Can the workers ever be wrong?
- This topic has 184 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Lived experience is the whole of the human, mind and senses living their lives (and reaching for and creating a personal identity) it is act-ual being, and what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational, etc. All experience is culturally mediated. No one can introduce the lived experience, otehr than humans themselves in their daily lives. Ideas that doen't fit with the daily reproduction of life will be rejected.This comes back to the old debate about whetehr revolutions are for something new, or to save somethign old. What gives a greater impetus, people who have nothing wanting something, or people who have something striving to retain it? Whatever the answer to that one it (and I think the jury is still out) socialist ideas won't take until they necome necessary to complete the identity of individuals.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think we need to take workers' opinions at face value. When asked, time and again they support capital;ist 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. All we can do is make that coming to socialist consciousness a little easier, and mean that workers' don't have to re-invent the wheel each time.Missing the point YMS.How can anyone reject something they are not even aware of?Workers only vote time and time again for capitalist parties because that is all that is on offer, or so it appears for most of the time. Most people don't even fully realise the extent of capitalism.There is a lot of discontent out there, but that does not mean our brand of socialism is known. So people look to the traditional left and right of politics with its claim to the alternative.Take the last European elections and the SPgb election broadcast in Wales. It has probably helped to boost awareness among people more open to alternative ideas, but to break through the enforced political disinterest of the majority of workers it takes repeated performances and contact. No socialist is made overnight.To insist on the claim that workers vote for capitalism and reject socialism requires evidence of such behaviour. It means that proof must be demonstrated that workers are just as aware of both ideologies.
SP,I think that under estimates the amouint of thought people put into supporting capitalism, and for most people it is a lot. Hours upon hours are spent arguing in the pub, watching telly, reading leaflets (including ours). If they don't read very far that is because they reject our idea tout court. much in the same way I'm not going to waste my time on the writings of The Campaign to restore Feudalism, or any such.I'm afraid you have to wake up to the fact that millions of workers have read our propaganda, heard our message, and rejected it. Even if they have not specifically read our literature, they are aware of the critiques of the market, and usually reject them and accept market ideas.
YMS wrote:Lived experience is the whole of the human, mind and senses …[my bold]So, why call this philosophy 'materialism', when it contains 'ideas', too?Unless we stop calling our philosophy 'materialism' (which makes workers think that it's just about the 'material', or 'matter' or the 'physical'), then we ignore Marx's whole point in the Theses.That is, 'ideas' and 'material' are both as equally important in the method of 'theory and practice'.It's clear that many here, members of the SPGB, also subscribe to 'materialism', in the sense of 'matter' being 'basic'. This is a travesty of Marx's position, and issues from Engels.It's only when Socialists/Communists openly say that we're 'idealist-materialists' (or whatever phrase also reflects this reality to our philosophy) that we'll make any progress.Mind is as basic as matter. They are a unity. Dietzgen is good on this particular issue, and he uses 'dialectical' as a synonym of 'ideal'. That is, 'talking through', using our consciousness, which is what 'dialego' means in Greek.This is all a long way from 'matter' determining 'experience' and 'ideas'.We have to plan to change things, first. Things changing don't produce plans. That is passivity, and denies the 'active side' of humans, contrary to Marx's view.
LBird, matter was here before mind, including the need to keep a human brain runnign before it can do any thinking. No matter what the logic of a position, deeprive a brain of oxygen or proteins for a sustained period, it'll styart producing poor ideas. hat need ultimately comes down to the exterior world and any set of ideas we posses must be consistent with our ability to go on providing our brains with oxygen and proteins.
LBird wrote:I've just chosen to focus on the dangers of 'Leninism', rather than 'spontaneism', because I think the former is the one being espoused by some here, with talk of elites, experts, academics, etc. in science.Actually, the traditional SPGB position (or one SPGB tradition) has more in common with "spontaneism" than Leninism. Early Party members considered socialism to be inevitable. It's rather more difficult for us, over a century later, to maintain this view (it also explains why the view that socialism is a moral as well as a class view has surfaced).Eve so, we do in fact hold that capitalism "spontaneously" throws up socialist ideas in the sense that it does so even if we had never existed (though I don't like the word "spontaneous" in relation to human ideas since none are; all have to be conscious and spread by argument, even Lenin's "trade union consciousness" is not "spontaneous"). Our argument here is that what we, as an organised group propagating socialist ideas, are doing is not creating socialist consciousness but merely speeding up its spread and, as YMS says, avoiding workers having to re-invent the wheel.So, accuse us of "spontaneism" if you want but not Leninism !
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,I think that under estimates the amouint of thought people put into supporting capitalism, and for most people it is a lot. Hours upon hours are spent arguing in the pub, watching telly, reading leaflets (including ours). If they don't read very far that is because they reject our idea tout court. much in the same way I'm not going to waste my time on the writings of The Campaign to restore Feudalism, or any such.I'm afraid you have to wake up to the fact that millions of workers have read our propaganda, heard our message, and rejected it. Even if they have not specifically read our literature, they are aware of the critiques of the market, and usually reject them and accept market ideas.When I was in a position to go down the pub, and I frequented a few over the years in diferent parts of the North East, I never once overheard people discussing socialist politics, unless I missed the hushed whispers here and there. Plenty of Labour vs Tory and I expect theses days UKIP will be a favourite with some, along with the usual foottball, soap operas and celeb bollocks, but definately no SPGB style socialism.You have no proof that millions of people have heard and understood the socialism we discuss on this site, enough to conciously reject it.On another thread Alan proposed a way of finding out how well known the SPGB are in Britain. a poll of some description, whether conducted by the Party or the services of a polling company. That would be more proof than anecdotal statements, such as, "I'm afraid you have to wake up to the fact that millions of workers have read our propaganda…..and rejected it."I'm not underestimating the "workers", far from it. I'm simply pointing out that the socialism we mean is so far removed from the realm of mainstream thinking and acceptability, of the constant indoctrination we are exposed to from the moment we are born, that it takes a lot of study and Q n A sessions to be able to break down those barriers. Like I said socialists aren't created overnight.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,matter was here before mind, including the need to keep a human brain runnign before it can do any thinking. No matter what the logic of a position, deeprive a brain of oxygen or proteins for a sustained period, it'll styart producing poor ideas. hat need ultimately comes down to the exterior world and any set of ideas we posses must be consistent with our ability to go on providing our brains with oxygen and proteins.This, once again, proves that YMS is not reading what I write, and neither are the other 'materialists'.No-one is arguing that 'matter' wasn't here before 'mind'.But that is a historical question.As I've said before, many times, our problem is not an issue of 'which came first', upon which historical answer we all agree, but the problem of, once it emerges after matter, how consciousness knows what matter 'is'.I know that in a month's time, YMS or some other materialist will say this again, as they do regularly, and accuse those who accept Marx's 'theory and practice' of saying 'mind came first' or 'matter emerges from mind' or some other nonsense. It doesn't matter how many times I say rocks were around before consciousness, I'll be accused of saying the opposite, again, sooner or later.The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.Unless you and the other materialists address this question, you'll remain sidelined by any worker, like me, who can read, not only Marx, Engels, Dietzgen and Lenin, but also modern philosophers of science, who seem to take Marx's side in these debates.Your separation of 'mind' and 'matter' is pre-Theses, and returns to the ancient debate about 'being' and 'consciousness', of 'idealism' versus 'materialism'.Marx tried to put this to bed with his claim that both ideas and material are interlinked, through human practice, by the application of human ideas to their real, external world, with the active aim of changing it.If only the 'materialists' would read Marx. They'd soon see how he differs from Engels.But, they haven't read Engels, either, so they wouldn't know.The reason 'materialism' is a religion is that, not only won't its adherents have a word said against it, and argue that 'it says 'materialism' in their bible', but when they're asked, they admit that they haven't actually read their bible, but have been assured by others that it is the case.We're back to taking the stance of the Young Hegelians, and arguing against Christianity, by exegesis of the Christian texts.Except that 'Christianity' is 'Materialism', and we're nearly two hundred years later, having surpassed the Y.H. due to Marx's criticisms that they didn't go far enough.You couldn't make this up – and we pretend to be capable of offering advice to workers, and the problem is that they won't listen?My advice to workers, quite frankly, is not to listen to this nonsense about 'materialism'.
Quote:I believe the Japanese pure communists were distinctive in their actual views, they took on board ideas received from abroad, but they wouldn't have listened to them (or adapted them) if they didn't fit with their needs and their apprehensions of their cconditions.Fraid you'll have to educate me on the topic of Japanese pure communist movement with a link or two. I confess ignorance about them.
Quote:I'm afraid you have to wake up to the fact that millions of workers have read our propaganda, heard our message, and rejected it. Even if they have not specifically read our literature, they are aware of the critiques of the market, and usually reject them and accept market ideas.Millions? …i'm not a maths person but taking each months circulation of the Standard as 10,000 over a hundred years and we may reach a million but of course they are not all new readers, are they?..Add to this public meetings …say 75 yrs of them twice a week with an audience of 100…or even a 1000…still hard stretched to get millions hearing the message. Of course i do accept for all accounts we were punching above our weight.But even so to say most workers are aware of rational constructive critiques of the market is also pushing the mark.I agree our alternative vision is rejected but because of the dominance of other narratives…blame the migrants…blame Bill Gates…Part of the socialist task is to ensure that our version of reality and the truth is clearly heard and it isn't…we are out-shouted by a myriad of other influences on workers' thoughts, some hostile to socialism, some misrepresenting socialism, some offering different paths to socialism.
LBird wrote:The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.That sounds good as that's not what we are discussing here as there's another long-running thread on this which (just checked) has 233 new messages unread by me on it since I stopped following it a few weeks ago.
LBird,pardon me, but whn did I separate matter and mind? I've said that mind is made of the sam stuff as the rocks, and is material and part of necessity (and is thus not some pale reflection or spearate stuff that mirrors or copies the real world, but is in fact the real world itself). I was merely pointing out, again,why I don't use the term Fishism-Sodiumism like you do (or whatever it is you say, i forget). I just use spoonism because at the very least it suggestion of rejection an anthropocentric univers and reflects the fact that there is only blancmange.
SP,we have the evidence that millions have received our leaflets, seen our adverts, etc. They may not have read deeply, but that would only be indicative of their rejections from the get go. Their ideas are well developed, and we have to respect that decision, rather than assuming 'Ah, but if they only heard what we have to tell them!' Indeed, they often have quite complex and well developed political ideas. yes, they are misinformed, and subject to a bombardment of propaganda, but they are not brainwashed or conmpletely subsumed by ideology, as the Leniniss would have us believe. Our working assumption has to be that they are rational agents, who can run their own lives, and see working within the system as it is as their best option.
ALB wrote:Eve so, we do in fact hold that capitalism "spontaneously" throws up socialist ideas in the sense that it does so even if we had never existed (though I don't like the word "spontaneous" in relation to human ideas since none are; all have to be conscious and spread by argument, even Lenin's "trade union consciousness" is not "spontaneous"). Our argument here is that what we, as an organised group propagating socialist ideas, are doing is not creating socialist consciousness but merely speeding up its spread and, as YMS says, avoiding workers having to re-invent the wheel.I'm sure you'll take this comment as a tribute, but that passage reads like Marx!I could conclude from it that the SPGB is 'spontaneist' and also that the SPGB is not 'spontaneist'.It only takes the claim that this is precisely the case, and shows my ability to have 'dialectical consciousness', to go the whole Engelsian hog.I'll be clearer, perhaps.There is no 'spontaneous' consciousness which emerges from capitalism.If workers don't start to think critically for themselves, and then seek out whatever explanations are available, and then choose the one that Communists/ Socialists offer, then 'socialist consciousness' will never emerge, neither sooner nor later.That's why I am at least consistent. I think that the educational and propaganda role of worker-communists amongst their own class is inescapable.We workers are the ones creating a socialist consciousness.And whilst the materialists keep insisting that the 'material conditions' will do this for us, they can blame workers for not listening to their conditions, rather than blame us for not explaining clearly.Which takes us back to your masterful text…
YMS wrote:LBird,pardon me, but whn did I separate matter and mind?When you call your philosophy 'materialism', instead of the more accurate 'idealism-materialism'.But, I've told you this before. You don't read.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The rest of your post, YMS, is nothing to do with the epistemological question of 'knowledge'.That sounds good as that's not what we are discussing here as there's another long-running thread on this which (just checked) has 233 new messages unread by me on it since I stopped following it a few weeks ago.
You keep ignoring that which you apparently can't argue with, ALB.We are discussing 'epistemology'. You just wish we weren't, because you can't answer a simply question.Why do you call yourself a 'materialist'?When I point out that you don't subscribe to 'materialism', but 'idealism-materialism', as did Marx, you pretend not to understand the question, and revert to poo-pooing what I'm saying and asking.I've proved my case beyond doubt, with quotes from all the authorities and commentators, but you're sticking to your religion, aren't you?Even Dietzgen, whom you yourself quote, agrees with me. He doesn't call himself a 'materialist', does he? He prefixes the term 'materialism' with a synonym for 'idealism'. He has no time for 'physicalism', does he?No, you carry on leaving messages unread, stop following any critical thoughts, and sleep soundly once more with your religion of 'materialism'.Isn't there anyone in the SPGB, even currently offline, who could be persuaded to enter the debate? For all I know, perhaps the majority offline agree with me!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.