Largest party in Europe

[jondwhite]

rodmanlewis wrote:

Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.

This is discussed here

http://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/labour-isnt-europes-biggest-party.html

Harold Walsby wrote:

ask why, in view of the fact that "every prerequisite is already in the hands of society", the working class is not already Socialist, or even interested in Socialism

Harold Walsby wrote:

are those many hundreds of thousands of workers who, over the past half-century, HAVE heard the Socialist case and HAVE rejected it, are they by and large in any way fundamentally different from those millions of workers all over the world who have not yet heard the case?

[twc]

See http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/labour-mps-revolt-against-corbyn?page=11#comment-35265

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Harold Walsby wrote:

ask why, in view of the fact that "every prerequisite is already in the hands of society", the working class is not already Socialist, or even interested in Socialism

Walsby erroneously employs a 'materialist' ideology, which contains the assumption that 'every prerequisite' that counts is 'material'.In fact, from Marx's perspective 'every prerequisite' is not 'already in the hands of society'. Walsby's 'facts' are not ours.The 'prerequisite' of 'class consciousness' is not 'already in the hands of society'.'Class consciousness' is an objective factor. 'Materialists' deny that 'ideas' are objective prerequisites of a socialist revolution, and simply pretend that 'consciousness' emerges from 'material' (ie., their notion of 'objective') 'conditions'.A class conscious proletariat is an objective prerequisite of a socialist revolution.There are of course subjective factors, like policies, forms of organisation, strategies, tactics, ideological beliefs, ethics, etc., which, if constructed wrongly, may lead to class defeat, even if there is widespread, majority class consciousness.Nothing is pre-ordained, but must be created and built, by ideas and activity, by Marx's method of social theory and practice.Walsby, like all 'materialists', deny the activity of the masses, and instead look to an expert minority, like Leninism does, who have a special consciousness which they argue that the masses can't have – otherwise, the 'materialists' would agree to the 'material' being our creation, which can be changed, as Marx argued.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.

There is nothing wrong with our theory of society, although there are serious questions, to which there are no easy answers, which need to be addressed.We are all prone to make the same kinds of cognitive errors because we all share the same kind of brains.  We prefer stories to statistics; we seek to confirm, not question, our ideas; we rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence in shaping events; we sometimes misperceive the world around us; we tend to oversimplify our thinking and we have short and faulty memories.  And "Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence”.  So says Thomas E. Kida in Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking

K.Marx in The German Ideology wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

K.Marx in The German Ideology wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

[my bold]Marx here is saying:

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of social production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant social relationships, the dominant social relationships grasped as ideas.

When Marx writes 'material', he's contrasting it with 'ideal', that is, contrasting 'human' with 'divine'.Marx is talking about human, social, production, not 'matter'. That was Engels' misunderstanding of Marx.In effect, Marx simply means that the social theory and practice of production dominates the social theory and practice of politics.How we create our world dominates how we see that world.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.

Doesn't follow.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.This is discussed herehttp://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/labour-isnt-europes-biggest-party.html

Harold Walsby wrote:

ask why, in view of the fact that "every prerequisite is already in the hands of society", the working class is not already Socialist, or even interested in Socialism

Harold Walsby wrote:

are those many hundreds of thousands of workers who, over the past half-century, HAVE heard the Socialist case and HAVE rejected it, are they by and large in any way fundamentally different from those millions of workers all over the world who have not yet heard the case?

jondwhite's question can be summed up as:"We 'materialists' have been talking shite to workers for 150 years, and the workers haven't been taken in by it".Of course, the 'materialists' think that they've been talking about 'socialism' (just as the Leninists do), but all workers' experience when joining these 'materialist' parties is to be told that 'material' determines, rather than the workers themselves determine, and so they conclude that it won't be them 'building' this 'socialism', but some elite experts, who just happen to 'know matter', and so the workers leave the 'materialist' party.I 'know' this, because I've been through it, as has every worker that I've met in 30 years who's been a member of a 'materialist' party. Out of dozens of close aquaintances, none have remained members for more than a few years.And afterwards, we all agree – 'materialism' (the rule of an elite) is complete bollocks, and only a workers' organisation that is based upon workers' democracy can build a 'socialism' of the sort meant by us workers.

[DJP]

Every prerequisite is not in the hands of society. The majority does not yet understand or accept socialism. This is the missing key prerequisite. And this has also been the standard party line since the party was formed.The class that owns the means of production also controls the boundaries of public debate, what is deemed desirable or possible. Besides Marx, a modern book on this topic is Steven Lukes "Power"

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

Every prerequisite is not in the hands of society. The majority does not yet understand or accept socialism. This is the missing key prerequisite. And this has also been the standard party line since the party was formed.The class that owns the means of production also controls the boundaries of public debate, what is deemed desirable or possible. Besides Marx, a modern book on this topic is Steven Lukes "Power"

The quote from the SPGB pamphlet Socialism taken from this site is

Quote:

In order, then, that plenty and leisure may be the portion of all, we need not wait for further advances in the means of production. Every requisite is already in the hands of society, and it only remains for human intelligence so to organise the existing powers of production, and so to arrange the distribution of wealth already being produced, as to make the best use of both. Then poverty and drudgery will be banished for ever.

Not sure why Walsby apparently changed 'requisite' to 'prerequisite'.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

The quote from the SPGB pamphlet Socialism taken from this site is

Quote:

In order, then, that plenty and leisure may be the portion of all, we need not wait for further advances in the means of production. Every requisite is already in the hands of society, and it only remains for human intelligence so to organise the existing powers of production, and so to arrange the distribution of wealth already being produced, as to make the best use of both. Then poverty and drudgery will be banished for ever.

Not sure why Walsby apparently changed 'requisite' to 'prerequisite'.

Well yes. The means of production and communication have already been developed to an extent to allow for socialism, all that is now needed is the conscious effort to organise for it. He's not disagreeing.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Well yes. The means of production and communication have already been developed to an extent to allow for socialism, all that is now needed is the conscious effort to organise for it. He's not disagreeing.

DJP, I think what is at issue is precisely what you're assuming.That is, the definition of whatever is supposedly 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does not include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have been 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have not been 'already developed'.'Materialists', who remove 'social theory and practice' from the creation of 'matter', argue the first.Marxists, who include 'social theory and practice' in the creation of 'matter', argue the second.I agree with Marx, that the 'means of production' are a social product, produced by humans, employing social theory and practice, and so the 'means of production' have not already been developed.That is, the 'means of production' include class consciousness.Only when workers have built their 'means of production' will it be possible to construct socialism.The definition of 'means of production' to mean 'the hard stuff out there' (buildings, roads, factories, offices, etc, what we can 'touch') is an ideological claim by 'materialists', which removes workers' self-activity from the building of their 'means of production', and places this task into the hands of an elite minority (even the hands of the 'unwitting' bourgeoisie).Walsby, like all 'materialists', is disagreeing with workers' conscious self-activity.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote.  this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote… As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

[my bold]This is an arguable notion, YMS, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas.If you disagree with Marx, that's fine, but you should state that openly.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, Lbird, no, Marx' idea was that the working class having no stake in the status quo had no option but to overthrow it, if, though a considerable proportion do have a stake, that changes things, they will support the state and reactionary politics, and they will divide against those who do not have the same interest: foreign workers.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, Lbird, no, Marx' idea was that the working class having no stake in the status quo had no option but to overthrow it, if, though a considerable proportion do have a stake, that changes things, they will support the state and reactionary politics, and they will divide against those who do not have the same interest: foreign workers.

As I said, what you're suggesting is arguable, but it's not what Marx was arguing.

[Author]

Posts