Karl Marx for next US president

[robbo203]

rodshaw wrote:

 I think there's a lot to be said for this way of looking at it. This idea of 'habitus' is reinforced by the fact that people mostly just want to get their heads down and get through the next working day. Any idea which is too wacky, doesn't conform to their normal view of life or is in some way seen as threatening is quickly pushed aside. At the same time it's part of the reason why those with a super-high IQ or all the leisure time in the world to think about things don't automatically arrive at a socialist view – it's not rocket science but it's a million miles from what they know of the world and how they think it should work.

 Exactly.  Which brings out another point which i think Ozy is entirely missing: dont judge a book by its cover,  Dont be fooled by mere appearance.  I dont imagine for one moment  that in my line of work (garden landscaping cum ground maintenance ) , for instance, any of my customers have the foggiest idea of my political affiliations and would probably be horrified to discover I was revolutionary socialist.  There is one very nice couple I work for – both stalwart Labour Party supporters –  who love to engage me in political discussion but I find I have to very often bite my tongue and be circumspect.  I dont want to risk antagonising them for obvious reasons so have developed a kind of oblique way of talking politics with them. From their point I probably come across as a relatively non committal, mildly left of centre person.  Im sure many in the SPGB must often find themselves in the same boat. Expediency is the name of the game and in my view it is a very important understated  reason why people are not drawn to socialism in their droves – not because they are "stupid".  It frankly shocks me that fellow socialists can describe members of our class in these condescending terms,  Apart from anything it is such a simplistic superficial way of looking at things To some extent I think David Graeber , the anarchist anthropologist, with his concept of the "Communism of Everyday Life" makes a valid point.  There is an interesting reference to this here:http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/David_Graeber__Hope_in_Common.htmlIt makes a refreshing change to the hopelessness and  class defeatism that Ozy preaches

[Anonymous]

I saw several friends of mine being killed and his death applauded by those so called anit-communist workers. I do not romanticize the working class. In most of the countries of the world peoples know that Barack Obama is just the president of an imperialist power, and most of them do not need a lecture on socialism or marxism

[alanjjohnstone]

Saul Alinsky – Rules for Radicals: Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us." The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

rodshaw wrote:

 I think there's a lot to be said for this way of looking at it. This idea of 'habitus' is reinforced by the fact that people mostly just want to get their heads down and get through the next working day. Any idea which is too wacky, doesn't conform to their normal view of life or is in some way seen as threatening is quickly pushed aside. At the same time it's part of the reason why those with a super-high IQ or all the leisure time in the world to think about things don't automatically arrive at a socialist view – it's not rocket science but it's a million miles from what they know of the world and how they think it should work.

 Exactly.  Which brings out another point which i think Ozy is entirely missing: dont judge a book by its cover,  Dont be fooled by mere appearance.  I dont imagine for one moment  that in my line of work (garden landscaping cum ground maintenance ) , for instance, any of my customers have the foggiest idea of my political affiliations and would probably be horrified to discover I was revolutionary socialist.  There is one very nice couple I work for – both stalwart Labour Party supporters –  who love to engage me in political discussion but I find I have to very often bite my tongue and be circumspect.  I dont want to risk antagonising them for obvious reasons so have developed a kind of oblique way of talking politics with them. From their point I probably come across as a relatively non committal, mildly left of centre person.  Im sure many in the SPGB must often find themselves in the same boat. Expediency is the name of the game and in my view it is a very important understated  reason why people are not drawn to socialism in their droves – not because they are "stupid".  It frankly shocks me that fellow socialists can describe members of our class in these condescending terms,  Apart from anything it is such a simplistic superficial way of looking at things To some extent I think David Graeber , the anarchist anthropologist, with his concept of the "Communism of Everyday Life" makes a valid point.  There is an interesting reference to this here:http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/David_Graeber__Hope_in_Common.htmlIt makes a refreshing change to the hopelessness and  class defeatism that Ozy preaches

 Just  become a member of any discussion forum of Latin America infected by Cuban right wingers and your  messages will be sent to the office of homeland security and to the FBI, indicating that you are member of a Al Qaeda, and that you are planning to overthrow the government of the US. Your email account will be blacklisted on several servers, some workers will denounce their own fellows workers in order to kiss the ass of their own rulers

[rodshaw]

robbo203 wrote:

Exactly.  Which brings out another point which i think Ozy is entirely missing: dont judge a book by its cover,  Dont be fooled by mere appearance.  I dont imagine for one moment  that in my line of work (garden landscaping cum ground maintenance ) , for instance, any of my customers have the foggiest idea of my political affiliations and would probably be horrified to discover I was revolutionary socialist.  There is one very nice couple I work for – both stalwart Labour Party supporters –  who love to engage me in political discussion but I find I have to very often bite my tongue and be circumspect.  I dont want to risk antagonising them for obvious reasons so have developed a kind of oblique way of talking politics with them. From their point I probably come across as a relatively non committal, mildly left of centre person.  Im sure many in the SPGB must often find themselves in the same boat. 

You have to be careful with the people you deal with regularly. Having said which, if you do start talking politics, they are often far too intent on speaking rather than listening. On one notable occasion when I brought up the subject of a moneyless society with my car mechanic, a one-man business, after he'd started grumbling about banks etc., he spent about an hour and a half telling me why it wouldn't work. Benefits scroungers, greed, etc. I could hardly get a word in edgeways and I wished I'd never bothered, I just wanted to get home. He's a reasonably intelligent man and probably thought I was on the side of the idiots.

[Author]

Posts