Posted by David Searles on June 27, 2009 at 09:25:32:
In Reply to: Re: challange to overuse of "class struggle" applied to state posted by ForDemocracy on June 24, 2009 at 07:59:48:
You're not the first to ask me how to join the deleonism group. It's a yahoo group. The link I give is for the homepage of the group. Isn't there a link to "join this group"? If there isn't just send a blank email (no message, no subject) to
deleonism-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
it seems clear that we all agree (I think) that the relationship of labor to the industrial means of production for the most part must be altered from the status of wage slaves to that of collective control by labor.
Is it theoretically possible that the US Congress could pass legislation to set up demonstration worker industrial collectives? It seems that it is. Sure if the whole of the working class would push for that it would be a pretty good bet that it would go through right away. But shouldn't we as individuals push for the collective control idea anyway despite the fact the the whole class even at this point does not agree with the idea? Isn't the surest way to defeat the spread of the idea is for us to say that the ONLY way that the idea can succeed is that the ENTIRE set of workers has to support it.
And this goes over to the concept of the governmental structure after workers have obtained collective control over the majority of the industrial means of production - why won't it look pretty much like it does today except that workers will be in the drivers seat pretty much as befitting their abilities to produce material wealth? The fact that one class is in the majority position today doesn't not mean that tomorrow sufficient political power cannot be generated (but not necessarily as a class) to legislate more in the interests of the new majority?
I think that this paradox is true:
If we insist that we can only succeed organized as the working class, we are insuring the perpetual political insignificance of the working class.