The editorial board of Rally, Comrades! has received several critical evaluations of recent articles regarding our position on the changes taking place in society and the economy. No revolutionary organization can develop without criticism, without defending its positions and changing when necessary. In this spirit we are presenting and answering two of the central criticisms so they may become the basis of further discussion amongst our comrades and friends.

The first of these criticisms addresses this statement in a recent article entitled "Mission of the League: Key to Revolution” in our July/August 2007 issue: "Such a society is finally possible because, for the first time in history, an objective, practical movement for communism is arising."

The comrade comments: “The movement was quite real [material and objective] in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and so forth. It is and was a popular movement.... spontaneous and objective towards a socialism attainable by the masses, the leaders, and the times.”

Answer: There was a difference between the vast Russian social revolution against the feudal mode of agricultural production and the Soviet Revolution. One belongs in the category of history, the other in the realm of politics. The social revolution guaranteed the transformation from agriculture to industry. The Soviet revolution guaranteed that industrialization would take place under the direction and in the interests of the toiling masses. Was it a communist revolution? Yes, in the subjective sense. The Soviet people made a choice. Thus the leaders of the Soviet revolution described the Russian proletariat as the most revolutionary (not communist) in the world. This is also in a general sense applicable to the Chinese revolution.

The revolutions of Eastern Europe, Korea etc., in one form or another, arose from a combination of war for national liberation on the one hand, and antagonism between productive forces and productive relations on the other. They were "Communist" revolutions because they were led by communists and many of the people believed in communism.

None of these revolutions was or could be communist in an objective sense. It was still possible to have socialist industry or capitalist industry. The socialist revolution was a reversible choice. The on-going counter-revolutions in Russia and Eastern Europe are proof enough of this.

Can there be an objective communist revolution? That would require a communist party as the political expression of a communist revolutionary movement rather than simply a movement of social revolution. This communist revolutionary movement is forming right before our eyes. Today, the world economy is developing in such a way that there is a deepening division between the industrial form and the electronic form of production. Industry is being overthrown globally. The process is creating indescribable poverty on the one hand and indescribable wealth on the other. It is creating a smaller and smaller concentration of giant, global corporations that are incompatible with the existence of the majority of the people. There is no solution to the deepening crisis but the social ownership of socially necessary means of production. Within this context a new, objectively communist proletariat is arising. This proletariat is already beginning to demand social control of these essential corporations. This demand is not ideological, but practical. There are no longer choices. This new proletariat has to fight for communism whether they believe in it or not.

The comrade also raises the point: "But some revolutionaries misconstrue the times that we are in, to say the least, and appear to displace the great industrial proletariat from their historic role."

Answer: Accurately describing economic and social forces that are not fully formed is a difficult task. Revolutionaries, who must rely on change to achieve their ends, grapple to understand and work with change before it matures. When change is complete, it is too late to affect it. Striving to recognize the essential features of change and reorganizing around such change may end in disaster. Every morning brings with it the possibility of disaster – but people get out of bed anyway.

Let us start off by stating that the League intends to play a serious role in the struggle to reconstruct our country on the foundations of public ownership of the socially necessary means of production. This is a huge, world historic effort. As in any struggle, we must gather intelligence. We must be objective and develop tactics based on that intelligence. Space allotted for an article prevents us from going deeply into that intelligence, but we can make a start here.

First, it does not make sense to talk about the industrial worker as a category. Today, everything is an industry. The question is which section of the working class is in an economic and political position to pull the rest forward? For decades it was the worker in heavy industry due to the concentration of thousands of indispensable workers in one plant. Their political and economic demands were in the interest of the entire class.

That situation is drastically changing due to the introduction of electronics. The worker in big shops of basic industry – the former political heart of the American working class – is undergoing fundamental, irreversible changes in composition and consequently in their social and political role.

These few quotes illustrate our estimate of the situation.

• "Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent. But at the same time, Japan's manufacturing employment base has dropped by 16 percent, while the number of manufacturing jobs in countries including Brazil have declined by some 20 percent. And one of the largest losers of manufacturing jobs has been China. We like to pick on China and say that all of these jobs are going to China, but they're losing jobs in manufacturing as well. What is the reason for the job losses? Automation. Through automation we are really doing a good job of improving the productivity of people." (“Outsourcing Not the Culprit in Manufacturing Loss”, Automation World, December 9, 2003)

• “ Over recent decades, U.S. manufacturers have continually invested in more and better capital goods and manufacturing techniques in order to remain competitive in world markets. That investment has enabled them to raise their output and keep pace with overall economic growth without a corresponding increase in the number of workers that they employ. Since 1979, the productivity of manufacturing workers has grown at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent, significantly faster than the 2.0 percent growth of labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector overall. Since the peak of the last business cycle in March 2001, labor productivity in manufacturing has risen at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent, faster than its average annual rate of growth during previous postwar recessions and the early part of the ensuing recoveries. In all 21 industries that constitute the manufacturing sector, employment has declined, and 17 of the 21 have seen losses exceeding 10 percent. In fact, all 21 industries have shown declines even since the recession's end in November 2001. The expansion of temporary employment probably accounted for between 0.5 million and 1 million of the 2.2 million reduction in manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 2000." (The Congressional Budget Office, ”What Accounts for the Decline in Manufacturing Employment?”, February 18, 2004)

Let us sum up. The new electronic means of production referred to as "better capital goods and manufacturing techniques" are not simply labor saving instruments, they are labor replacing. Electronic production coupled with globalization is decimating the workers in heavy industry. The situation facing these workers was summed up by a statement of a union leader in Toledo Ohio, once a fortress of the closed shop. He said, "Give us work. We will work for Chinese wages." Everyone knows that today contract negotiations revolve around what and how many concessions the union will give.

The disintegration of the strength of the worker in heavy industry is reflected in the growth of a new sector of workers. Just as giant industry created one sector of the working class, electronics is creating another. This sector contains the once highly paid worker now reduced to minimum wages, the temporary, part time and contingency worker, the permanently unemployed all the way down to the homeless and destitute, whose job categories have simply vanished.

This new category of the poor is different from the traditional poor. Before, the poor were those who couldn't get all the way into the old economy. The poor today are those who, to one degree or another, are thrown out of the new economy. They have a different life experience, a different ideology and in our opinion, the future is in their hands.

Space does not allow us to answer all the questions raised by the comrade, but these are the central ones. We will deal with others as time and space permits.

 

December.2007.Vol17.Ed6
This article originated in Rally, Comrades!
P.O. Box 477113 Chicago, IL 60647 rally@lrna.org
Free to reproduce unless otherwise marked.
Please include this message with any reproduction.