Subject: Re: NDP is a Marxist party

From: [email-masked] (Karl Pollak)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:09:50 GMT

[email-masked] (Steven Meece) wrote:

>Everyone
>admits that there are classes in our society, and that these classes are
>poised against another. 

I think you are attempting to build an argument where there is none.
But to answer your sweeping statement, no, not everybody sees the
world in terms of class and class warfare.

I believe that to distinguish "working class" and attempt to pit it
against a "capitalist exploiters class" is a very twisted view indeed.

First of all, it implies the popular Marxist view that employers do
not work themselves, produce nothing of economic value themselves and
that their income is derived from exploitation of their employees.

It blissfully ignores the fact that before an employer can build up a
business to the level where he can afford to even hire any workers, he
usually has slaved for years to get the business going. 

Then it completely ignores the risk of capital that is at work.  It
ignores that the employer is providing the worker with not only the
premises and machinery to practice their trade, he also pays for all
the materials, energy, marketing and distribution of the products of
that worker. In fact, it is the enterpreneur he often creates the
demand for the worker's skills in the first place.

Much more balanced view would in my opinion be, to recognize that
without the enterpreneur, the worker would in fact not be a worker,
but an unemployed.  And of course conversely, without his employees,
the enterpreneur would not be an enterpreneur, but an independent
tradesman.

In other words, the distinction between "working class" and exploiting
class" is just as lunatic as the rest of the Marxist theory. 

Both have an immediate interest in the economic success of the
enterprise, though the nature of their contribution to the success may
be different.

Part of the German "economic miracle" was the recognition on the part
of German unions that their cooperation is the crucial element in
wealth creation.  Instead of the traditional Marxist mentality of "us
vs. them" or class struggle if you will, they recognized that labour
is just as much a part of the equation or system as anything else.  At
the same time, it also required the recognition on the part of the
enterpreneurs that unless the workers have some sort of interest and
share in the economic success of the companies they work for, there
will not be productivity to make it happen.

By contrast, compare that to the economies of countries like Britain,
USA or Canada, where workers are still engaged in their 19th century
adversarial system, where union leadership is far more concerned with
personal power and in "grab what you can" rather than recognizing that
they are in fact on the same side as the enterpreneur in wealth
creation.  Of course the realization must be from both sides.

In the late 1960s the government of Yugoslavia was experimenting with
the idea of having company boards of directors run by the unions of
workers employed there.  It was an unmitigated disaster.  Even in a
largely centrally planned economy, the factories went bust after
workers voted themselves unreasonable salaries without a corresponding
improvements in productivity and marketing techniques.

>Yes, you've illustrated the obvious, that Clark knows that classes exist.

That is the whole problem.  Clark THINKS he knows that.  Just as 15th
century astronomers thought they knew that the Earth was the centre of
the universe.  And of course Clark is just about as much out of date
with his "knowledge" as the Flat Earth Society is with theirs.

>You have failed to show that Clark believes in the Marxist interpretation
>of class -- that the history of all hitherto existing society is the
>history of class struggles.

Actually, that proof is not required.  What speaks volumes are his
actions and his stated principles.  His advocacy of the elimination of
private enterprise, his advocacy of subjugating economic enterprises
to common social purposes rather than to economic purposes, speaks
volumes.

>You don't even know what Marxism is. What you have pointed out is an
>example of pinkism -- that's something very different from Marxism, from
>socialism, and from communism, in either the large-C or lower-c varieties.

That is nothing more than silly nitpicking.  It is the same as trying
to show that the NDP is different from the CCF who in turn was
different from the Socialist Party of Canada, who of course was
different from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who in turn
was different from the All Russia Social Democratic Party (majority)
and so on.... In fact, they are/were all Socialist parties and as such
advocated abolition of private ownership of means of production and
distribution of goods and services in favour of state ownership and
control of the same.  They all sought/seek the subjugation of the
political system by controlling the economic system to the interests
of the State, as determined by the ruling party, to the exclusion of
all other points of view.

But to bring Marx and his teachings in line with your remarks, you are
attempting to make distinctions between Marxism, socialism and
communism, when in fact, there are none.  According to Marx's
fantasies of class struggle and historical inevitability, capitalism
was to collapse under the "weight of its internal contradictions"
once it had reached the "historical development stage of imperialism".
Marx's idea was that the Communist party, "as the avantguard of the
working class" would hasten that collapse and proceed to "build a
socialist society".  That Utopian society also had, according to Marx,
to pass through certain stages of historical development:

   1, dictatorship of the proletariat (later renamed to 
      people's democracy)

   2, Socialism

   3, Communism

So, I would suggest you, my dear deluded friend, that no matter what
you want to call it, it is all an integral part of the same plan.  And
what is more, the NDP is a part of it.

>We're talking about a very simple argument here; it shouldn't be 
>this difficult for an adult person to grasp.

Well, here it is then.  Let's see how much difficulty do you have with
grasping it.

Karl Pollak               FidoNet 1:153/965
Richmond, B.C.            Canadian Infomaticon BBS

---

From: [email-masked] (Derek Nalecki)
Date: 29 Jun 1996 06:38:32 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark Burchell) says:
>
>[email-masked] (Derek Nalecki) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>        Where does Marx say such a silly statement that the capitalist class
>>>doesn't work?!?  He calls some of them lazy, but who in their right
>>>mind wouln't agree that some owners are lazy?  Anybody?
>
>>Like many leftists, desperate for an argument you seem to seize on part
>>of the thought expressed and taking it out of context. Marx indeed di
>>not actually used the literal phrase that 'capitalist class doesn't work'.
>>However thatis not the entire meaning of what the original poster said.
>>Marx's Labour Theory of Value argues that workers are paid only subsistence
>>wages fopr their labour, with the remaining proceeds of their work
>>accumulated by the owners of the means of production as surplus value.
>>That provides enough of inference to argue that MArx did see the capitalists
>>as not working, merely accumulating value from exploitation of workers.
>
>
>        You have certainly go the Theory of Labour Value by Marx correct.   As
>far as I understand Marxist analysis, a capitalist is one who does not
>have to work because they can live comfortably on their
>investments/profits.   There is no condradiction in saying that and
>saying Bill Gates is a workaholic spending 70 hours a week in the
>office.  But by definition, a capitalist doesn't have to work, and
>thus during golf season, many don't.  They travel, drive their nice
>cars, and relax at black jack tables.  Its a nice life by any measure
>but few suggest liesure is work... except them of course.

Wait just a minute. Sheath the sting of envy for just one moment.
_Then_ you do concede that Marx did imply - not said it literally - but
implied, in a kind of 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' way that 'capitalists do
not work?!? ... Which is what you objected to so violently to when the
original poster stated it.
Now, continuing _on_ the idea advanced by the original poster [sorry, I
seem to have lost the name], Marx's idea that capitalists do not work, or
your follow-up that some of them are lazy, are both preposterous.
Capitalists _do_ work, even when we are not physically in the office,
when we drive those nice cars, or are playing golf, which you view with
such an envious hatred. People who do physical labour are the only ones
who have to be physically present to perform their work. The same cannot
be said for people who do intellectual work. They do much of _their_
work playing golf or driving cars. Finnaly, people who use capital as
_their_ tool of work, need not be physically present for the task at hand.
And if you want to get right down to it, capitalists are the only people
of the three labour categories who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
When I invest my money - which by the way provides jobs, oportunities,
good life to many people - I cannot ring a bell a say: "stop everything,
I wanna take a half-hour coffe break, leave my money as it is until I
get back". No the work goes on non-stop, and if I loose my money, _while_
taking this coffe break or playing golf, I _don't get to go to Labour
Relations Board and say: "faul, I was *entitled* to my coffe braek, this
happened while I was taking it, it doesn't count, I want my money back".
No mister, *lazy* is someone who works a lousy 8 hours a day, five days
a week _and_ expects 99% of the enterprise's profits to be awarded to him
for that.

>
>>>        If the NDP are marxists, they are closet marxists.  To root up some
>>>lip-service to the working class to prove that the party is comprised
>>>of Bolsheviks is surely inadequate research.
>>>
>>>        A true marxist would look at the actions of a government and not so
>>>much the rhetoric.  The NDP government of Ontario did not act like
>>>Marxists.  They did not nationalize the minds, mills and factories.
>>>The workers of Ontario were not deciding production and distribution
>>>as would be expected by a genuine party adhering to Marxist ethics.
>>>Perhaps they are just arm-chair or lazy marxists.
>
>>Modern Marxism, as adapted by P. Baran and P. Sweezy however, does include
>>and accomodate elements of sympathetic, more modern economic theories 
>>such as Keynesianism. The Cambridge School was also instrumental in
>>adapting Labour Theoy of Value and Transformation Problem. NDP is very
>>much a party of such a modern, "revisionist" Marxism. Indeed apart from
>>the cooks in North Korea, no one follows classical Marxism, as laid out
>>150 years ago. That would be preposterous.
>
>        The base theories of Marx have taken a revival in the 1990's in
>Canadian universities from anthropology to sociology and definitly in
>politics.  The theory is strongly rooted in political analysis of
>systems though often adopts different names.  One can't revise marxism
>to the point were it is incompatable with the origianl idea.
>Capitalism with government intervention and socialism are still quite
>different economic systems.

But the revisions proposed by Baran, Sweezy and the Cambridge School are
_not_ incompatible with the original idea. They are adaptations of a
150-year old system to modern circumstances. A cynical man would say they
are the same old ideas in new packaging, to mask, but not disavow,
unworkable, inhuman facets of the ideaology.
That is _why_ the practitioners of the revised theory, like the NDP, are
called "marxists" - again what you objected to in your first response.
Capitalism with government intervention is a contradiction in temrs, it
_is_ socialism, which in turn is Marxism with "a human face".

>
>>However you are incorrect about the workers of Ontario *not* deciding 
>>production and distribution. Just because they did not made such decision
>>directly, does not mean they did not do it at all. Many indirect avenues
>>of such direcint were established, a labour code forbidding replacement
>>workers - which in essence forced the owners to do the unions bidding -
>>is only one example.
>
>        Anti-scab legislation hardly gave workers the ability to 'dictate'
>what is produced and how it is distributed.  Capitalists still

It definitely gives the workers ability to dictate how it is distributed.
And in many - agreed not all - cases also what is produced. In case you
haven't noticed strikes are usually about two things: pay and "benefits".
The question of distribution, I would think is straight forward, it
comes out of potential profits, and therefore curtails future investment.
It is a kind of 'negative feedback' decisionmaking, but still, it is
there. But then the same negative feedback decisionmaking plays a large
part in decisionmaking of production.
"Anti-scab" legislation prevents the owners from hiring other workers
and continuing the production and distribution, the way they [the owners]
decide it should happen.

>determined that in conjecture with market demands.  You are suggesting
>the absurd when you say this legislation "...in essence force the
>owners to do the unions bidding."  Are you saying that from 1990-1995
>the workers of Ford decided production and distribution of Ford
>products in Ontario?  I hope I've misunderstood you.

No, see above. The union demands played a large part in decisionmaking 
of the firm of what type and how many models to produce, indeed whether
to abandon some models compeltely because of them being "unprofitable"
[actually they were only unprofitable. _after_ unions extorted wages in
excess on the value of work provided by their members]. Many Ford products
were not produced at all because strikes at various suppliers have prevented
their production.
The same goes for distribution of Ford products. Strikes at trucking
companies have a great impact on distribution. In a highly competetive
market a loss of a few weeks to competition means potential loss of
market share, with the result that the product does not get distributed.
Of course many of the above did not happen. The company caved in, accepted
union demands, for the sake of continuing production and distribution.
But that means unions played a large - some would say primary - part in
this decisionmaking, which _was_ my point.

>
>>Also as Hitler's national socialists have shown successfully, one does
>>not have to actually change the formal ownership status of the means of
>>production to exercise effective control over them.
>
>        I hope this isn't a "was Hitler a socialist" arguement that are all to
>common and boring, at any rate,  business activities in Nazi germany
>weren't completely controlled.  Though once again, I hope your not
>comparing the anti-scab legislation to that of Hitlers economic
>programs.
>

It certainly _is_ boring. After all it should be beyond question, beyond
any argumentation. Hitler _was_ a *national* socialist. All business
activity in Nazi Germany was controlled and part of the machinery of the
state. And anti-scab [sic] legislation is little more than anti-semitic
legislation of Nuremberg adapted to modern sensitivities.

derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.

"Reality is what bumps into you when you stand still with your eyes open."
David Gerrold after Solomon Short
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************