[ingliz]

That is not an 'official' RF agreement just my personal opinion, I would hope the membership will offer some input.

[Vladimir]

Update
-

SN-RF

Economic Platform


Points of special interest:

1. Bank nationalization; democratisation of control by replacement of manager bureaucracy by civil committees of workers’ delegates and state advisors, open publication of all accounts
2. Heavy progressive tax (10%, 50%, 70%)
3. Abolition of tax for low incomes, increases of tax on profits (70%)
4. Price freezing or imposing of narrow price boundary (through buffer stock operation, which instead of being sold off can be used for charity) on staple items, namely those with a low price elasticity of demand
5. Higher inheritance tax for capital inheritance (95%)
6. Abolition of interest rates on small loans, individual debts, minimisation of rent rates (and possibly abolition in some cases, as well as expropriation in certain cases)
7. Democratisation of trade unions, namely via a transfer to a delegate base from the current representative one
8. Legislation for all employment contract negotiating to go through trade unions with membership as a prerequisite
9. Guarantee of legalization of factory occupations as union/"cooperative" property, as well as expropriation and handing over to its workers and their community of any enterprise in risk of being plundered by its owner; grant of a 0% tax status to such environments.
10. Minimum wage 5 times the calculated minimum living necessity, pegged to inflation; applied universally stating 16, working not allowed prior.
11. Guaranteed employment for all above 16, guaranteed professional work for all graduates.
12. abolition of intellectual property and commecrial secrecy
13. 32-hour working week

Social Platform


Points of special interest:

1. Freedom of political activity within unions and workplaces
2. Universal and unabridged right to firearms, with individual ownership regulated by criminal records
3. A power division contract between workers' councils and state; we promise to push through in the parliament any demands councils make
4. Abolition of police, standing army, and nuclear program. Establishment of a universal workers' militia in their place.
-individual right to arms for anyone above 18 with no criminal/clinical history
-right to join workers' militia in which each is entitled to free arms and a month or so military training
-communised enterprises (see econ.plat. â„–9) and communities automatically gain status of a workers' militia
-make workers' militia unanswerable to courts collectively (only individually based on the collective consensus)
5. Reservation of at least half of the court jury seats for worker council delegates
6. Full financial and material support to union, council and "cooperative" organisations as well as entrusting large local budgets to them
7. 100% separation of church and state.
8. Free universal healthcare regulated by system by doctors' and nurses' councils
9. Free education from kindergarten to doctorate
10. Regulation of the entire education system by teachers' and students' councils
11. Legalisation of all narcotics, with a direct tax of 10% which will be put towards rehabilitation infrastructure
12. Vast-scale construction of heavily subsidised (half of the market price) multi-story proletarian residences with modern infrastructure, sanitation and transport access, basing on the Russian/Chinese microdistrict model. Make ready non-interest loans available for future dwellers. The slums will be turned into “garden cities”!
13. Zero tolerance for any form of discrimination
14. Environmental protection by means of handing vast “green” funds and executive rights to local workers’ environment committees.



International Platform


Points of special interest:

1. Solidarity with workers of all countries; we will work to establish global democratised trade unions
2. Recognition of the right to self-determination for all oppressed nations; recognition of every separatist movement and territory
3. Heavy taxes on the export of capital and outsourcing of jobs
4. Against all imperialist wars and wars of aggression
5. Abolition of NATO, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and all other imperialist cliques & agreements. Democratic control to be established over their funds by means of international workers’ unions
6. Withdrawal of all military personnel from all foreign countries
7. Make decision making in foreign policy open and transparent to the people; Open publication of all secret treaties and actions made by the previous government

[Vladimir]

Demo can you edit this version into Raptor's post here pls
viewtopic.php?f=89&t=104013

[Demosthenes]

Ok...finally got it...

[Kon]

-individual right to arms for anyone above 18 with no criminal/clinical history
-right to join workers' militia in which each is entitled to free arms and a month or so military training
-communised enterprises and communities automatically gain status of a workers' militia
-make workers' militia unanswerable to courts collectively (only individually based on the collective consensus)

Good, but I would guarantee more sporadic training for members of the militia.

[Red Star]

International Platform


Points of special interest:

May I add:

8. Abolition of all Third World debt, starting with any owed to PoFo. Abolition of all "Structural Re-Adjustment Funds" (which probably comes under the WB abolition to be honest)

[HoniSoit]

8. Abolition of all Third World debt, starting with any owed to PoFo. Abolition of all "Structural Re-Adjustment Funds" (which probably comes under the WB abolition to be honest)

Yes, definitely this should be added.

Perhaps we could also add to no. 5 a commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate third world structural economic dependency on the industrialised nations.

[Potemkin]

Perhaps we need to clarify our policy regarding the globalisation of capitalism. Do we regard it as a progressive (though exploitative) development in the capitalist mode of production, or do we condemn it as merely another form of neo-imperialism?

[HoniSoit]

Perhaps we need to clarify our policy regarding the globalisation of capitalism. Do we regard it as a progressive (though exploitative) development in the capitalist mode of production, or do we condemn it as merely another form of neo-imperialism?

I think we should make clear that we are not against internationalisation if by that we mean close integration between people, institutions and nations on equal terms, and the growth of worldwide solidarity movement against unjust social, economic and political systems; but we are opposed (as you point out) to a particularly form of internationalisation that is the globalisation of capitalism which should be condemned as neo-imperialism.

[Potemkin]

I basically agree with you, HoniSoit; however, it could be argued that the globalisation of capitalism is a necessary precondition to the development of socialist internationalism. Objectively speaking, therefore, it could be said that to oppose the globalisation of capitalism could be objectively reactionary, in the sense in which Marx referred to "reactionary socialism" in The Communist Manifesto.

[albionfagan]

Yes but not all of us are Marxists, and I think Marx grossly underestimated the strength of capitalism, if we support or even just acquiesce to globalisation we are giving de facto carte blanche to capitalism and allowing it to strengthen.

[Potemkin]

I hear what you're saying, albionfagan. But the same argument might have been used to oppose the process of primitive capitalist accumulation in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which collectivised the means of production and destroyed the small producer. Without that process, brutal and unjust as it was, a socialist ideology could never have developed. The most progressive thinking of the previous period had been Jeffersonian democracy - a democracy of petty-bourgeois small producers, so beloved of the libertarians. The development of capitalism during the 19th century rendered that ideal outmoded. Again, a certain tendency in the development of capitalism was a necessary precondition for the existence of socialism itself. This linkage between the development of capitalism and the development of socialism is still ongoing today. Should we officially acknowledge this fact?

[Subversive Rob]

Given that capitalist international penetration has already happened, and is already a reality (and pretty much always has been, 'globalisation' is a stupid term considering capital has been transnational right from the outset), 'opposing it' would always be stupid. Indeed, I think HS' suggestion, that we propose ways in which the economic sphere might be democratised etc. (hence why we should propose alternatives to international institutions, not just their abolition) is the right thing to do. In power we ought not to be extolling the virtues or necessity of capitalist global expansion (which has often been the gateway to revisionism in any case) but attempting to harness and transform it.

EDIT: also, let's not go nuts over this, because one of Marx's really silly mistakes was thinking that capitalism naturally 'diffused' out, spreading capitalist social relations with it. In practice, imperialism, whilst bringing exploitation to some parts of the world, has consistently kept them in backwards, semi-feudal states, and hasn't particularly encouraged the 'development of the productive forces'. It's rather telling that the 'progress' brought by international capital has either been through foreign, state-led investment so as to build up strategic partners, or has been through national state-led capitalism, which hasn't been overly reliant on global trade etc.

ANOTHER EDIT: incidentally, see this thread for us dealing with this issue before. Disturbing how little the passage of times has changed our position on this.

[albionfagan]

I agree of course this link should be acknowledged, I'm just a bit worried about attempts to 'harness and transform' globalised capitalism, it sounds rather reformist to me. We need to destablish the very institutions that have been built by capitalism, not try and turn these institituions socialist.

As subversive rob says, it is a little too late to try and prevent any further globalisation, by its nature capital is global. We could simply acknowledge that a certain devlopment of capitalism is helpful for the development of socialism, but do nothing to encourage this development ourselves, meanwhile doing our best to support any socialist organisations agitating in any country.

[HoniSoit]

EDIT: also, let's not go nuts over this, because one of Marx's really silly mistakes was thinking that capitalism naturally 'diffused' out, spreading capitalist social relations with it. In practice, imperialism, whilst bringing exploitation to some parts of the world, has consistently kept them in backwards, semi-feudal states, and hasn't particularly encouraged the 'development of the productive forces'. It's rather telling that the 'progress' brought by international capital has either been through foreign, state-led investment so as to build up strategic partners, or has been through national state-led capitalism, which hasn't been overly reliant on global trade etc.

I agree. It's sometimes described as the development of underdevelopment by Marxists - which isn't really progressive from the perspective of the global south.

[Vladimir]

I think our dedication to forming international workers' organisations, controlling the movement of global capital and forcing it into progressive rather than exploitative directions fits our "legalist" purpose. Before the workers take power, they must learn to handle it, and rise above the bourgeoise in terms of political/economic organisation.

[Subversive Rob]

I'm just a bit worried about attempts to 'harness and transform' globalised capitalism, it sounds rather reformist to me.

When I say harness this, what I mean is that there is no need for us to entirely withdraw from the global economic arena. Whilst we should obviously remain uninvolved with the capitalist international financial institutions, this shouldn't rule out us being involved in international economic cooperation, on a fraternal basis, with various nations for various reasons. Furthermore, there is no reason that this might not be formalised. A good example here (perhaps) is the model of economic cooperation which is being developed amongst the leftist Latin American countries.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we shouldn't counterpose autarky to capitalist globalisation.

So, yeah, Vlad is right.

[Gletkin]

If the RF really are "anarchists" perhaps then they should serve as the "extra-parliamentary opposition (or support)"?
I don't see how the Socs are going to effectively run a govt. if the RF members are going to use their seats only as "soap boxes" but won't participate in lawmaking.
Isn't this what the CNT/FAI effectively did in Spain 70 years ago? More or less support the republic without actually running for office?

According to Ingliz's poll it seems so far that most RF members would decline accepting official positions of any kind anyway, choosing to be true anarchists rather than "minarchist socialists".
Would this mean a "division of labor" then? With "SN" (are you all sure you want to keep this name? That "Now" part just really bugs me. It smells of "left-wing infantilism".) providing the MPs and the RF mobilizing the "streets"?

[HoniSoit]

so far that most RF members would decline accepting official positions of any kind anyway

It's most unlikely we will remain in opposition.

We don't have any problem taking up shadow ministerial positions in order to articulate our demands.

[Vladimir]

That seems an interesting idea; although RF has accepted our platform and will take up some seats and positions, RF could also serve as the extrelegal factor, providing our simulation with strikes, riots, blockades, occupations, insurrections?