Can the workers ever be wrong?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis

All you've done is shown that you don't really get what "materialism" means.Perhaps this will help…

Galen Strawson – Real Materialism wrote:

Realistic materialists—realistic anybodys—must grant that experiential phenomena are real, concrete phenomena, for nothing in this life is more certain. They must therefore hold that they are physical phenomena. It may sound odd to use the word ‘concrete’ to characterize the qualitative character of experiences of colour, gusts of depression, thoughts about diophantine equations, and so on, but it isn't, because ‘concrete’ simply means ‘not abstract’. For most purposes one may take ‘concrete’ to be coextensive with ‘possessed of spatiotemporal existence’, although this will be directly question‐ begging in some contexts.  It may also sound odd to use ‘physical’ to characterize mental phenomena like experiential phenomena: many materialists talk about the mental and the physical as if they were opposed categories. But this, on their own view, is like talking about cows and animals as if they were opposed categories. For every concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical, according to materialists. So all mental phenomena, including experiential phenomena, are physical phenomena, according to materialists: just as all cows are animals. So what are materialists doing when they talk, as they so often do, as if the mental and the physical were entirely different? What they may mean to do is to distinguish, within the realm of the physical, which is the only realm there is, according to them, between the mental and the non‐mental, or between the experiential and the non‐ experiential; to distinguish, that is, between mental (or experiential) features of the physical, and non‐mental (or non‐experiential) features of the physical[…]Materialism, then, is the view that every real concrete phenomenon is physical in every respect, but a little more needs to be said, for experiential phenomena— together with the subject of experience, assuming that that is something extra—are the only real, concrete phenomena that we can know with certainty to exist, and as it stands this definition of materialism doesn't even rule out idealism—the view that mental phenomena are the only real phenomena and have no non‐mental being— from qualifying as a form of materialism! Now there is a sense in which this consequence of the definition is salutary (see e.g. §§14–15 below), but it would none the less be silly to call an idealist view ‘materialism’. Russell is right to say that ‘the truth about physical objects must be strange’, but it is reasonable to take materialism to be committed to the existence of non‐experiential being in the universe, in addition to experiential being, and I shall do so in what follows.

  

[Young Master Smeet]

But the world as it stands isn't standing still, it moves, and our understanding is both shaped by and shaping of that movement.  As Charlie wrote, "To discover the various uses of things is the work of history."

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis

All you've done is shown that you don't really get what "materialism" means.Perhaps this will help…

Galen Strawson – Real Materialism wrote:

…

Thanks DJP, but I already know what 'materialism' means.It means 'No revolution'. And 'the tyranny of the rocks'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But the world as it stands isn't standing still, it moves, and our understanding is both shaped by and shaping of that movement.

My mistake. Not 'the tyranny of the rocks', but the entirely mobile 'tyranny of the rolling stones'.

[Young Master Smeet]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Charlie and Fred wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.

JUst because we know how things are now, doesn't mean they always have to be the same, but if we don't know how they are, we won't be able to change them.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Charlie and Fred wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.

Yeah, the 'materialists' always trot out this quote when confronting the evil 'idealists', of their own imagination.What it has to do with arguing with Marxist 'idealist-materialists', I'll never know.You continue to believe that Marx was arguing against 'gravity', and that anyone who as much as mentions 'humans' is an 'idealist'.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,The Socialist Party has been succesful in staying in business, and developing a clear critique of capitalism and reaching out to let as many workers as we can manage know we're here.  What I am sayiong is that our propaganda won't make socialists, we're just holding up a sign to let workers who have come to socialist ideas themselves know we're here.  The revolution will not happen because workers have or have not been exposed to our case.  They won't even read it unlss they feel the need it, they'll continue to support capitalism as long as they feel they need capitalism.  Propaganda, whilst it does exist and is useful to the ruling class, cannot overrule the lived experience and capacity of workers to think.  It only works now because it is going with the grain.

YMSI'm not having a go at the The Socialist Party. I know as well as any Party member how well developed the Party critique of capitalism is. It got my attention when in my teens. From what you say it suggests I was some sort of proto-socialist before I came across The Socialist Party.You say the Party propaganda won't make socialists, it's simply a signpost to let aware workers know you exist. I have to ask what happened to the Party core tenet of educating our class? I do believe it was once seen as very important.I don't hold the idea that even full awareness of our definition of socialism will mean the masses must come a runnin'. There are many reasons why people can be fully aware of what we advocate, and still not sign up.What you refer to as propaganda is in reality much, much more complicated. We are talking about socialisation. Indoctrination into accepting what we now see as the established order, the way it's always been etc. It's not that we accept capitalism because it works for us now, most of us are aware poverty, war, environmental pollution, inequality in health, food and housing are not positive qualities, but that we see little in the way of a working alternative. The acceptable face of the socialist alternative in Britain is associated with Labour and various political "left" groups or party's. Revolutionary socialism is still associated with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other countries like Cuba, China. From what you stated previously, millions of people are aware of the difference between our socialism and the aforementioned socialisms.Not sure what you're referring to in the highlighted sentence. Ruling class propaganda only works because it fits in with ruling class ideology? Or do you mean ruling class propaganda seems to work or fit in with what workers want?

[Young Master Smeet]

Ruling class propaganda only works because it fits in with how workers live and what they want, or, put another way, qwith the workers' identity.  For them, capitalism works because they can maintain that identity.You can't educate those who don't want to be educated.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,I trot it out because, in spite of your protestations, there's precious little real in your realism.  Railing against the tyranny of rocks is to be a Cnut railing against the tides.  Understanding that we are rocks, that rocks.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I trot it out because, in spite of your protestations, there's precious little real in your realism.  Railing against the tyranny of rocks is to be a Cnut railing against the tides.  Understanding that we are rocks, that rocks.

And you think 'real' means 'material'.I've tried explaining, but to no avail.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Ruling class propaganda only works because it fits in with how workers live and what they want, or, put another way, qwith the workers' identity.  For them, capitalism works because they can maintain that identity.You can't educate those who don't want to be educated.

YMSI'm not sure what to make of this…err…explanation. It's either the best you could come up with while in a hurry, or it has a deeper meaning than first appears.I'm gonna go with the second reason. I'm obviously not clever enough to unravel the meaning, so could you please tell me what is the "identity" that capitalism allows people to maintain?    

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,Identity is simply how a person sees themself being and becoming.  So long as thy live up to their own expectations, they will be relatively content.  The question is, what is more revolutionary, wanting to be more, or trying to stay the same when it is being taken away.Marx used the analogy of living next door to someone in a bigger house, it doesn't matter if you live in a  mansion if your neighbour lives in a palace, you'll always want a palace.  In that instance, part of your identity is being the same, or equal to your neighbour.The alternative is when, say, after swinging rounds of redundancies, people's communities are ripped apart, and they can no linger see themselves living as they have hitherto, and they rise up to defend a communal and personal identity.To take another example, in a heternormative society, a person might identify as heterosexual, and get married, have children, etc. but be confronted with their lack of engagement with heterosexual sex and their experience of feelings of homosexual attracton, this would lead, eventually, to the collapse of their heterosexual identity, and drastic change in their life.A further point, there is plenty of socialisation going on, but much of that is the working class socialising it's memebrs in it's interest.  yes, the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class, but they're not the only ideas.  A lot of working people dislike scroungers, and believe in work: the ruling class home in on such views, but they are not alien viws to the class.

[SocialistPunk]

YMSFascinating where topics can take a different turn. I didn't expect several paragraphs on identity politics, guess ya took me literally when I said I wasn't clever enough to unravel your meaning.Not sure where this discussion is going but at least you got round to the process of socialisation . However your example of our class "socialising it's members in its interests" regarding the idea of believing in work and disliking "scroungers", is the old chestnut of the "work ethic" and I do believe the last time I checked it wasn't an invention of our class, as you seem to suggest. It is yet another example of ruling class ideology that goes back a long way, and as I'm sure you are aware, (or perhaps not, as you used the example in the first place), it is aimed at our class. Of course many of our class have adopted the "work ethic" as a "common sense" approach to life, and hate the thought of other workers getting something for "free" that they themselves do not. In extreme cases this leads increasingly to the demonising of those who are physically or mentally unable to seek employment. This is the socialisation of ruling ideology that I have been repeatedly drawing attention to.You seem to think that the ruling class take advantage of the dislikes of our class by homing in on such issues and use them to their advantage. Whereas I take the view that it's the ruling class who plant the seeds, provide the fertiliser, and every tool necessary to encourage our class to turn on itself in order to keep us distracted, confused and alienated from one another, and therefore more easily exploitable.Are those in depth discussions down the pub as to who to vote for, that you mention previously, really that well informed? Are millions of workers aware of the SPgb and WSM, but consciously reject socialism in favour of capitalism because capitalism works for them? That would suggest those millions of people see socialism as being against their interests, that better food, housing, healthcare, and on a bigger scale an end to war and protecting our environment, are seen as undesirable. 

[steve colborn]

I see we are onto the old chestnut of the "work ethic"! It is a qestion I have commented on ,quite a bit of late. I have to say, I agree with SP, in that it is an idea pushed by the Ruling Elite, who opine the view that non employed workers are bone idle, scrounging, low lifes. Moreover, this narrative has been pushed in all areas of the Ruling Elites propaganda machine (Press, Media, even Political ideology) over the last 15/20 years, to such an extent that Workers themselves have picked up the ball and now run with it.As someone who participates in online loca newspaper forums, to comment on letters and news of the day, I see first hand how workers do the work of the Wealthy for them.This "deliberate" policy has resulted in workers "accepting" this new "paradigm". No longer one of Social Welfare but of the "undeserving unemployed". Of sustained and continuos austerity for the many, whilst unreported by the propaganda machine, the wealthy continue, even in these so-called times of austerity, to enrich themselves!The heading of this thread is "Can the workers ever be wrong?". The answer! undoubtedly!!!

[Young Master Smeet]

Sp,I can only take you at your word, and try and explain my position accordingly.  I'd rather not see the working class as the passive objects of the ruling class, teh work ethic, things like 'never say thank you for a pay check' run deep within working class culture: you worked for it, you earned it.  Also, looking out for your mates, and wanting to see them allright, mutual aid.  The most venemous people wrt benefits are usually those who don't have to work for a living themselves, but that doesn't mean that they aren't latching on to some genuine wworking class feeling (that they hvave to do so is testament to the political power of working class votes).  We do the same when we talk about the scroungers in Buckingham Palace.Those millions of conversations take the form of suspicion against political changes that may weaken the working class (workers are very keen on the vote) and its current freedoms; also a suspiscion that the claims of the socialists will not be delivered.  After all, the examples of the Russian and French and other revolutions are there.  Personally, I'd advise you not to talk down the sophistication of working class political analysis.  The key point is that the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class, but they're not the only ideas.  There is a constant contest, but it is towo sided, and sometimes (some sections of) the workers entirely in their own interests take positions with which we would profoundly disagree.

[Author]

Posts