The key to success is the balance of class power. It's all about working class struggle and party building (since you're not fond of the party concept you may call it unions or other workers' organizations). The 32-hour workweek can only be achieved successfully if the working class organizes itself (around the demand) and fights for it.

Building an independent workers' movement is a precondition for the successful overthrow of the capitalist system. I think you can agree with me. That's why this demand for a 32-hour workweek differs greatly from other demands like lower taxes, free public transport or cheap medicines.

The latter are demands that function like a carrot (and the horrors of capitalism functioning as the stick) for electoral purposes. It's a reform for the sake of popularity. A reform for the sake of reform. The former however, is revolutionary in character because it's devised, together with orther demands, to organize the working class (politically) against the capitalist state. It's a reform for the sake of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class as a whole.

The carrot versus working class organization debate is going on since the late 19th century. While Marx wanted the working class to organize themselves in a political party in order to pose the question of class power, Jules Guesde proposed to you only demands that could lure the workers to the party.

For questions on the transitional approach (which differs from the so called "Erfurtian" approach) I would advise you to read gilhyle's remarks in this thread and maybe also this article (near the middle you'll find the info you need to understand what the approach does).

Comrade, speaking of taxes, I already anticipate a "social-democratic" demand to be popularized for populist purposes (except amongst right-wing US national-chauvinists ):

Making Bono pay taxes

[Namely, "Introduce a global taxation system to prevent transfer pricing and tax evasion," according to The global economic crisis: An historic opportunity for transformation by the Asia-Europe People's Forum. ]

Speaking of "free public transport," it's a shame that the recent amendments to the CPGB's draft program mentions such, among other "green" measures:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/759/debatingdraft.html



Huh? I thought Guesde was a sectarian, not an opportunist. That certainly brings a new perspective (as per my Theory thread on "defensive struggles"): carrots for electoral purposes, or carrots for party-building purposes (and the fact that Marx basically said "Neither").



I don't think even left-communist workers working 50 hours a week have time to organize. As I said in my thread (and quoting Marx's Capital):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/32-hour-wo...097/index.html

And this seems practical and realistic within the current framework of Capitalism? The most positive thing I can see from this is that its own futility as a goal will make clear the impossibility of real, permanent gains for the working class within the framework of capitalism, and the necessity for revolution.
It's even more futile as a goal in the current context because of the realisation that capitalism is in the process of being smashed by the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Struggling for the 'eight hour day', or the 'six hour day' in this context makes about as much sense, and is about as close to pin pointing the central point of struggle as the Socialist Alliance stalls which are still going on about "free Palastine" while the capitalist economy is crumbling.
Have revolutionaries lost their sense of reality? Are we just giving up on analysising the nature of capitalism in its current context and then having our program based on this, and instead just acting and "giving it a whirl"?

There is no sense of reality in this program.

The crisis is here, and we need to be acting on it, not acting on other reformist shit.

Quote:

Really, with all this "realism" talk of yours, you sound like the real reformist here. Of course the bosses are not going to just accept it, what is your point?

How do I sound like a reformist by rejecting reformist tactics? That makes no sense.

That's why the demand is part of the Transitional Program. The fact that such a demand seems impossibl under such circumstances creates a bridge between the subjective situation and socialism.
Capitalism or no capitalism; the workers need to have a job and spare time. The 32-hour workweek could be explained as a meassure against unemployment while also stressing the thoughts of Marx (as quoted by Jacob) on the subject of democracy through shorter working hours.
What's wrong with posing the demands we need to build a workers' movement capable of overthrowing the capitalist system? The use of the transitional approach, linking the day-to-day struggles with the goal of socialism, makes things even better. What would you propose?

Shit, I just lost everything I wrote.

Yes, I agree, and I implied that above.

It's slightly more complex than that though. It can't be understood simply in terms of what Marx's said, because of the difference in the phase of economic development between our context and Marx's - i.e. ascendant, and decadent.

As...

I think you've just resolved your own "crisis of theory." If I'm correct, your interpretation is that my "neo-Erfurtian" stuff / broad-directional program is an unorthodox take on the Transitional Program, equalling the original Transitional Program minus what I see as narrow economism (sliding scale of wages at the shop or industry level) plus participatory-democratic perspectives (that is, less what can be seen as broad economism) and some post-modernist "anti-capitalist" contributions.

Most "transitional programs" out there would merely list the "32-hour workweek without loss of pay or benefits" as the anti-unemployment lead-in to the usual "sliding scale of hours" (Comrade Macnair's "Year Zero" ), and might address leisure and environmental concerns (less pollution if working for four days) before the lead-in.

I tried to start a Theory thread critiquing the "globally social-democratic" (Walden Bello) and blatantly economistic Asia-Europe People's Forum program, but I too lost everything I wrote there.

in the wake of a violent class struggle, it can realistic. Its either give in or risk a full scale uprising for the bourgeoisie. They rather keep their labour force/consumers pacified until the very last profit. If they don't give in , the violent engine of history will decide their fate.

6 hour day? We should worry about the 12 hour day around the globe...

Only if we rely on the bourgeosie for its implementation (instead of the working class); a.l.a. pure reformism.

Indeed. The programme of "classical social democracy", where "[...] the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying" (Trotsky), is indeed "no longer possible". And I think the ICC refers to such minimum programmes of the reformst kind (Gotha, Chartre de Quaregnon, etc.), which demands reforms from the capitalist state through the capitalist state; just like Trotsky sometimes did in his Transitional Programme. There Trotsky defined the minimum programme as a programme "which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society". This emphasis on its limitation within bourgeois society or bourgeois democracy comes from Karl - the renegade in progress - Kautsky. And I believe that was a mistake.

Reformist programmes differ from minimum programmes of the Marxist kind (which rely on working class struggle and independent working class self-organization). The Marxist minimum eventually is about working class rule, not necessarily extending bourgeois democracy. Demanding that the army would be disolved in favor of arming the proletariat (for example) isn't really a demand "limited [...] within the framework of bourgeois society". Is it?

Btw, the full implementation of the Marxist minimum program is, in the minds of class conscious workers, somewhat transitional in character.

There's a heated discussion on the minimum programme here:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2579#comments

You don't solve the problem of the 12-hour day by merely advocating the 50-hour workweek (the old struggle for the 10-hour day) or even the 40-hour workweek again - like these economistic folks do:

"Stop labour law reforms aimed at extending hours of work and making it easier for employers to fire or retrench workers" (Asia-Europe People's Forum)



After all, the struggle for "the reduction of the normal workweek – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime" must be transnational (global).

Well, what do you know, the bourgeois here, parts of it are considering reducing the working day. Rosa proved oh so right.

Jacob, you really have to work on your language. It's often quite hard to understand.

"Transnational" is a word used in the business world. "International" corporations are lower on the pecking order than multinationals and transnationals:

http://leeiwan.wordpress.com/2007/06...ional-company/


Given my atypical educational background (not in sociology, polit-sci, or other humanities areas ) , my language is that of the business world: transnational, maximax and maximin (game theory), information asymmetry, etc.



That SDKPiL sectarian was wrong. The class-strugglist interpretation of "reducing the working day" is always that of "reducing the working day without loss of pay or benefits."

Thread renamed at user request.

Granted, Jacob, but nevertheless, not all of us are from such a field, and find the language - especially when left unexplained, or which necessitates reading an overly long thread, with more links to unexplained words and ideas - overwhelming.
It's not much good when you have a theory which is not understood by your audience.

I also explained it in my theoretical work:

"Inter-": between
"Trans-": across, over, beyond

I didn't mean in regards to International and Transnational, Jacob. I meant generally. However, this is not relevant.

Since we should get back on topic, I made a brief remark at the end of post #33:

That SDKPiL sectarian was wrong. The class-strugglist interpretation of "reducing the working day" is always that of "reducing the working day without loss of pay or benefits."