxist or in effect social democratic or social reformist? Or some other position?
Should not Marxists expose social democrats who cloak their own social reformism behind Marxist trappings?
It is pointless debating such so-called Marxists; it is better simply to expose their social reformism.
The Abolitionary 