Can the workers ever be wrong?
- This topic has 184 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This article by friend Stuart (when he was a socialist) discusses one theory as to why workers put up with capitalism that has not been mentioned in the discussion so far: "dull compulsion"http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relationsThe original article by Conrad Lodziak in Radical Philosophy in 1988, on which it is partly based, is also relevant (though it doesn't seem to be easily available on the internet or interweb as YMS calls it).Here's the conclusion (of Stuart's article):
Quote:We in the Socialist Party are often accused by our opponents, and even sometimes by our supporters, of not having made any progress in our 100-year history. What the foregoing arguments should have made clear is that it is not within our power to make the kind of progress demanded of us. The working class generally is ideologically indifferent, and accepts capitalism because it must. The only thing that can disrupt this to the advantage of socialists is, says Lodziak, ‘effective oppositional practices inscribed with oppositional viewpoints’ – in other words, the development of the class struggle. We can contribute to the development of this struggle, and we do, but it is not within the power of a small party such as ours to determine its course. The failure of sufficiently large and powerful oppositions to arise is down not to a lack of energy or dedication on the part of socialists, nor the absence of a sufficiently clever socialist advertising campaign, but to the power of economic necessity and state coercion.SP,but I have provided the proof, several times, as well as clarifying what I was saying as compared with what you say I'm saying (which are different things). For instance, I never said religion is a neutral thing, but that some protestnt sectaries were the means by which groups of workers both organised and expressed themselves (and many protestenat conventicles were very anti-hierchical: Blake left the Swedenborgians at the first whiff of priestcraft, just look at the early quakers).Anyway, I was always thought that part of the justification for socialism was because we work: we don't have any property to use, we can't use force to expropriate the labour of otehrs, so when it comes down to it our labour is what will make us free. Our resentment to the capitalist class is that they don't work.And, just to try and get away from another misapprehension that's crept in: my basic point is that we should assume that when millions of workers vote Tory or Labour that they actually want the policies propounded by thoe parties. When they vote, they mean it. It's irrelevent whether they have heard our case or not.
YMS, in an earlier post, you said that workers "consciously" support Capitalism and that "they have rejected Socialism, or at least our case. Moreover, you say that millions have been exposed to our case and rejected that also. So how is it that now, you state, "When they vote, they mean it. It's irrelevent whether they have heard our case or not." Previously, as you have said, millions have heard our case. Is it a conscious rejection based on a definitive understanding of Socialism or not! Is it a rejection after the briefest perusal, or not!Do they vote "for" Capitalism on a conscious level, or not! Do they vote for Capitalism because, for many, "it is the only game in town"?You state "Our resentment to the capitalist class is that they don't work". "My" resentment to our masters is more than that. It is that, as a class, we do all of the tasks and contribute all of the production and distribution, our masters steal this, then have the temerity, not only to tell us we should be grateful for the crumbs of this, but that if it weren't for the "Master Class", we wouldn't even be able to do this. Moreover, they use members of the slave class, us, to enforce their rights to this and laws, that they have set in place to enshrine these rights, and their propaganda to convince the slave class, us, that this is right and properSo more than one bone of contention. 1/ The spurious assertion that somehow, the "work ethic", or the "dignity of labour", was an idea espoused by the slaves and is not an invention of the Master Class. (Not really Labour anyhow, merely employment).2/That workers have "rejected" our case for Socialism even though, apart from a brief perusal, not millions but thousands of workers only, have been exposed to and moreover consciously understood where and what we stand for.3/That workers "consciously" give their support for Capitalism, rather than that, the tacitly give this support, because they believe it is the "only game in town", and that they have been fed the belief, that they have a "choice", Capitalism, or what passes for Socialism, (in the un-conscious minds of the vast majority of workers, or indeed, an alchemistic mixture of the two.To my mind, it is the last, that is the most important to address. Nevertheless, the "Three" points above need addressing!!!
By the way, forgot to ask why would the working class lay claim to ownership of the idea of "The Work Ethic or "The Dignity of Labour", when the outcome of both, merely strengthens the chains with which workers are bound?
Sp, What I said originally was:
Quote:I think we need to take workers' opinions at face value. When asked, time and again they support capitalist parties, and capitalist ideas. When presented with the case for socialism, they reject it. That's why workers vote Tory, Libreral and Labour. Unless and until their lived experience accords with socialist understanding (and the need for socialist ideas) they will go on supporting capitalism.Most workers when presented with our ideas reject them. Simple empirical fact, we hand out leaflets and only the tiniest fraction ever come back and ask for more information. Annecdotally, I've addressed thousands of workers at Speaker's corner, and met with almost universal rejection. Empirically, workers vote for Capitalism, I know from my own experience that I only ever voted after consideration and with inent to vote for the party I meant to vote for. I'd need evidence that anyone else was voting with different behaviour. When given the chance to vote for socialism, they have not done so.Being a free workers meant you were better off than a slave, or an indentured or bonded worker, so the achievement of the status of wage workers was an advance for the working class. Selling our labour made us freer, or at least that's how it was often percieved, felt.
ALB wrote:This article by friend Stuart (when he was a socialist) discusses one theory as to why workers put up with capitalism that has not been mentioned in the discussion so far: "dull compulsion"http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relationsThe original article by Conrad Lodziak in Radical Philosophy in 1988, on which it is partly based, is also relevant (though it doesn't seem to be easily available on the internet or interweb as YMS calls it).Here's the conclusion (of Stuart's article):Quote:We in the Socialist Party are often accused by our opponents, and even sometimes by our supporters, of not having made any progress in our 100-year history. What the foregoing arguments should have made clear is that it is not within our power to make the kind of progress demanded of us. The working class generally is ideologically indifferent, and accepts capitalism because it must. The only thing that can disrupt this to the advantage of socialists is, says Lodziak, ‘effective oppositional practices inscribed with oppositional viewpoints’ – in other words, the development of the class struggle. We can contribute to the development of this struggle, and we do, but it is not within the power of a small party such as ours to determine its course. The failure of sufficiently large and powerful oppositions to arise is down not to a lack of energy or dedication on the part of socialists, nor the absence of a sufficiently clever socialist advertising campaign, but to the power of economic necessity and state coercion.Blaming economic necessity (whilst paying lip service to class struggle) is what Crump would call the economic determinism argument in the party. Economic determinism is the other side of the coin to utopianism. Both need jettisoning.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,but I have provided the proof, several times, as well as clarifying what I was saying as compared with what you say I'm saying (which are different things). For instance, I never said religion is a neutral thing, but that some protestnt sectaries were the means by which groups of workers both organised and expressed themselves (and many protestenat conventicles were very anti-hierchical: Blake left the Swedenborgians at the first whiff of priestcraft, just look at the early quakers).Anyway, I was always thought that part of the justification for socialism was because we work: we don't have any property to use, we can't use force to expropriate the labour of otehrs, so when it comes down to it our labour is what will make us free. Our resentment to the capitalist class is that they don't work.And, just to try and get away from another misapprehension that's crept in: my basic point is that we should assume that when millions of workers vote Tory or Labour that they actually want the policies propounded by thoe parties. When they vote, they mean it. It's irrelevent whether they have heard our case or not.YMSThe proof you have provided is not proof that the "work ethic" or whatever words are used, originated with our class or came from the workers, they are examples of it being adopted by workers.The origins of the "work ethic" come from a Christian religious intellectual response to economic and political changes going on as a new social economic structure was evolving around the 1500's. The Catholic church dominated medieval Europe including the ideas surrounding work. Top of the divine career pile was, shock horror, work that served God, in other words the institution of the Catholic church.Along came Martin Luther saying, amongst other religious things, that all work was equal in Gods plan, that monastical work had no special place in Gods plan and so officially sowing the intellectual seeds of revolt against the dominance of the Catholic church. John Calvin and others from the new Protestant movement continued the theme that saw the early capitalists and their investments as having equal value in the divine plan. A bit simplified of course but in essence the evolution of the "work ethic" was a religious response to the changing political and economic landscape.When I used the word "neutral" in relation to religion not being so, I was not implying you used the word. I simply meant what I said, that if it were neutral we socialists would not be bothered by it. Unfortunately it is a tool used to control minds to accept a hierarchical structured society, as Lord God Almighty and his (usualy a bloke) divine plan, scheme etc are key elements. So religion is used to discourage free thinking.As for work and socialism, work will once more become the simple necessity it once used to be seen as, with no moral or dignity value attached to it. When millions vote Tory or Labour they vote for the policies they hope will work best when it comes to governing the country. Do voters think, "I wonder if Labour will do a better job of managing capitalism come the next general election, than the current ConDem coalition"? Of course some are shrewd when it comes to voting for the likes of the Tories and hope to gain from the likes of tax cuts at others expense, but for most I think it boils down to reluctant acceptance of the status quo, rather than conscious endorsement of capitalism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Sp, What I said originally was:Quote:I think we need to take workers' opinions at face value. When asked, time and again they support capitalist parties, and capitalist ideas. When presented with the case for socialism, they reject it. That's why workers vote Tory, Libreral and Labour. Unless and until their lived experience accords with socialist understanding (and the need for socialist ideas) they will go on supporting capitalism.Most workers when presented with our ideas reject them. Simple empirical fact, we hand out leaflets and only the tiniest fraction ever come back and ask for more information. Annecdotally, I've addressed thousands of workers at Speaker's corner, and met with almost universal rejection. Empirically, workers vote for Capitalism, I know from my own experience that I only ever voted after consideration and with inent to vote for the party I meant to vote for. I'd need evidence that anyone else was voting with different behaviour. When given the chance to vote for socialism, they have not done so.Being a free workers meant you were better off than a slave, or an indentured or bonded worker, so the achievement of the status of wage workers was an advance for the working class. Selling our labour made us freer, or at least that's how it was often percieved, felt.
YMSAs valiant as it is, do you honestly think addressing people at Speakers Corner and handing out a few leaflets here and there are an equal match against the resources of the establishment?Before you were a socialist, when you voted did you think about who would do a better job of managing capitalism or "running the country"?How free were the workers in the "dark satanic mills"? How free, or more accurately, safe were/are workers during a recession?
SP,Actually in medieval times, if you look at the likes of Pier Ploughman there was a veneration of simple lay work as well, but people would take pride in their profession. Hence why giving work to God was important, it was giving an important thing up. You're right about the origins of the "protestant work ethic" but since that's not the thing under discussion, it's irrelevent (although to point out that at the time of Luther an artisan and a capitalist would have been socially idnistinguishable, so what would become the working class was there are part of the rise of protestantism). Of course, going back that far gives us a bias towards the people who wrote history of the time, we can't get oral accounts from the fourteenth century.Let me put this another, in your workplace, if someone wasn't pulling their weight, would you let them get away with it? We identify as the workign class, because we work. The skills, attitudes and value we need in order to work aren't just inflicted from without, we bring them to the table. When we get socialism work will not be a simple necessity, but a necessity for life, we'll look for work to do to enjoy ourselves and to create our freedom and use our energies. per Morris.Yes, our work isn't a match for the output of the ruling class, but it does provide us with (as I noted) annecodtal evidence of the workers rejecting our case when it presented to them (in detail). If they accept he statuis quo, however reluctantly, that is what they are voting for and what they intend to have. The point is, unlike Leninist, we don't claim to know what workers really want, or need, we tall them they are wrong to be be voting the way they are,a nd that they need to be taking responsibility for how they vote.
I doubt you can access this article: Work and LeisureKeith ThomasPast & Present, No. 29 (Dec., 1964), pp. 50-66Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present SocietyArticle Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/650161 (maybe get a public library to get a print copy for you). It more or less shows how we're both right and talking past different points.Interesting factoid:
Quote:In England it was, until the nineteenth century, not murder but petty treasonfor a servant to kill his employer, and their relationship at law did not become a fully contractualone until 1875YMSI had come to the conclusion that we both had valid points, depending upon what angle the issue was seen from. It's why I offered an olive branch a few posts back.I notice you haven't really answered my questions from my last post.
SocialistPunk wrote:YMSAs valiant as it is, do you honestly think addressing people at Speakers Corner and handing out a few leaflets here and there are an equal match against the resources of the establishment?Before you were a socialist, when you voted did you think about who would do a better job of managing capitalism or "running the country"?How free were the workers in the "dark satanic mills"? How free, or more accurately, safe were/are workers during a recession?Forget the last ones about the "satanic mills", I am fully aware that you do not think of those times as positive for anybody other than the owners.The first two are potentialy important. I know you are aware of the power the establishment has at its disposal. The power to influence peoples opinions and choices. It is the second question that is the key point. What do we vote for when we vote Lib, Lab or Con etc? Is it the management of a system, or the "running of the country"?
I've lifted this from another thread on this forum. It comes from someone from a local paper that Steve Colborn is debating with.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/thread-shields-gazette
Quote:I can manage to understand your concept, I'm just realistic about the rationality of it all – As stated previously, I agree with the principle and agree the world would be a better place; however I am also intelligent enough to realise that the one thing that would prevent it from ever happening is people.Rich or poor, people always want a little more.A classic case of someone who thinks they understand the concept of socialism, yet can't help but see it through the framework of the current socio-economic system, capitalism."It's a nice idea mate, but it'll never happen because people will always want more than their share. It's human nature mate."Could this foggy thinking be a result of the process of socialisation that has us trapped in a fatalistic outlook?Or is it evidence of concious rejection of our concept of socialism?
I'm not sure as to the answer to my own question. in post #177.On the one hand it looks as though such responses are conscious rejections of our concept of socialism.After all once you can get people to discuss the concept of money less, leaderless global socialism of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources, they will often respond with "It's a nice idea" or "I understand what you're getting at". That does seem to indicate understanding. Then more often than not you get the follow up "But it'll never work" or "It'll never happen, because people will always want more than they're willing to contribute". So the two together seem to indicate a conscious rejection of socialism, based on an understanding of what we advocate.What is it we in the WSM socialist tradition advocate. Common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources. A money less society, as money is obsolete once we own the worlds resources in common. A leaderless society, because we as a majority will own in common the worlds resources it is us who get to decide what to do with them, not a minority of politicians or capitalists. This kind of society requires us to actively participate in order to make it work, co-operating to achieve our goals of providing enough quality food, clothing, shelter, water, education, healthcare, transport and entertainment amongst many other things that go to make up quality of life for all human kind. We the workers must organise and carry out the enormous task of reorganising society to work for us all.Perhaps the most crucial element people need to grasp in order to understand socialism, that in order for socialism to come about we must make it happen ourselves. The majority of workers must want it and work to achieve it.So when people say "It's a nice idea but it'll never work" or "What about the fact people will always want more than they've fair share", is their rejection based on conscious understanding or something else?
SocialistPunk wrote:So when people say "It's a nice idea but it'll never work" or "What about the fact people will always want more than they've fair share", is their rejection based on conscious understanding or something else?It is an important point. The centre of the case for socialism is conscious self emancipation but when the man/woman in the street first hears our case they probably believe that such changes will be brought about in the same manner as changes with in capitalism. Not fully grasping that the majority will be actively involved in the changes and therefore unlikey to react negatively.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.