Can the workers ever be wrong?
- This topic has 184 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
YMSI am in no way undermining the political sophistication of our class, I have never said anything to that effect. I know we are capable of thinking beyond the limitations of the ruling class ideology. No two people have the same experiences in life, and so some end up "thinking outside the box" in all manner of ways including political thought. Despite this, ruling ideology is still supremely dominant in terms of how we organise society.My point is the examples you use such as the "work ethic" do not originate from our class for the benefit of our class, as you stated several of posts back and still seem so keen on clinging to. That those ideas are then adopted as "common sense" (that you yourself have stated is ideology and so minority dominance) by our class is proof of the effectiveness of the minority ruling class in controlling our education the majority of the time. (It was to counter the ruling minority control of education as to why the early SPGB socialists thought a socialist education so important to our class.) It is this "common sense" that sees our class seemingly accept overwhelmingly the idea that the way it is now is the way it's always been.My original point was that how can anyone make a deliberate, fully informed choice when it comes to supporting or rejecting a concept without being fully informed? In response, you stated that millions of workers were aware of socialism as we here define it, so suggesting millions had conciously rejected socialism in favour of capitalism. Now you accept that various revolutions most notably the Russian so called communist/socialist revolution, has clouded the view our class has of socialism. But how can our class reject socialism on those grounds when they have made concious decisions based on awareness of what the SPgb has to say? I suspect your suggesting I'm down playing the ability of our class in the field of politics is an attempt to distract attention from your muddled posts.
I stand by the claim that many workers have heard and rejected our case, and that they stand consciously by capitalism, that can be seen in any conversation with even the mosts eemingly politically illiterate worker, in my experience. For now, they have something that works (for them) even when our case is explained, they have the examples of failed revolutions in their mind as real examples against our hypothetical (and different) model.The work ethic was very much developed by our class and is part of the way the working class built capitalism. Yes, it has historic roots with the apprentices in the guilds which were (late middle ages) part of the wider bourgeois coalition. If it didn't work for us, it wouldn't have such a hold. We have use of it too. The working class fought hard to create the wages system, for fair markets, to build capitalism, because that freed us. We need workplace discipline, because that's the only way our workplaces can function.Tehre's no muddle here. the working class could have socalism if it wanted, and has chosen not to.
"I stand by the claim that many workers have heard and rejected our case, and that they stand consciously by capitalism,". I'm afraid my experience is diametrically opposed to the above statement. Not only do I not see a case for saying "many workers have heard and rejected our case," it is quite the reverse! "It seems like a good idea but it will never work", is about the most charitable statement giving conditional support for our case, then putting the boot in, in the next breath! Conversely, the rejection of the Socialist case is not exactly on the intellectual level. That's an insane idea. It will never work, it goes against "human nature"!A brief perusal of the case for Socialism, is the most that can be given to the claim of the, "heard and rejecting our case". The vast majority of our class never having "heard the case", more apposite.As for the claim our fellow workers "stand consciously by capitalism", as in the case above, this is simply not true. To consciously stand by capitalism, gives voice to the claim that workers are aware of the intricacies of the same and in the overwhelming contact with my class, the exact opposite is the case. Statements such as "it's always been this way" point the way to the level of understanding of "Joe Public". Don't even bother trying to talk of production for profit, variable and constant capital, where rent interest and profit are derived from. Or, more importantly, their position in society!I stand by and agree with SP's claim of workers being "conditioned" by our masters, through the use of the total propaganda machine within Capitalism. Which is not to say that workers cannot throw off Capitalisms "straight jacket", members and sympathisers of the Party are proof of this, at least!
Quote:A brief perusal of the case for Socialism, is the most that can be given to the claim of the, "heard and rejecting our case".And most people stop there. they have no need to read on, they reject at that point. In discussion, though, they do put forward sophisticated understandings of how markets work, they might not have a deep knowledged of collatoralised default swaps or futures trading, but then, neither do most economists. We're getting close to "No True Scotsman" Fallacies here.If the workers are 'conditioned' we are doomed, and the only alternative is Leninist style leqadership to break the chains. We should be wary of the siren voices of the 'What if I told you…' Matrix memes. the workers are Sheeple. If the working class makes itself, and capitalism, then it has the power to transform itself and capitalism. The capitalist class are like the villagers tryign to placate a volcan, they're not in charge, their just riding their luck.
By the way, forgot to mention, it was 18th/19th century Protestantism where the idea of "work ethic" comes into being. An idea imposed upon, rather than developed by and within "our" class.It is an idea touted in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism amongst others and is no more believable for being set in print.
Erm, the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than is does to Marxism: Methodism, and non-conformist low protestantism (which developed from the late seventeenth century onwards) was very much part and parcel of the working class freeing itself from Anglican domination, especially the aspirant skilled working class. It wasn't imposed, and its imposition couldn't have been welcomed if the working class had no usef for such ideas anyway.
YMSIf our class is aware of socialism as we define it and therefore aware that other socialisms are distortions of the actual true concept of socialism, then how can we as a class reject socialism on the grounds that it has been tried and failed?There is also the vague often untangible notion that socialism is about social fairness. It so often leads people to call for redistribution of wealth via the tax system, as personified with the old school Labour Party, in Britain.So with those two ideas still being the dominant notions of socialism, I reject your claim of millions of our class being aware of socialism, as we here define it. So your last statement about our class choosing to reject socialism is, sadly flawed.When you say our class developed the "work ethic", do you mean that it was conceived by our class or adopted? As I came to see it, the "work ethic" was conceived as a religious, moral value system, hence "work ethic", to encourage our class to accept the horrendous changes in working conditions occuring during the process of industrial change, as capitalism emerged as the dominant socio economic system.If I've been wrong all these years, then I'm happy to ditch my socialist education in favour of another theory, but understandably I'm gonna need a bit of proof. There is something I find rather odd when you say we built capitalism etc, because it freed us. I'm damn sure when our class suffered and died in the mills and factories, I don't think they were thinking it was for freedom. It was out of pure degrading financial necessity.
SP,I've already given one example, teh Durham miners, at the turn of the nineteenth century, were bonded labour. They couldn't leave their jobs. they fought to introduce the wages system and market pay. Later the National Union of Miners fought for the check-weigh-men to implement peice rates and hold the employers to account. The working class struggled and devloped the wages system, and for many being a skilled workers was a step up from being a poor farm labourer. Yes, there were industrial horrors, but for some of the the wages system was the remedy.As has been pointed out the main response is 'it sounds lovely, but it'll never work', at a basic level capitalism does work for the majority of workers. For many it doesn't, but it's proved adaptive to them.
YMSI still need proof of the "work ethic"being a concept of our class and not as my socialist education taught me, before I ditch it. If shown the error of my thinking I will amend it accordingly.On the position of our class developing ideas and fighting to improve conditions, I have no disagreement. But the examples you give are still fixed in a conservative viewpoint of how society functions. Us at the bottom and our betters at the top. It's a lot more complex than that, but in essence for most people that is how the world works and always has. That is the socialsation that is the most pervasive. It is why our definition of socialism is so alien and difficult to grasp.Difficult yes, not impossible.
SocialistPunk wrote:I still need proof of the "work ethic"being a concept of our class and not as my socialist education taught me, before I ditch it. If shown the error of my thinking I will amend it accordingly.If you're feeling brave try reading EP Thompson "The Making of the English Working Class" or something like that…
But the wages system precisely does away with betters, "never say thank you for a paycheck" means there is no gratitude to the employer, but money paid for work done well. The independent workers is freed from subservience and looks the employer in the eye and says 'How much?'.We can look to sport, the gentlemen versus players. For the middle class, they venerated the gentlemen, seeing professionalism as being subservient to the aristocracy (17th Century squires kept farm hands who were professional cricketers to play for them and back up their gambling), being a gentleman amateur meant playing the game for itself. For the working class sportsmen being paid for a job well done was a necessity and also a point of pride: just look at today how amateur is a universal perjorative, wheras professional is a positive term.For the work ethic, ask: who were the quakers, the protestants, the dissenters? Why were so many weavers of that disposition?
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I still need proof of the "work ethic"being a concept of our class and not as my socialist education taught me, before I ditch it. If shown the error of my thinking I will amend it accordingly.If you're feeling brave try reading EP Thompson "The Making of the English Working Class" or something like that…
Thanks DJP,As I'm not the one claiming our class conceived the "work ethic", it's up to YMS to present the evidence. But I'll log it in my books to read list.
SocialistPunk wrote:As I'm not the one claiming our class conceived the "work ethic", it's up to YMS to present the evidence. But I'll log it in my books to read list.FWIW no-one's obliged to spoon feed you. If you really are interested in these things you should take the time to learn about it yourself. The origins of capitalism where not some kind of clever con trick inserted by a clever elite from the outside but the result of a process of which the to-be working class did play an active role….
Young Master Smeet wrote:But the wages system precisely does away with betters, "never say thank you for a paycheck" means there is no gratitude to the employer, but money paid for work done well. The independent workers is freed from subservience and looks the employer in the eye and says 'How much?'.We can look to sport, the gentlemen versus players. For the middle class, they venerated the gentlemen, seeing professionalism as being subservient to the aristocracy (17th Century squires kept farm hands who were professional cricketers to play for them and back up their gambling), being a gentleman amateur meant playing the game for itself. For the working class sportsmen being paid for a job well done was a necessity and also a point of pride: just look at today how amateur is a universal perjorative, wheras professional is a positive term.For the work ethic, ask: who were the quakers, the protestants, the dissenters? Why were so many weavers of that disposition?YMSI want to get back to our original discussion about the millions of our class conciously rejecting socialism in favour of capitalism, as I think we are both taking opposite stances whereas I think the truth lies somewhere in between. But first we need to resolve this "work ethic" issue.I got my socialist education, firstly from the Socialist Standard and a few pamphlets, discussing things with my dad from his encounters with the SPGB. Then when I joined via the North East branch in the late 1990's. During that time I came across the idea of the "work ethic" and the socialist view that it's origins lay in the early industrialisation of capitalism. A religious, moral value system emerged that excused the worst exploitation of workers, while justifying the wealth of the owners in some divine work inspired "know thy place"scheme.The question then becomes, did the workers in those "dark satanic mills" conceive such a notion as to placate themselves?That many religious minded workers adopted and ran with it, is no surprise, and presenting anecdotes and proverbs does not amount to proof that it was our class that conceived the religious justification for their exploitation.
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:As I'm not the one claiming our class conceived the "work ethic", it's up to YMS to present the evidence. But I'll log it in my books to read list.FWIW no-one's obliged to spoon feed you. If you really are interested in these things you should take the time to learn about it yourself. The origins of capitalism where not some kind of clever con trick inserted by a clever elite from the outside but the result of a process of which the to-be working class did play an active role….
No way DJP, honestly! There I was thinking the capitalist "machine" was a giant robot from outer space, that enslaved human kind and chose a few to play the role of prison guards, while we all meekly bowed our heads in obedience. [sarcasm]I'll say it again just in case you don't get it. I didn't make the assertion that we as a class, conceived the notion of the "work ethic".Am I now the one who must read a dull book to prove or disprove what someone else is asserting?
DJP wrote:If you're feeling brave try reading EP Thompson "The Making of the English Working Class" or something like that…It sounds like a rivetting read. I'll go off and find myself a copy, spend an age dragging through it and then write up a report for the class and…. Whatever happened to the idea of sharing knowledge. We can't all read every book, nor want to. If there is something definitive in that book or any other book, that proves beyond doubt that the "work ethic" was conceived by our class then a few quotes would work wonders in educating this forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.