Can the workers ever be wrong?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, why not just say, in answer to the thread title, that you know 'workers can be wrong', because the 'material conditions' told you so?

I'd rather say they can be wrong when they act against their class interest.

Right, so workers can be 'wrong', with reference to their 'class interest', which is 'right'. I can follow what you're saying.So, who (or what) determines workers' 'class interest'?Surely, if we're democratic Socialists/Communists, only the working class can determine its 'class interest'?The only other answers I can think of is 'reality' determines or an 'elite' determines.If your answer is 'reality', how do you know what 'reality says'?This issue is at the heart of the thread title.To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.From my own experience of dealing with 'revolutionary' groups of a number of shades, they haven't explained anything properly to me as a worker, and on the subjects that I've chosen to dig deeper, to try to get to an answer not forthcoming from 'revolutionaries', I've found those groups to be in the wrong, regarding any 'interests' of the working class.Thus, workers can't be 'wrong'. If 'right' and 'wrong' have any social and political meaning.I'd rather that 'revolutionaries', who disagree with me, were open, and said that 'they know better' than workers. And both parties can keep going their separate ways, as they have been since the late 19th century.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

But how do you convey the ideas without the wording? By using telepathy, or making animal noises? Morse Code or semaphore? What have you all been doing (some of you, evidently, not very well) on this forum? I can only assume, then, that in your dialogues with other workers about socialism, you use the same wording as the SPGB does. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong necessarily, but I want to know what you actually say to other workers that is different.Examples, please, outside of this forum? You can find lots of SPGB ones on this website – let's see yours.

Have a look at either LibCom (from which I'm banned; Anarchists? ) or the ICC forum (from which, to their great credit, given some sharp exchanges, I'm not). I posted under the same name as here.You'll find many of the same arguments, and the same responses.I had greater hopes of the SPGB (not individualist Anarchists or some form of Leninists), but I found the same 'materialist' responses. The so-called 'revolutionaries' are 'religious fanatics', as far as I can tell from the furiosity of responses to my 'heretical' questions, and the working class is well-advised to steer clear of them, as far as I can see. Most workers don't need my advice, though. They join, try their best, are disappointed, and leave. My experience of the SWP, and of many other friends of Militant, Workers' Power, RCP, WRP, etc., etc.Yeah, they all quote "workers' interests" as their abiding concern.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm very happy to  declare i personally know more than many workers and a lot less than other workers. Politically i am more aware and more active than many other workers, not in simply promoting another social system but engaging in the present one via trade unionism (or i did before i retired but i didn't retire from the world, only work). And often my concern is my own personal interests. It is that they overlap with other's personal interests and become group interest, identified by certain common traits, and so they become class interests.Some will be curious why i have frequently posted on migrants, asylum seekers, immigration and nationalism on the blogs i contribute to. Easily asnwered. They effect me one way or another directly personally. I share common cause with other victims of visa law and border controls. They have become collective concerns for me and others …workers' interests. And again i plead guilty to having a fuller awareness of the position than many other workers who claim to know better than me and declare they are anti-immigrant, anti-migrant, anti-refugee, and want Fortress Britain,  or if they are "really" progressive…Fortress Europe. Does it make me arrogant or elitist to challenge the majority view and try to educate (persuade) them they are indeed wrong-minded?Too often material conditions are raised as objection to a freer mobility of peoples..over-supply of workers, more competition for employment – less wages, less benefits and worsening contracts. Often these are mistaken criticisms but even when true, there are other material conditions of greater import…solidarity against our rulers, irrespective of our own nationality or the employer's. Pannekoek writes about this concerning a Belgium sympathy strike somewhere or other …we sometimes sacrifice short-term personal gain for a more fundamental and powerful purpose but we all can recall the remarks of many co-workers during the 80s miners strike when it was suggested other industries come out in support of them…as the miners themselves (and my own union branch) did to show support for the nurses. We have to win a battle of ideas and Rod raises the point that i ahve done …how do we transform this knowledge into actual practice. I posted on another thread an articl by Mickey Z specifically because he tries to address the question…what is the use of awareness/consciousness/theory…without action to actually apply it practically.You already should have seen that this is a question we in the SPGB debate and discuss and many argue we still have not the answer and have proposed trying a different approach…but which is not too radical a change,  granted…we do consider that we have a communication problem in conveying our vision and aspirations to fellow workers. Rod asks..have you had any more success….i think we know what your reply would be…Neither you or ourselves are shepherds looking for lost sheep to acquire a flock to lead…we all agree on the basic premise…workers themselves need to liberate themselves…How they will? That is the Holy Grail we seek because our future party function and our structure is determined by that question. Today all i can advise is a very impotent – "we just have to wait and see"…and keep on hoping we might be right and the vast majority workers are currently wrong. YMS puts it on this thread…at least what we do isn't going to constitute any great or lasting damage to the workers/socialist movement, if we are wrong. The legacy left by the Leninists cannot make that same claimThat is my political position, as i express it today…tomorrow is another day and my personal interests will have shifted and so will reflect my workers class interests differently or with a a different emphasis. Whats that Buddhist saying …we are never standing in the same river as it changes as it flows pass us…or some thing like that…  

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,erm. I'm sorry, I'm lost now.  I explained:Idealism: [object] is in your mind.Materialism: [object] is outside your mind.Historical Materialism: [Object] is your mind.How's about that?  Like a line drawn first into the shape of, say, a man, and then a house, and then a cat.  One continuous line.  It's the same line manifesting as several different things.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.

That's what I understood your position to be. It leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the working class is right to support capitalism because, well, they do support capitalism and that we socialists are wrong to oppose it. The real is rational, as an empiricist might put it.There must be something wrong with a line of argument that leads to such a conclusion. I think it's probably got to do with the definition of the word "wrong" that you are using. It's like the answer to the old philosophy question "Can Someone Want to do Wrong?"  by saying "No, because what someone wants is always right (by definition)".  Or, answering "Can the Workers Do Wrong?" by "No, because what the workers want cannot be wrong (by definition)".

LBird wrote:

We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.

I don't know about the last bit, but if you are reluctant to tell workers they are wrong to support capitalism how do you approach them as a minority? (In fact, what right have you got to try to get them to change their mind?) Do you approach them saying; "Fellow Workers, you are right to support capitalism, but I don't think you should. I'm not saying you're wrong (I wouldn't dare) but …" But what?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,erm. I'm sorry, I'm lost now.  I explained:Idealism: [object] is in your mind.Materialism: [object] is outside your mind.Historical Materialism: [Object] is your mind.How's about that?  Like a line drawn first into the shape of, say, a man, and then a house, and then a cat.  One continuous line.  It's the same line manifesting as several different things.

YMS, see the same question that I posed to you in my last two posts in reply to you.Sigh.

[Young Master Smeet]

AFAICS I've answered it.  Maybe you're asking the wrong question?  Anyway, of course, the point is that the line isn't static, it's being drawn (or maybe it's carved out like canals with water flowing through it); or better still, the line is an animation, and changes subtley each time its drawn.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

To clarify, so that you know my position on this question, and that I'm not trying to 'trick' you in some way, my answer is:I'm a Democratic Communist, and only the working class can determine whether it is right or wrong.To me, any other answer produces the problem of how I know 'their interests', when they don't.If the working class' opinion differs from mine, I'm in the wrong.

That's what I understood your position to be. It leads to the rather absurd conclusion that the working class is right to support capitalism because, well, they do support capitalism and that we socialists are wrong to oppose it.

That's right, after a vote a minority is always the one in the wrong. That doesn't stop them arguing their case.

ALB wrote:

There must be something wrong with a line of argument that leads to such a conclusion. I think it's probably got to do with the definition of the word "wrong" that you are using. It's like the answer to the old philosophy question "Can Someone Want to do Wrong?"  by saying "No, because what someone wants is always right (by definition)".  Or, answering "Can the Workers Do Wrong?" by "No, because what the workers want cannot be wrong (by definition)".

Well, we're taking about politics here, aren't we? I'm clearly happy to state that I consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be social positions, and any Communist/Socialist movement true to its word about "workers' interests" will attempt to build towards a revolution with that view to the fore. That is, workers are always right.Of course, they won't get a chance to impose their views about 'right' or 'wrong' until they've conquered power, but we must make this stance clear from the start. Otherwise, the movement will harbour some elitists who don't really believe in the notion of "workers' power", and really believe that it is only a slogan, and that they as an elite will make decisions. I personally think this should be made very clear to 'scientists', so that they don't think they are supporting a political movement that thinks that a minority will make any decisions, outside of the control of the working class. Any decisions made by delegates, having been given a mandate to make a  particular decision, will always be subject to revision by democratic bodies. 'Truth', along with 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-produced meanings, and must be subject to collective controls.

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

We can work to change its opinion, as we clearly try to do, but we have no special insights not available to other workers. If we hold a minority opinion, it's our fault for not explaining ourselves.

I don't know about the last bit, but if you are reluctant to tell workers they are wrong to support capitalism how do you approach them as a minority? (In fact, what right have you got to try to get them to change their mind?) Do you approach them saying; "Fellow Workers, you are right to support capitalism, but I don't think you should. I'm not saying you're wrong (I wouldn't dare) but …" But what?

I'd approach workers, just like I approach the SPGB, and say, 'You're wrong to follow the ideology of materialism' (for example). I have the same 'right' as any other dissenting opinion in a democratic movement. No-one has to listen to a word I say (and mostly they don't).In a socialist society, if humanity votes for 'materialism', then 'materialism' will be the 'right' epistemology. And by that act they will have abolished their own power to control the production of knowledge, and will have handed it over to the 'special elite' to whom 'matter' apparently talks to.I'll just be constantly pissed.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

AFAICS I've answered it.  Maybe you're asking the wrong question? 

I had to chuckle, YMS.Yeah, 'what is epistemology?' is the wrong question.

[LBird]

I'm surprised that you've got involved in this train crash, Vin.I suppose you also want to enlighten us as to your 'epistemology', too?Where would the SPGB be, without its great theorists?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'd approach workers, just like I approach the SPGB, and say, 'You're wrong to follow the ideology of materialism' (for example).

That make sense. That's what I'd do, but how can you, with your position, tell workers they are wrong to follow some set of ideas if a majority support them? Or is there a difference between  saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?And, on your logic, if a majority of Party members did support it (which they don't) wouldn't they be right as far as the Party is concerned?Your position is full of contradictions.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

And that's YMS's final explanation of the three viewpoints of epistomology that we've been discussing.Well, alanjjohnstone, now you can compare my explanation with YMS's explanation, and decide for yourself which helps to orientate yourself better to the three epistemological positions of 'idealism', 'materialism' and 'idealism-materialism'.Thanks for your immense help, YMS. How alan has remained in the SPGB all these years without grasping the basics of epistemology will remain a mystery, when there are like comrades like you to help explain.

[Anonymous]

Or as Father Ted tried to explain to Dougle;  this is incorrect:    

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That make sense. That's what I'd do, but how can you, with your position, tell workers they are wrong to follow some set of ideas if a majority support them?

My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?

ALB wrote:

Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?

The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.The role of any scientist in a democratic society would be to persuade. If they can't, they can throw a strop, insist that the 'material conditions' speak only to them and not the masses, and that the 'real truth is A', but their failure to explain themselves will be decisive. There will be no 'expert minorities' claiming 'special insight to reality' because of their 'neutral method' which is denied to the rest of society, who will determine the contents of our books. Humanity will democratically control its production of knowledge.So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?

I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic, because it says that there cannot be a vote on 'what reality is', because the materialists have a special method which tells them 'what reality is' which the majority cannot employ. Apparently, they claim that 'reality speak to them alone' (this was the claim of 19th century science) and this claim puts 'knowledge of reality' in the hands of 'scientists', and not society.So I'd advise workers not to follow that view, because those who hold that view will not allow workers' democracy to decide 'what reality is'. Thus, it is self-defeating for anyone who wishes to see 'workers' power'.

ALB wrote:

And, on your logic, if a majority of Party members did support it (which they don't) wouldn't they be right as far as the Party is concerned?

Yes, I agree that 'they would be right as far as the Party is concerned'.And the Party would be wrong to then claim it is in favour of 'workers' control'. I would point this out to any workers who asked me.

ALB wrote:

Your position is full of contradictions.

Well, I think I've explained myself quite clearly.If only we could say the same for the SPGB, and its apparently 'materialist' majority, who can't tell us how they know something that the class can't using its democratic methods, but then in contradiction claim to be in favour of 'socialism', which is nothing but democratic control of production.No, the 'positional contradictions' are within the materialists' arguments, and inasmuch as the SPGB embraces these 'materialist' arguments, it is also 'full of contradictions'.The simple answer is for the SPGB to declare itself in favour of the future democratic control of the production of knowledge, and by that act ditch 'materialism', which rejects 'ideas' that democracy requires. The 'truth' would be subject to a vote, and not in the hands of the 'materialists'.

[Author]

Posts