Posted by David Searles on February 08, 2008 at 09:21:07:
In Reply to: Re: The case for a third party candidate posted by Liz Arnone on February 06, 2008 at 17:55:51:
Several of us on this list have roots in the socialist movement. Here are a couple of excerpt from Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party and Daniel Deleon of the Socialist Labor Party regarding the political AND work place struggle. It's very interesting becuase it shows just how close these often warring parties actually were on the things that mattered.
I guess what I am getting at is that simply having a 3rd party presence is not enough without a clear cut goal of worker control of what they produce - including the means of production itself. Without that, essentially we are focusing on effects 9without any power to even actually deal with them) while not focusing on the cause.
Not that things like universal health care ought not be a part of our view - however we can't ignore the question that it begs - why can't the current economic system provide jobs for everyone who wants to participate in the productive process, and why can't those who do participate afford needed health care coverage, afford decent housing, afford the costs of education etc, in short afford to live like human beings enjoying the fruits of all of the advances of technology of the 21st century for ourselves and all of the people of the globe?
Anyway - here are the excerpts from Debs and Deleon:
Both Debs of the SP and Deleon of the SLP wrote and talked about the dual struggle, political and economic. But Deleon and the SLP had a particular bug about advocating or the appearance of advocating reforms. Where Debs would say something like old age pensions were socialism, Deleon just couldn't abide talk like that, despite the fact that Debs was very clearly in favor of the basic goal of worker control of the means of production. Deleon was so buggy on the topic of reforms that while in theory he was in favor of woman's suffrage - God forbid that the SLP should make an official statement that "We are in favor of woman's suffrage." As is too often the case with all of us, too much was made of the differences (sometimes amounting to nothing more than which way an egg is cracked) and not enough on the basic similarities.
Below is an excerpt from Debs with his take on the dual struggle, and below that an excerpt from Deleon with virtually the same message.
"The workers themselves must take the initiative
in uniting their forces for effective economic and political
action; the leaders will never do it for them. They
must no longer suffer themselves to be deceived by
the specious arguments of their betrayers, who blatantly
boast of their unionism that they may traffic in
it and sell out the dupes who blindly follow them. I
have very little use for labor leaders in general and none
at all for the kind who feel their self-importance and
are so impressed by their own wisdom that where they
lead their dupes are expected to blindly follow without
a question. Such “leaders” lead their victims to
the shambles and deliver them over for a consideration
and this is possible only among craft-divided wageslaves
who are kept apart for the very purpose that
they may feel their economic helplessness and rely upon
some “leader” to do something for them.
Economic unity will be speedily followed by
political unity. The workers once united in one great
industrial union will vote a united working class ticket.
Not only this, but only when they are so united can
they fit themselves to take control of industry when
the change comes from wage-slavery to economic freedom.
It is precisely because it is the mission of industrial
unionism to unite the workers in harmonious
cooperation in the industries in which they are employed,
and by their enlightened interdependence and
self-imposed discipline prepare them for industrial
mastery and self-control when the hour strikes, thereby
backing up with their economic power the verdict they
render at the ballot box, it is precisely because of this
fact that every Socialist, every class-conscious worker
should be an industrial unionist and strive by all the
means at his command to unify the workers in the all embracing
bonds of industrial unionism."
Debs 9/18/1910
http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/index.html
+++++++++++
The private ownership of the implements of production has developed into fullfledged
capitalism. While formerly, little else than the laborer’s skill and strength
were needed, to-day all his strength and skill are useless to him unless they are
applied to the privately held tremendous steam and electric motor powers and the
gigantic tools of production at present in vogue. Great as has been the development
of both of these, they have not yet reached perfection. At every step, during the past
30 years especially, their progress has been marked with widespread and increasing
suffering among the workers: these were thrown out of work, displaced by
machinery, or their wages were lowered and their work was intensified. Under such
circumstances, the union became less and less able to protect its members; the
unemployed grew over the head of the employed; and strikes resulted increasingly
in failures. Nor was this all, where the strike did have a chance; i.e., when through
the size of the organization the work of supplying non-union hands was difficult, the
government stepped in every time, took the side of the capitalist, and either
clubbed, shot or indicted the strike to pieces.
In view of these facts, the union of the workers that expects to be successful
must recognize:
1. The impossibility of obtaining a decent living while capitalism exists; the
certainty of worse and worse conditions; the necessity of the abolition of the wage
and capitalist systems, and their substitution by the Socialist or Co-operative
Commonwealth, whereby the instruments of production shall be made the property
of the whole people;
2. The necessity of conquering the public powers at the ballot box by the vote of
the working class, cast independently of the old parties and in favor only of that
party that demands the abolition of the wage system.
In other words, the union that aims at the preservation of the life and limbs
and freedom of its members must recognize the hitherto ignored fact that politics
and wages are as closely connected as the skin is with the human body; that he who
would have good earnings, must aim at full earnings, and that these cannot be
obtained without joining the political to the economic struggle, and fighting the
capitalist class every day in the year, at the ballot box as well as in the shop. This is
the programme of New Trade Unionism, outside of that there is only disastrous
failure.
Deleon, 7/29/1894
http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1894/jul29_1894.pdf