Mediaboss Marketing

With Brazils extreme right president Jair Bolsonaro up for re-election later this year, the desire to have him thrown out of office is running high and not just in Brazil. Millions across the globe want to see an end to his government, which has presided over mass impoverishment, environmental destruction and one of the worlds worst COVID-19 death tolls.

The Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL) has been among those at the forefront of resisting his government inside Brazil. Roberto Robaina is a member of the PSOL national leadership and a leader of the Socialist Left Movement (MES) tendency within it. He is also a city councillor in Porto Alegre and editor of Revista Movimento.

Green Lefts Federico Fuentes spoke to Robaina about Bolsonaros extreme right project, the upcoming elections and how Brazil might fit into the new wave of left governments in the region.

* * *

How would you assess Bolsonaros government role domestically and internationally?

The Bolsonaro government was a disastrous experience for the Brazilian people, who have endured a brutal rise in unemployment, a wage squeeze and environmental devastation.

More than 40 million workers have been pushed into the informal sector, where they have no rights such as superannuation or holiday leave.

In the past year, we saw a new record in terms of destruction caused by wildfires in the Amazon.

Perhaps, worst of all, was the traumatic experience endured due to his COVID denialism and opposition to vaccines and science, which led to more than 630,000 Brazilians dying from COVID-19.

The Brazilian people were not prepared for this traumatic experience. But they learnt a lot fromit, leading to masses of people turning against his government.

Evidently, expectations have focused on finding a way out of this trauma, which in turn has led to a narrowing of horizons in terms of peoples expectations.

Internationally, Bolsonarism was an example for the extreme right. Its defeat will have strategic importance. The extreme rights unpreparedness to run Brazil has been exposed to the world.

The process of politicisation has expressed itself in actions. Parts of society were forced out of their comfort zone and felt obliged to confront Bolsonaro. As a result, we have seen large street mobilisations.

While these protests did not bring down his government, they did impact on Bolsonaros ability to implement his full project. In these elections, he will be defeated.

It is clear, however, that the extreme right will not disappear with the end of his government. It has won support from a section of the proletariat and from desperate sections within the poor and middle class who, confronted with capitalisms crisis and the lack of left alternatives, have deposited their hopes in these types of projects. And this trend is continuing. It is based on mobilising peoples most destructive instincts.

However, the extreme right has suffered some heavy defeats. We saw this first with [Donald] Trump and we will see it with Bolsonaro.

At the same time, we need to mobilise and organise because we know that, in the last instance, the extreme right is a product of capitalisms continued existence.

With elections later this year, there is undoubtably pressure to support a lesser evil candidate against Bolsonaro, most notably Workers Party candidate and former president Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva. Can you tell us how the election is shaping up and what MES/PSOLs position is regarding which candidate to support?

Millions of Brazilians have their hopes set on a Bolsonaro defeat. Defeating him is the priority.

In this case, it makes sense to support a lesser evil, because a second term for Bolsonaro would represent a further rise in political violence. The government has used the state apparatus to promote violence, to further restrict the freedoms of the left, of the working class and of the media, incentivising hatred towards the press while promoting disinformation and fake news.

Bolsonaros continuity represents such a threat to democratic freedoms that it is vital he is defeated in the elections, given that street mobilisations, while having prevented him from consolidating his project, have not been able to bring his government down.

One section of the Brazilian capitalist class, while continuing to push for ways to further exploit the working class, opposes Bolsonaros strategy of a counterrevolutionary regime, of eliminating democratic freedoms. Bolsonaros disastrous management of the pandemic has deepened this division.

Therefore, it makes sense to seek out a lesser evil, and we recognise that Lula even if the PT is much weaker than it was in the 1980s and during its time in government maintains strong electoral support.

During [Lulas] time in government, capitalisms crisis was not as deep as it is now. The PT was able to pursue a developmentalist policy and manage the interests of capital, allowing it to accumulate capital, while pursuing social measures, mainly in the forms of cash handouts, to attend to some of the demands of the poorest sectors.

At the time, the countrys growth was linked to the boom in commodity prices, rising exports and Chinas growth; they were years of certain economic stability.

Part of the search for a lesser evil can be understood by the fact that many had a better experience under the PT, while life has been a trauma under Bolsonaro. The hope many have is to put an end to this trauma, this disaster.

Lula has emerged as the candidate capable of defeating Bolsonaro. Given Lula will undoubtably make it to the second round of the election in Brazil, elections go to a second round run offs if no candidate wins more than 50% we as MES believe PSOL should present its own candidate in the first round with a transitional program comprised of measures capable of attending to the most profound interests of the working class.

Achieving this aim will require attacking the interests of the millionaires, the large multinational corporations and big Brazilian capitalists in order to genuinely redistribute the wealth. This means basic measures, such as raising taxes on profits and dividends and taxing large fortunes.

We know that the capitalist class is strongly opposed to this. It will not accept state investment in policies that help the country develop through improvements in the living conditions of workers and the construction of an internal market in which wealth is generated via means that do not rely on the super-exploitation of the working class or relegate the country to a dependency on exporting commodities to the world market.

We have proposed federal deputy Glauber Braga as PSOLs candidate. Another wing of the PSOL believes we should support Lula in the first round. Unfortunately, they are the majority.

We also do not believe it is a certainty that Bolsonaro will make it through to the second round, precisely because his popularity is so low.

If Bolsonaro makes it to the second round, then Lula would absolutely count on our support to defeat him. But we believe elections are an opportune moment to present our partys program, and that a party that does not present its program in an electoral contest will have great difficulty developing.

We believe that we must develop an anti-capitalist alternative in Brazil, capable of mobilising youth and workers, because the fight against capitalism is a necessity and the fight against the extreme right will not end at the elections.

Lulas alliance with Geraldo Alckmin, a capitalist politician who governed the largest state, Sao Paulo, for almost 20 years [and has been proposed as his vice-presidential running mate], demonstrates that the PTs project remains social liberal.

So, of course, it is right to vote for Lula against Bolsonaro. But not presenting ones own candidate in the first round would represent a capitulation.

What impact do you think recent progressive victories in Chile and Peru might have on the elections? How do you see the general situation for the left in the region?

Gabriel Borics victory in Chile was fundamental because his opponent was [former dictator Augusto] Pinochets heir. Borics victory was ultimately due to the protests and rebellion of recent years in Chile.

At the same time, and as a reaction to this rebellion, an extreme right has emerged in Chile that almost won. It failed to win because, in the second round, millions of people felt the need to ensure the extreme rights defeat.

Pedro Castillos victory in Peru was also an expression of a longer process in the country. As a teacher who emerged on the political scene in 2017 as the leader of a very important teachers strike, Castillos victory came by surprise.

His discourse was very left-wing, challenging mining companies and multinationals and the predatory, extractivist program implemented in Peru for their benefit.

The processes in Chile and Peru are part of a new wave of the left in Latin America that is seeking out alternatives to capitalism, to neoliberalism. This new wave had its starting point in Bolivia.

At the time, the 2019 coup against former Bolivian president Evo Morales appeared to represent a key turning point for the extreme right and for the return of neoliberalism.

However, the coup was ultimately defeated and a leader of the Movement Towards Socialism was elected president after a period of very intense resistance in the streets.

Bolivia was the start of this new wave, which now faces the challenge of developing a program for Latin American integration, in which these experiences can feed off each other and potentially pursue a common economic policy.

If Lula wins in Brazil, the challenge we will face is making sure he does not act as he did previously. During the previous left wave in Latin America, the Brazilian government acted like a firefighter, attempting to extinguish the processes of mobilisations rather than pursuing genuine Latin American integration.

It sought advantages for Brazilian capital in these countries rather than a policy of integration in which the state used its resources to construct a common Latin American internal market and achieve true independence.

This will be a challenge because it appears as though no lessons have been learnt from that previous experience; instead, we see the continuous pursuit of negotiations and collaboration with sections of the capitalist class that have no interest in regional independence.

Read the original here:
'Millions have their hopes set on a Bolsonaro defeat': An interview with Brazilian socialist Roberto Robaina - Green Left

A few months ago the suggestion that Keir Starmer was a lucky politician would have produced bucketfuls of scorn. Luck, of course, is a vital element in any politicians career, but given events since Starmer took over the reins of his party from his predecessor in April 2020, you would be hard pressed to argue that he enjoyed anything other than the bad sort.

After a positive start, when voters were simply relieved they no longer had to live with the incessant soap opera of Jeremy Corbyns leadership, Labours poll ratings started to slide again, as voters got to know Starmer and decided, on the whole, that they werent particularly impressed with him. Last years local elections, which coincided with the Hartlepool by-election, was a nadir for him and his party. Starmers subsequent performance during the pandemic didnt help much: the public seemed content to stick with the devil they knew rather than take a chance with the new boy on the block.

In the last couple of months everything has changed, mostly for reasons that are nothing to do with Starmer or his front benchs valiant efforts. Labours poll lead, however long it lasts, is wholly down to unforced errors by Johnson and his team. But who cares about that? Certainly not the shadow cabinet, who will accept the fruits of victory however they were won.

It may be significant that Johnsons troubles have largely been caused by his apparent disrespect for anti-Covid rules, including his irresistible urge to attend parties (or work events, depending on the terms of Sue Grays final report), and Johnsons ill-fated attempt to rewrite the rules on House of Commons standards to protect former parliamentary colleague Owen Paterson from censure.

Because even before this winter of discontent for the Conservatives, there were siren voices warning that the Johnson government was already straying too far from any known understanding of the word conservative. The pandemic changed the political and economic discourse; measures such as furlough and a range of business support initiatives, including unexpected billions in public support for the railway and bus companies to see them through a period of historically low passenger numbers, transformed the traditional economic arguments that usually define our politics.

It's certainly true that Labour has been unable, even in these times of staggering levels of public spending, to resist its instinct to demand even more cash from the Treasury. But by the time of the next election, the reliable tactic of pointing the finger at their spendthrift opponents will simply no longer seem a credible tactic for the Conservative Party. Covid has changed much in society but its impact on the political arena goes far beyond arguments over the length of lockdowns or the effectiveness of mask mandates.

How does a small state party (in name and reputation, at least, if not in practice) resurrect the successful tactic employed in past elections of putting their opponents on the defensive over their spending plans when they themselves have just presided over the largest short-term increase in public spending since World War II?

Its when such questions are asked that you begin to see the tactical wisdom of Labours enthusiastic support for multiple lockdowns. Their primary concern, as with the government, was public safety. But for Labour, watching from the side lines as the government borrowed on the never-never and wielded the power of the state to control and direct everyones lives, the last two years was as much a confirmation of their political philosophy as it was a repudiation of the Conservatives. Supporting restrictions was, in essence, a win-win.

Unexpectedly, at least for the Right-wing of the Conservative Party, it was not Rishi Sunaks over-stretched credit card that started to push his partys fortunes lower in the polls but the personal foibles and judgment of the prime minister. The public seem quite content with a high-spending, high-tax party of government, so long as its leader isnt seen to be flouting rules on personal behaviour that he himself set.

It's difficult to see how that can be good news for the Conservative Party, or at least for a Conservative Party that claims it wants to recapture the low tax, small government agenda. Labour, on the other hand, would be only too happy to continue what Johnson and Sunak have begun, and they would at least do it enthusiastically and deliberately, rather than with an apologetic wince every time a few billion was committed or a few per cent added to our tax bills.

It may be hard to believe, but one day the daily revelations about parties at Number 10 during lockdown will cease and the media caravan will move on. At some point, the forces on both sides of the political divide will have to reassemble on the battlefield and decide what theyre actually fighting about. On public spending, the game has already been partly won by Labour. If there is no counter-attack, a new post-Thatcherite consensus will emerge that will be difficult to challenge. And the only casualty will be the Conservative Party.

Originally posted here:
Thanks to Keir Starmer, the Conservatives are ushering in a new era of socialism - Telegraph.co.uk

Edward O. Wilson, known as E.O. Wilson, who died last month at the age of 92, was a major figure in the field of evolutionary biology. He made significant contributions to the study of animal behavior, biodiversity, and environmental conservation. However, he is perhaps best known for the controversies stemming from his attempt to found a field of study he called sociobiology, which places great emphasis on the genetic determination of animal and human behavior.

During his career, Wilson wrote, cowrote, or edited over 30 books. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize twiceonce for On Human Nature (1979) and, as coauthor, for The Ants (1991).

Born in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1929, Wilson earned bachelors and masters degrees at the University of Alabama. He went on to receive his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1950, and joined the faculty there in 1956, where he remained for a remarkable 46 years.

His early research was focused on insects, ants in particularhow they communicated chemically using pheromones and how they diversified and spread geographically. Through studying the distribution of ant species across islands, he developed mathematical models to predict their spread and differentiationechoing and expanding on Darwins study of species diversity in the Galapagos Islands. He has been dubbed by some, Darwins natural heir.

Wilson tested his model in the Florida Keys by eradicating all insects from small, uninhabited islands and then documenting how immigrants re-established themselves and achieved stable ecosystems. He also conducted extensive field research in the Caribbean and South Pacific during the 1940s and 1950s. During his career, he is credited with having identified and described over 450 species of ants.

Based on this research, Wilson, in collaboration with biologist Robert MacArthur, wrote The Theory of Island Biogeography in 1967, which became a seminal work in the field of ecology. In turn, this approach has been applied to the understanding of biodiversity and the interactions between species, enabling predictions regarding how many species a variety of environments could hold, the impact of habitat destruction on species extinctions and the stability of ecosystems.

Wilsons attention then turned to the study of how natural selection molded animal social behavior, including that of humans. He found that classical evolutionary theory had difficulty explaining the behavior of social animals such as ants. Instead, he drew on the work of William Hamilton, who had proposed the concept of inclusive fitness.

According to classical evolutionary theory, reproductive success, the passing on of ones genes to offspring, defines the concept of fitness of an individual in its environment. The more offspring an individual produces who themselves survive to reproduce, the more that individuals genes increase in its species gene pool (the individual is more fit), compared to other individuals who are less successful in a given environment. This was the standard understanding of natural selection.

In effect, organisms are merely mechanisms for the reproduction of genes (i.e., DNA). Genes that promote the survival of those individuals which bear them tend to be perpetuated themselves and increase in frequency within a population or species. Those genes that are less successful in promoting the survival and reproduction of their bearers in a given environment diminish and eventually disappear. Thus, evolution occurs. Under this model, the effective entity subject to natural selection is the individual organism, which is either successful or not in passing on its genetic material.

Hamilton proposed that among social animals, genes may perpetuate themselves and spread by promoting individual behaviors that benefit not only the individual, but the group to which they belong. In this model, genes that promote the survival and reproductive success of close relatives, or the group as a whole, can spread if an individual with those genes promotes the reproduction (fitness) of others who carry the same genes. Thus, among relatives, an individuals fitness may be inclusive: it may refer not only to their own reproductive success, but to the success of others.

In a 1963 paper, Hamilton described his conception as inclusive fitness, under which the unit of natural selection is the gene, not the individual. According to this model, if an individuals actions, even to the point of that individuals own demise, and consequent failure to reproduce, promote the propagation of the groups genetic information (e.g., altruistic behavior, such as giving an alarm call that alerts other members of the group to the presence of a predator), that fulfills the evolutionary imperative of reproductive success of that set of genes, even if that particular individual does not reproduce.

Wilson sought to interpret the behavior of ants as gene bearers for such a group, and not merely as autonomous, individually reproducing individuals.

Most ants live in highly structured colonies, with a well-defined division of labor. Each colony is composed of a queen, whose primary function is reproduction. The female offspring, the workers, are normally sterile, performing all the tasks necessary for maintenance of the colony, including the collective raising of offspring. Males have only one function, fertilizing future queens. Species in which members of a group have genetically and/or developmentally determined differential reproductive capacities and other highly defined tasks are termed eusocial. This is mostly seen in ants, bees, wasps, termites, and a very limited number of mammals (naked mole-rats). From a reproductive perspective, colonies of ants and other eusocial animals may be viewed as the equivalent of a single, multi-cellular organism, rather than a collection of autonomously reproducing individuals.

It should be noted that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, any single gene is not expressed individually but in combination with many other genes to produce the whole organism, greatly reducing the exposure of single genes to direct selective pressure.

Nevertheless, Wilson sought to apply a gene-centric model, which gained acceptance among biologists in the context of a burgeoning genetic revolution, to understand the behaviors of all animals. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, published in 1975, presented Wilsons view that The organism is only DNAs way of making more DNA. Based on this understanding, he argued that social behavior, including that of humans, could be explained as a product of natural selection differentially acting on the variety of genetic material in a species.

The publication of Sociobiology initiated a great deal of controversy. So much so that its review in the New York Times was placed on the papers front page. While its proposals regarding social behavior in animals have had an impact on subsequent research, those regarding that of humans have also drawn criticism. Many viewed Wilsons arguments as a form of biological determinism, or reductionism: the attitude that simple processes may explain complex phenomena that in fact require more sophisticated explanation.

Wilson proposed that humans have a weak form of eusociality, such that the behavior of individuals and their roles in the social group is partly controlled by genetics. Some critics, including his Harvard colleagues, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, accused Wilson of biological determinism, Social Darwinism, and even alleged that his ideas logically supported eugenics and genocide.

In his preface to the 2000 edition of Sociobiology, Wilson pushes back against critics who accuse him of reductionism. Specifically referring to Gould and Lewontin, whom he describes as the last of the Marxist intellectuals, Wilson characterizes these critics as advocating a tabula rasa view of human behaviorthat there is no genetic influence at all, which he says suits their aim for socialism to be fitted to the human mind, apparently implying indoctrination.

He goes on to reject the position of other critics, associated with the New Left, who opposed sociobiology on the grounds that it could lead to the conclusion that behaviors such as racism, sexism, class oppression, colonialism, andperhaps worst of allcapitalism! could be genetically based. In one notorious incident, a protester doused Wilson with water, yelling Wilson, you are all wet!

A review of Wilsons discussion of human behavior in Sociobiology reveals that while he seems to take a more nuanced view than some critics suggest, fundamentally, despite protestations to the contrary, he fails to appreciate the qualitative difference between human behavior, based on abstract, symbolic thought, and a huge store of culture, and that of other animals.

He states, Human societies have effloresced to levels of extreme complexity because their members have the intelligence and flexibility to play roles of virtually any degree of specification, and to switch them as the occasion demands. And, furthermore, Roles in human societies are fundamentally different from the castes of social insects.

In his preface to the second edition of Sociobiology (2000), Wilson states, in the creation of human nature, genetic evolution and cultural evolution have together produced a closely interwoven product. And as well: The exact process of gene-culture coevolution is the central problem of the social sciences and much of the humanities, and it is one of the great remaining problems of the natural sciences.

Some of his discussion involves behaviors that are so basic as to be likely to have a substantial genetic component. For example, he proposes that there are epigenetic rules (i.e., in which non-genetic factors, such as environment or learned behavior, modify genetic expression) which provide general frameworks for such things as classification of color, aesthetic evaluation of shapes, acquisition of fears and phobias, communication via facial expression and body language, and so on across a wide spread of categories in behavior and thought. Most of these rules are evidently very ancient, dating back millions of years in mammalian ancestry. Others, like the ontogenetic steps of linguistic development in children, are uniquely human and probably only hundreds of thousands of years old.

However, Wilsons discussion of more complex aspects of human behavior fails to make clear the overwhelming predominance of culture over biology.

An important topic raised by Wilson is that of social class in human societies. A key question of human biology is whether there exists a genetic predisposition to enter certain classes and to play certain roles.

At first, he states, A strong initial bias toward such stratification is created when one human population conquers and subjugates another, a common enough event in human history. Genetic differences in mental traits, however slight, tend to be preserved by the raising of class barriers, racial and cultural discrimination, and physical ghettos.

But then, Yet despite the plausibility of the general argument, there is little evidence of any hereditary solidification of status. And further, Powerful forces can be identified that work against the genetic fixation of caste differences. First, cultural evolution is too fluid.

Scientific research has demonstrated time and time again that there is absolutely no basis for the proposition that there are any differences in intelligence or any other significant behavioral characteristic within or between various modern human populations. Nevertheless, Wilson, leaves the door open to the possibility that such differences may exist. Is this merely a prudent scientists caution or does it betray underlying reservations?

With regard to cultural evolution, again Wilson provides contradictory statements. Ethnographic detail [i.e., different cultures] is genetically underprescribed [i.e., has relatively weak genetic influence], resulting in great amounts of diversity among societies. Underprescription does not mean that culture has been freed from the genes. What has evolved is the capacity for culture, indeed the overwhelming tendency to develop one culture or another.

Few would dispute the first part of this last sentence. However, does this latter statement mean that the humans are somehow genetically driven to cultural diversity? How could that genetic influence be expressed? Again, Wilson is attempting to suggest some degree of genetic influence without providing any evidence to support his contention.

In an even more puzzling statement, Wilson is of the opinion that Human beings are absurdly easy to indoctrinatethey seek it. If we assume for argument that indoctrinability evolves, at what level does natural selection take place? One extreme possibility is that the group is the unit of selection. This suggests that he believes humans capacity for independent thought is somehow genetically limited and that some populations may be more susceptible to indoctrination than others.

There are numerous other examples of Wilsons attempt to have it both ways. One of the more troubling is his contention that warfare promoted a number of what he feels are important human traits: including team play, altruism, patriotism, bravery on the field of battle, and so forth, as the genetic product of warfare. He goes on to suggest that groups with genes for aggressiveness would conquer and replace those that did not, thus creating a positive feedback loop for the spread of aggressive genetics.

But warfare is a recent development in human evolution, a product of class society. To imply that it is somehow a key influencer of human genetics has no scientific basis. Elsewhere, he rejects the contentions of such popular authors as Konrad Lorenz ( On Aggression ) and Robert Ardrey ( African Genesis ) who claim that aggressive behavior was key to early human evolution.

Wilson rejected accusations that he was promoting a right-wing agenda, labeling them as academic vigilantism and criticized Gould and Lewontin in particular for what he labels as their Marxism, which he employs as a derogatory epithet without specific content.

There is no indication that he personally held reactionary views. It appears rather that he was led astray by an excessively mechanical view of human development, and as has happened all too frequently, tried to apply the laws of motion of one sphere of the natural world to another and more complicated sphere. Thus, in Sociobiology, he argued that ethics should be taken out of the hands of philosophers and, instead, biologicized. And, in his later work, On Human Nature (1978), he proposed that in the future, with a much deeper understanding of genetics, a democratically contrived eugenics could be implemented, indicating, at best, a political naivete with regard to its implications within class society. This clearly goes beyond medical interventions for physical ailments, implying behavioral modification through genetic manipulation.

In a more recent work, The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), Wilson appears to step back from rigid determinism. He characterizes humans as the first truly free species, and one which can, based on simple decency combined with the unrelenting application of reason, turn the earth into a permanent paradise. This, apparently, is to be accomplished by somehow freeing humans from the otherwise imperious domination of genetics. However, at the same time, he continued to contend that free will is an illusion.

Wilsons conception of human social organization is a gross oversimplification, betraying a lack of knowledge of anthropology and sociology. Firstly, all members of a human social group can, at least potentially, reproduce (barring illness, etc.), contrary to the condition in eusocial species. There are certainly constraints on reproductive success in class-based societies. However, these are the product of social factors, not on any inherent genetically controlled differentiation. The same is true of all productive tasks, which are based on learned behavior.

Fundamentally, Wilson was unable to bridge the contradiction between a genetically constructed brain that evolved under natural selection and its unique capacity for abstract, symbolic thought, whose content is not genetically programmed. In fact, humans have long since evolved beyond behavior that is primarily controlled by their DNA. The problems facing humanity are social and political, not biological.

In retirement, Wilson devoted his energy to environmental conservation, producing many publications on the subject, including his 1992 book, The Diversity of Life, which became a best seller. He was an advocate of Half Earth which proposed that half of the earths surface, both land and water, be devoted to species conservation.

In sum, E.O. Wilson made historic contributions in the fields of ecology, biodiversity, animal behavior, and evolutionary biology. However, his attempt to explain at least a portion of human behavior as significantly controlled by genetics demonstrates a failure to understand that the development of culture as humanitys primary mode of adaptation has created a qualitatively new level of organization. Just as biology cannot be explained simply by physics and chemistry, human behavior cannot be reduced to biology.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read the original:
E.O. Wilson, groundbreaking figure in evolutionary biology, dead at 92 - WSWS

In the last two months, thousands of American workers walked off the job, sometimes without official permission from their union leaderships. Thats the big story of 2021 not just what didnt happen in the halls of power in Washington, DC, but what happened in workplaces in Iowa and Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

These strikes should hearten socialists. After all, a militant working class is at the heart of our theory of social change. But they should also make us think about how we can better connect the socialist movement to these kinds of working-class fights.

Todays socialist movement is still getting its sea legs. Our ideas about socialist strategy are hazy at best. Our leaders and politicians struggle to articulate a full explanation of how we get from capitalism to socialism, or even what socialism is. All of that is understandable after decades of dormancy, were just getting started. But if we want to link up the nascent American socialist movement with the brewing movement of the working class, we need to get our act together.

Without being dogmatic, we would do well to revisit our foundations. And two old theorists of socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are the place to start. They were among the first to identify the unique interest working-class people have in socialism, and the first to recognize that workers have the potential power to win it. And they set down the principle of working-class self-emancipation that socialists should embrace today.

The working class is at the center of Marx and Engelss theory of socialist transformation. Workers will form the core of the movement to overcome capitalism, Marx and Engels argued, for three reasons.

First, after carefully studying the past, they observed that one class one group of people who share a similar role in the economy has always exploited another. The exploiter class lives off the labor of the exploited, taking from them the fruits of their work. That exploitation has led to resistance by the exploited and then, from time to time, class struggles.

The class struggles between masters and slaves shaped the ancient world, while those between lords and peasants shaped the feudal world. The struggles between capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat) similarly shape the capitalist world and will eventually lead to its transformation. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat.

But that only explains why Marx and Engels expected workers to come into conflict with capitalists. They also expected this conflict to move humanity forward toward a better, freer, and more humane way of organizing society.

This is the second reason Marx and Engels were confident workers would play the decisive role in social transformation. Workers, they reasoned, share similar interests, and those interests will lead them to struggles that will strengthen their own forces and transform the world for the better. Exploited by the capitalist class, workers are constantly being driven to fight back. Through conflict, they can win better working and living conditions for themselves and their families, but their victories are often precarious and unsatisfactory, and the basic fact of exploitation remains unchanged.

In the course of their struggles, workers can come to realize that they have an interest in changing the economy itself, for everyones benefit. (Though the realization will not happen automatically and socialists have an important role to play in bringing it about.)

History and interests alone, though, arent enough to change the world. Marx and Engelss third reason for believing the working class would be the ultimate agent of social change was that workers also have potential power. That power comes from workers strength in numbers and their concentration and function at the heart of capitalism: the workplace. In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote, With the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more.

As the vast majority of society, workers can potentially overwhelm the small capitalist class. And more importantly, workers can control the flow of profits. By striking or slowing down production, they can force the capitalist class the ruling class in our society today to negotiate. That power gives workers enormous leverage, which they can use to force capitalists to make changes in society. Eventually, they can also use their strength to throw the capitalist class out of power entirely.

In summary, Marx and Engels reasoned that workers 1) are destined to clash with societys ruling class, 2) have a compelling interest in transforming society, and 3) have the power needed to do so. That is why Marx and Engels believed workers could change the world.

They never rejected the need for alliances, of course. They saw middle-class people shopkeepers, intellectuals, farmers, and others as potential allies of the workers movement. In fact, they were quite concerned about winning sections of other classes over to socialism. But they recognized that the socialist project couldnt get anywhere without a base in the working class.

Marx and Engels were not interested in elite plots or coups, as many radicals had been before them. They insisted that a transition to socialism can only be carried out by the vast majority of society, a coalition of the working class and its allies with the former playing the leading role. This was their theory of how society can emancipate itself from the domination of a ruthless capitalist class.

Marx made this point most famously in the Rules of the First International: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. Its a critically important principle, and it points to the democratic nature of the socialist project. But what did Marx really mean by the self-emancipation of the working class?

Marxs principle of working-class self-emancipation was a call for a participatory and democratic movement. The fight for socialism must involve the participation, in some form, of the vast majority of society.

That may not sound like a shocking insight to us today. But its so important and its a principle that in practice most socialist movements, from the social democrats in Western Europe to authoritarian communists all over the world, have been quick to flout.

Rather than building up the leadership and participation of regular people, social democrats and authoritarian communists have all too often tried to lead exclusively from the top. Theyve built undemocratic parties and relied on state violence to try to transform society. In doing so, theyve fallen far short of their initial objectives, and all too often have been corrupted by their power.

An effective socialist movement must call on regular working-class people to be leaders in struggles, and it must ensure democratic control of the movement and party members. From the very beginning, that will require building parties, unions, and social movements that include millions of working people and are led by workers.

If our movement is to succeed, our organizations cannot remain the preserve of middle-class activists who fight on behalf of workers but not alongside them. Not for moral reasons if a better society could be won that way, so be it! but for strategic reasons.

Nowhere in the world has a small middle-class movement been able to fundamentally transform a society for the better. It takes mass working-class movements to win transformational changes. Workers alone have the numbers, the interest, and the power that is needed to force ruling classes to make concessions and eventually depose them.

Bringing in millions of working-class people is no easy feat. It requires a strong commitment to democracy. Thats why democratic socialists are so committed to transforming the labor movement through the rank-and-file strategy both so we can include more people in the movement and so we can start to democratize the workplace, while in the process training a new generation of worker leaders.

Its also why were so committed to building democratic political parties and social movements. Training a new generation of worker leaders involves bringing many people into struggle not just as foot-soldiers, but as strategists and decision-makers with bosses, employers, racist cops, and the state. Its through struggle (plus debate and discussion with comrades) that people learn about the limits of capitalism and the need to go beyond it. Its how peoples consciousness is shaped and developed in a socialist direction.

Our commitment to self-emancipation also determines the kind of democratic reforms we fight for. As socialists, were committed to transforming the state through reforms like proportional representation, the public financing of elections, and rewriting constitutions changes that empower regular people to exercise more control over the state. This commitment to democratic reform is based on the same theory that more democratic participation will only yield a greater desire for self-governance and a greater capacity to achieve it.

Eventually, we will need the vast majority of working-class people workers in the tens of millions in the United States and in the billions globally to be involved in the process of actually building socialism.

In a complicated and protracted transition out of capitalism, there will be hundreds of thousands of conflicts both small and large. In every city and town and in every workplace, the conflict between the capitalist class and the working class will break out into the open. It will rest on the shoulders of individual workers to occupy shop floors, lead mass demonstrations, plan strikes, capture city councils, win elections, negotiate alliances, decide on tactics, and so on.

Only a movement that is alive at the base, and that has adequately trained a generation of working-class leaders, will have the power needed to uproot the old order and build a new one on democratic lines. Nor does the process of self-emancipation end with the death of capitalism. A socialist world will be one in which everyone is empowered in some way to help shape society. In winning socialism, the working class will win the right to determine its own fate.

The principle of working-class self-emancipation is one of the few real rules for socialist organizing that Marx and Engels ever laid down. And they were insistent on it from the start. As Engels wrote in a preface to the Communist Manifesto: Our notion, from the very beginning, was that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Hard coding that commitment into the DNA of our movement remains an essential task.

The strikes of 2021 remind us that working-class struggle is really possible. If tens of thousands of workers can risk everything by walking off the job when the labor movement is practically on its knees, imagine whats possible when we really get organized.

Ultimately, it wont be enough to win wage increases and better benefits. Those are essential demands, but the bosses and the ruling class wont let us keep them for long without a fight. Theyll be back sooner rather than later demanding new cuts to contracts. We dont want to have to keep fighting these battles over and over again and all while we live through a climate catastrophe.

Thats why we still need democratic socialism. We need a society where the owners and bosses have lost their power, where regular people rule in politics and the workplace, where we have the right to remake the world.

To prepare ourselves for this monumental undertaking, we need to drill down deep into questions about democracy, responsibility, and leadership. We need to flesh out our demands. We need a real conception of what democratic socialism might look like and what the transition to that better world might take.

But most of all, the socialist movement needs power. The strikes of last year show us where that power is already located, latent and waiting to be organized: in the working class. They remind us of what the best strategists and theorists of the socialist movement once said: The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Workers will win a better world. No one else can do it.

Read more:
Socialists Believe in Workers Democratically Liberating Themselves - Jacobin magazine

Ten years ago, a visitor would have had little to do in the city, but Nowa Huta has learned to capitalise on its communist heritage. The city offers foreigners and Poles alike a snapshot of communism as it once was. "Young [Poles] nowadays have no idea what it was like," said Marchocki. Stepping into parts of Nowa Huta is like stepping into the worlds of their parents and grandparents: from the fully renovated People's Theatre with its Egyptian-inspired Socialist Realist style and bright neon sign, to the monuments to the Solidarity movement, which would bring down communism across Poland in 1989, and some 250 nuclear bunkers that lie beneath the city, relics of a time when people worried about nuclear apocalypse.

Besides its history, which can be explored at the Museum of Nowa Huta, opened in 2019 at the site of the old movie theatre, the main draw for tourists today is Nowa Huta's remaining Socialist Realist architecture. As one of only two planned and built Socialist Realist settlements in the world, besides Magnitogorsk deep in Russia's interior, Nowa Huta is something different from the bland modernism and grey brutalism usually associated with Eastern European socialism. Exemplified by the buildings on Central Square ironically renamed in Ronald Reagan's honour in 2004 the Socialist Realist style can also be seen inside Nowa Huta's few original shops. For example, the highly decorative interior of the folk-art shop Cepelix, located on the city's north-east side, designed by the top Polish interior designers of the time.

You may also be interested in: The secrets hiding in Warsaw What can Poland teach us about freedom? Why Polish people hate rules

But the jewel of Nowa Huta's Socialist Realist architecture is in the former Administrative Building of the Steelworks, whose faux Renaissance exterior and luxurious interior still display the style's ideal. Though technically closed to the public, the Promotion of Nowa Huta Foundation offers tours of the building, with Marchocki describing it as "the most iconic building in Nowa Huta." With all its pomp, it's a testament to the utopian ambitions that birthed the city ambitions that the workers themselves would challenge.

In 1980, when the country was rocked by strikes called by the Solidarity trade union, the Vladimir Lenin Steelworks of Nowa Huta would boast the largest workplace chapter of the union, with a membership rate of 97%. The Catholic church resolutely supported the union and the protests, forcing the ruling communists into the incredibly awkward position of standing in opposition to the workers they were meant to represent.

Continue reading here:
Nowa Huta: The city that went from communism to capitalism - BBC News