Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism

[Anonymous]

Most of the policemen in Latin America were anti-communists because they were poor  peasants which did not know how to read and write, and they were hired by the state in order to comply with the objective given to their generals by the US embassy located in those countries.They never attended a military or police academics, and they were living in extreme poverty because they were receiving a very low salary without any type of fringe benefitsFor them Marx and Engels were only a couples of baseball player because they have never read anything about them, and they were confiscating newspapers, leaflets and books but they did not know their content

[ALB]

Dave wrote:

While I agree that when the working class as a class develops a socialist perspective the capitalist class will more than likely be overthrown with a relative small amount of casualties. After all the Russian reolution of 1917 was a relatively bloodless affair. The problem however is that as the process develops the capitalist class will use a wide variety of methods to sustain their power and part of that will be the use of physical force.

I take it you mean by "physical force" actual violence rather than the routine exercise of state power which is always a case of "force". Maybe, but maybe not for the reasons I outlined. Having said this, I don't think we can rule out isolated incidents of physical violence before and immediately after the working class capture of political power but I suggest that these would just be that — isolated incidents. Even Marx, in 1872, considered that a peaceful takeover of power by the working class was possible in certain conditions, i.e a stable political democracy, (even though he expected that sections of the capitalist class would stage a "slaveholders' revolt").

Dave wrote:

The example of Noske is a good one for it shows that the German capitalist class took steps to abort the development of a socialist consciousness and they were helped in this by bad tactics of the sparticists and the left of the Marxist movement.

I don't think this is a good example as conditions in Germany in 1918-19 have very little in common with conditions in the developed capitalist countries a hundred years later. The Social Democrat government that came to power in 1918 was trying to consolidate "bourgeois democracy" which had just been established there, whereas today in most countries this is fairly well established and supported by the population. I do agree that the minority of socialists in Germany at the time did make a mistake in staging an uprising without majority or even widespread support. As would any socialist minority fool-hardy enough to try this today or in the future.

Dave wrote:

The same will happen in the UK and the working class needs to know that a revolution can be a dangerous but necessary event if class rule is to be overthrown.

If we really think that, then we'd have to revise our whole approach. Frankly, I don't see a civil war (and so preparing for it) as being on the cards and, even if it was, I would think most workers would opt for staying with capitalism rather than going through a modern civil war (as in the former Yugoslavia and now in Syria) to get to socialism.

Dave wrote:

The example of the collapse of Stalinist/State Capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe is not a very good one as what we saw was a shift within the ruling class where sections of the ruling class became the dominate class.

I know that's the counter-argument and there's some truth in it, but what happened there still showed that no government can hold on to power in the face of mass popular opposition. It is also the case that a modern capitalist economy, which requires trained and self-motivated workers, could not function on the basis of forced labour for any length of time. So, in that sense, political democracy, and the illusion of "freedom" that goes with it, is the best political form for capitalism. If a government were to suspend it in the face of a growing, but still minority socialist movement they would severely disrupt profit-making and if they tried it in the face of a majority socialist movement they would merely be uselessly postponing their demise (as some maybe most of them would surely realise as did Honecker and co in East Germany). In any event, we've always endorsed the old Chartist slogan of "peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must" as long as there's a majority in favour.

Dave wrote:

A revolution is qualatatively different with one class being replaced by another class.

Agreed, but all the revolutions that have taken place in history up to now have been a case of one minority replacing another minority (even what happened in Russia in 1917). The socialist revolution, on the other hand, will be a case of a minority ruling class being replaced by a majority. This has never happened before, so I don't think we can conclude from the experience of minority or minority-led revolutions what is likely to be the case in a majority revolution.

Dave wrote:

One question does the SPGB see socialism as an ethical imperative or a material necessity?

Opinions on this are divided, with some members saying "both" and other saying "material necessity" (the current majority position).

[Dave]

Thanks ALB for your considered replies to my points they make a great deal of sense to me especially the emphasis on the winning of workers as a class to the perspective of socialism. This to me has been the major failing globally of many left wing movements where the strategy has either to rely on left wing reformists in either the unions or in the case of the UK the Labour Party to attract workers to some sort of mass mobilisation mainly though a general strike to overthrow the government of the day. By this they hope to install a workers government which to me as a strategy has failed miserably.The point is that there is a need for an independent socialist party which will seek to disseminate socialist ideas in the hope that workers can see that only through socialism can the multitude of problems created by capitalism today can be solved. This shift in workers perspective will be countered by the leaders of the capitalist state as can be seen by the recent revalations of Edward Snowdon of mass spying on the population. The capitalist class has no compunction in ignoring the niceities of capitalist democracy if and when required. After all we have seen the use of undercover agents to disrupt various anarchist/eco/ animal rights groups.One other question regarding the development of socialist consciousness within the working class. After many years of being either active or through researching labour history I have come to the conclusion that the idea of false consciouness is probably incorrect to explain why workers have not yet developed a socialist consciousnes. It seems to me that from at least the mid 1800's the working class has by and large developed a consciousness that can be seen to be pro capitalist in the sense that workers see just as the capitalist class does that there is no alternative to the capitalist system and that they do beleive this to be true. Workers have internalised such a perspective and it will be extremely difficult to supplant such a consciousness. The idea that all is required is a revolutionary leadership to break through to a simmering revolutionary passion just beneath the surface of social lifehas never been true and willnever be true.

[alanjjohnstone]

Dave , you might be interested in Chris Hedges quoting the anarchist Alexander Berkman in a recent article that our blog thought worthy of re-posting. "…“Did you ever ask yourself how it happens that government and capitalism continue to exist in spite of all the evil and trouble they are causing in the world?” the anarchist Alexander Berkman wrote in his essay “The Idea Is the Thing.” “If you did, then your answer must have been that it is because the people support those institutions, and that they support them because they believe in them.”Berkman was right. As long as most citizens believe in the ideas that justify global capitalism, the private and state institutions that serve our corporate masters are unassailable. When these ideas are shattered, the institutions that buttress the ruling class deflate and collapse…" http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/10/no-fence-sitting-for-hedges.html

[Dave]

Thanks Alan will check the blog article probably tomorrow. I'm not sure how we help to bring about the shattering of the ideas which underpin global capitalism. All I do know is that both reformist as well as revolutionary/Trotskyist methods have both miserably failed. The opportunities for a working class/socialist revival have never been greater yet the response from the working class has never been so muted. At times I do despair.

[ALB]

Dave wrote:

One other question regarding the development of socialist consciousness within the working class. After many years of being either active or through researching labour history I have come to the conclusion that the idea of false consciouness is probably incorrect to explain why workers have not yet developed a socialist consciousnes.

Here's an article from the Socialist Standard which discusses another criticism of the inadequacy of the "false consciousness" explanation:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relations

[Anonymous]

The term false consciousness was never used by Marx, it was used by Engels on a private communication, and then George Lukacs propagated the concept

[Dave]

Thanks ALB will check this article out as well.

[Ozymandias]

What I fear is the possibility of sabotage from crazed and fanatic pro-slavery members of the working class. I just cannot imagine some of the idiot bastards in the police or armed forces ever becoming Socialists. I detest these morons. And I'm not only talking about the "Western Democracies". This could be a problem in every country in the world. Could there be a core of these workers so brainwashed by the masters that they could upset the whole apple cart?When I read that the US Military have (for example) been experimenting with the very fabric of space time by trying to create mini time loops within tiny black holes, utilising "Remote Viewers" and spending millions on para-normal research whilst developing hideous microwave death-ray weapons I just fear what lengths these bastards would go to to maintain Capitalism. And no I didn't get any of this from conspiracy theories. This shit is real and it is happening. What could our masters have up their sleeves in store for us should their hegemony be threatened in a unique way which has never before presented itself in history? How many slavish proles would be happy to do their bidding to the last? All you need is a hardcore of crazed saboteurs and we could go up in smoke. I guess you could say the corollary to what I'm saying is just to shut up shop and give up now. But I'm not saying that. This problem genuinely worries me. I just seek reassurance. We have rabid religious fundamentalists, cults, elite military squadrons, triple agents…you name it. I hope I'm so wrong here but I just think that with all of these insane variables concretely in place in a society where 20% of humans are completely illiterate how likely is it that a smooth transition to Socialism could ever be achieved? Please explain why I'm talking shite and how my fears are groundless. 

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to remote-viewing and ESP by the military i can link you to this.http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html The fact that the military can be as fooled by woo-woo, as Randi calls it, as anybody else,  is clearly demonstrated in the recent fraud case and imprisonment of the guy who made millions from selling armies absolutely useless divining rods (with LED lights to make it look more technological) to detect mines. But i think you are repeating in another way the 19thC American Robber Baron, Jay Gould's,  claim that in the event of a revolution he can afford to pay one half of the working class to kill the other half. Some Marxists have a certain amount of sympathy for this idea especially when they talk of the reactionary role of the lumpenproletariat. 

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

I guess you could say the corollary to what I'm saying is just to shut up shop and give up now.

This may not be your view (obviously), but it is a corollary of conspiracy theories about the world being governed by some shadowy all-powerful elite.In one our election campaigns earlier this year someone came up to our stall and eventually said that he was a follower of David Icke (some years previously he'd been in the SWP). We asked him, supposing you are right and the world is governed by an elite centred on the Rothschilds, what can be done about it. He replied nothing. I think this is the position of most New World Order conspiracy theorists. They are content just to denounce their perceived conspiracy, and all its supposed powers and techniques, but not to propose any alternative because as far as they're concerned there isn't.How to refute them and re-assure ourselves that they are wrong? First, they are factually wrong: the world is not governed by some all-powerful elite even though it might appear to be because everybody, including governments, are subjected to the impersonal forces of the world market. Second, we (the people, the working class, whatever) are not completely powerless as the ruling class in each country can't govern and let capitalism run properly without our consent. There are many examples (already given on this thread) of governments which have tried this being overthrown by even non-socialist "people's power".Our task is to help the emergence of a socialist "people's power" movement strong enough to end capitalism and the operation of its market forces and  tosweep away any government or non-governmental conspiracy that might stand in the way.

[Ozymandias]

Yes I know all this mate but what of the problem of a "reactionary lumpenproletariat"? You don't think this could pose a grave danger at all? I just think the whole thing could be fraught with danger. As you have probably deduced I have very little faith in the working class. Very little faith indeed.

[alanjjohnstone]

A possible potential problem perhaps but a "grave danger" – no,  and certainly not an unsurmountable one for society and socialists

[Anonymous]

That is the main problem of the peoples who beleive in conspiracy theory, they do not find solutions to the problems that mankind is facing,

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Yes I know all this mate but what of the problem of a "reactionary lumpenproletariat"? You don't think this could pose a grave danger at all? I just think the whole thing could be fraught with danger. As you have probably deduced I have very little faith in the working class. Very little faith indeed.

[my bold]Ozymandias, if there is a problem with the 'lumpenproletariat', why should this cause you to have little faith in the 'proletariat'?I know that I've replaced your term 'working class' with 'proletariat', but for us these should be interchangable. If you accept this, then you have to treat the 'lumpen' as a separate class.If you think that it is invalid to replace w.c. with p., could you give your definition of 'working class', especially with reference to  'a reactionary lumpenproletariat'? I suspect that you're using 'working class' as a descriptive category, and also employ 'middle class' in a similar way.For Marxists, many of the so-called 'middle class' are actually proletarians. If this is accepted, why should you not have 'faith' in university-educated workers because thieves and drug-dealers (for example) are a social problem in capitalist society? What is the connection with the lumpen elements that causes you to have 'very little faith indeed' in the best educated, most travelled, least racist, proletariat ever?

[Author]

Posts