Largest party in Europe

[twc]

Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank have extracted from the forthcoming Marx–Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) the individual scraps written, severally and jointly, by Marx, Engels and Wedermeyer in 1845 as they left them to the “gnawing criticism of the mice” and which David Rjazanov crafted into “The German Ideology”, Chapter 1. Feuerbach, in 1924.The forum may find interest in the original format of Engels’s oft-quoted passage, including his ↑insertions↑ and ↓deletions↓.  It is not an easy read…  “In every epoch the ideas of the dominant class  are the dominant ideas,  i.e. the class which is  the dominant ↑material↑ power over ↓history↓  society is at the same time the dominant  intellectual power.  The class which has the  means of material production at its disposal,  consequently also deploys the means of  intellectual production, so that the ideas of  those lacking the means of intellectual  production are ↑on average↑ subordinated.  The  dominant ideas are nothing more than the  ↓ideological↓ ideal expression of the dominant  material relations, the dominant material  relations put into ideas;  hence  of the relations which make one class  the dominant one, therefore the  ideas of their dominance.” Engels’s handwriting is neat.  Marx’s gothic script is near indecipherable.  This extract gives only a vague idea of how difficult Engels’s task was to merely decipher Marx’s notebooks for Capital Voulmes 2 and 3.

[LBird]

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.

If citizenship and vote are the means of achieving the means of living, and they can be deployed without fracturing the capitalist economic system itself (and, indeed, give the working class a vested interest in maint9aining capitalist relations) then the whole political edifice of Marxism falls.

Marx & Engels wrote:

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

But if they can live by selling their votes as well, then out goes the revolutionay role.  Thus, that would falsify:

Marx & Engls wrote:

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

And also

Engls & Marx wrote:

The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

I'd also quote from Engels' 'Principles of Communism', but I think those passages are enough.  The gift relation of selling votes for benefit and a 'social wage' could account for how the workers' movement is continually blown off course by regionalist and nationalist movements.If that goes, we also lose the agent of socialism: if the working class can seek remedy within capitalism.  Without an agent, we're thrown back on utopianism.

[twc]

Let’s examine Engels’s ‘verbatim’ text, with his two deletions removed to represent his ‘final’ thoughts, as of 1845.“In every epoch the ideas of the dominant class are the dominant ideas,  i.e. the class which is the dominant material power over society is at the same time the dominant intellectual power.” — EngelsFundamentally a social class dominates other social classes, apparently by material force, coercion, punishment, etc., but essentially by materially depriving it of any power over ownership and control of its socially necessary means of life.The class that appropriates to itself social power over the material means of life comes to dominate society intellectually—for all social classes must cooperate, even if by coercion, in order that society reproduce itself, necessarily by means of the material means of life owned exclusively or dominantly by the dominating class.The materially dominant class’s thought eventually dominates that of the other classes, even if theirs was originally violently and bitterly opposed to its, and they still secretly persist in detesting its social dominance.Social reproduction eventually ensures that the thought of subservient social classes comes to adequately express their social subservience, which seen the other way round is but the expression of their master’s actual material dominance.The key social relation here is the materially dominant relation of ownership and control of material life.  Its historical forms reflect the essential material dominance relation of slaveholder over slave, of lord over serf, of capitalist over worker.Thought dominance of the ruling class over the subservient classes is left to the menial panegyrics and apologetics of skilled petty hirelings in the aftermath of the absolutely indispensable essential material dominance.It is the material relation of dominance over material life that gives the slaveholder, the lord and the capitalist his intellectual dominance over the slave, the serf, the worker.  Not the other way round, as formerly universally thought by the leisured privileged writers ever ready to justify class society at their master’s bidding.“The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also deploys the means of intellectual production, so that the ideas of those lacking the means of intellectual production are on average subordinated.” — EngelsIn pre-capitalist class societies, several non-labouring classes competed for social dominance.  But the materially dominant class was the single class that gained material control over the dominant material mode of production (used here in the narrow particular sense).This again has nothing to do with gaining thought control first and foremost.  Of course, Engels is explicitly dealing with class society here, not socialism.  [Engels, and Marx, elsewhere explain the reverse is the case in the socialist revolution brought about by a working class that has become conscious of its class position.]The situation in class society is that the ruling class makes certain that it secures material dominance first, before unleashing its sycophants and spin doctors to sing its praises once it has secured the essential material dominance.And it is this material dominance that permits it to materially impose its specious justificatory thought upon rival non-labouring and subservient social classes.As a consequence of material slaveholding, landholding, resource-holding, the material slave despite himself comes to imbibe class-subservient thought in accord with his material master’s desire, the material serf despite himself ‘intellectually’ falls for his material lord’s protective sermonizing, and the material worker seeks nothing so much as intellectual security in his material master’s favour of a material job—the very material social relation through which his master materially exploits him, while intellectually the material worker remains totally unaware that his material hide is being materially tanned.  Oh, capital, thank your lucky stars for such compliance in the mind of your material worker!Engels’s sentence remains pregnant with human class history, and its material essence is crystal clear.“The dominant ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations put into ideas;  hence of the relations which make one class the dominant one, therefore the ideas of their dominance.” — EngelsThe dominant social ideas reflect the overwhelming material dominance of the social class that materially rules over other social classes.The historically dominant social ideas throughout major modes of production (used here in the broad material sense of determinant relations of class ownership and control of material means of production) come to conform to those of the dominator class.Marx elsewhere explains that ownership and control of the essentials of life tend to force the working classes to identify their essential life activity with their own necessary coercion—man must live by the sweat of the brow, although the ruling class manages, by material power, to live by the material sweat of another’s brow.Thus, slaveholder thought permeates the ancient chattel-slave mode of production, etc.  You’ll find slaveholder thought everywhere in the social and philosophical writings of the ancients, etc.This last sentence of Engels is, like the others, also pregnant with insight into human history, and begs elaboration.Yet these three sentences are mere jotted down first thoughts.  And we are extremely lucky to gain admission into the fabulous workshop of young Marx and Engels in feverish intellectual ferment.  Enjoy these sentences for what they are.Yes, the relations are social, and they necessarily involve consciousness.  Otherwise they could never explain consciousness.That is the whole point of a materialist explanation of consciousness—which explanation you despite yourself frequently slip into unconsciously.  I’ll enumerate occasions if you wish.It is a pity that your constricting Berkeleanism prevents you from comprehending the Marxian distinction between appearance and essence—something you assert to be impossible, and so your insular philosophy justifies its insularity by denying the Marxian distinction as myth.So long as your Berkelean mindset prevents you from making the essential Marxian distinction between appearance and essence you have no hope of comprehending a materialist explanation like Marx’s.  Marx must forever remain totally unfathomable to you, as you confess his Capital does remain so for you.It’s a pity, because Marx’s materialist explanation of capitalist and working class consciousness totally permeates his work.  I’ll enumerate instance upon instance if you wish.  You might start with his sublime “Trinity” chapter I referred to earlier in the thread.The key point is…Materialism, Marx’s historical materialism included, is simply an explanation of thought as being essentially determined, despite overwhelming appearance to the contrary, despite the centuries old class dominant illusion that thought determines everything—the grand illusion of the class epochs.

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank have extracted from the forthcoming Marx–Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) the individual scraps written, severally and jointly, by Marx, Engels and Wedermeyer in 1845 as they left them to the “gnawing criticism of the mice” and which David Rjazanov crafted into “The German Ideology”, Chapter 1. Feuerbach, in 1924.The forum may find interest in the original format of Engels’s oft-quoted passage, including his ↑insertions↑ and ↓deletions↓.  It is not an easy read…  “In every epoch the ideas of the dominant class  are the dominant ideas,  i.e. the class which is  the dominant ↑material↑ power over ↓history↓  society is at the same time the dominant  intellectual power.  The class which has the  means of material production at its disposal,  consequently also deploys the means of  intellectual production, so that the ideas of  those lacking the means of intellectual  production are ↑on average↑ subordinated.  The  dominant ideas are nothing more than the  ↓ideological↓ ideal expression of the dominant  material relations, the dominant material  relations put into ideas;  hence  of the relations which make one class  the dominant one, therefore the  ideas of their dominance.” Engels’s handwriting is neat.  Marx’s gothic script is near indecipherable.  This extract gives only a vague idea of how difficult Engels’s task was to merely decipher Marx’s notebooks for Capital Voulmes 2 and 3.

Engels was the one of the few  persons able to understand Marx's handwriting, and the other person is Paul Lafargue who was one of his secretary. Thanks to the dedication and devotion of Engels to his friend Marx, we have been able to read the major works of Karl Marx.Anyone of those persons who have spent their whole life looking for the errors of Engels,  will never accomplish  the same task, and also he invested most of his money on the publication of Marx/s work.  L Bird who will go to the grave critiquing Engels can not even tie his shoelaces. Let's move forward with socialism PS Engels' handwriting was neat, and his writing style is neat too

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

It is the same discussion of the Evangelical, of what is literal, and what is figurative, for some idealists  evangelicals, ( similar to the ones we have in this forum )   what is literal is figurative, and what is figurative is literal.Let"s  stop discussing  about the Bible, and concentrate our time on socialism. that is the main purpose of this forum, and that is what newcomers are looking for when they become a member of this forumIf we follow this discussion, as some idealists want to present it,  we can say that religion had an idealist origin,  instead of a materialist origin, therefore, preachers, religion historians, metaphysical,  and biblical commentators are totally correct.The needs of the workers at the present are materialist, and they are: Unemployment, Housing, Homeless, Wars, medical needs, diseases,  and Psychological problems have a materialist origin.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

It is the same discussion of the Evangelical, of what is literal, and what is figurative, for some idealists  evangelicals, ( similar to the ones we have in this forum )   what is literal is figurative, and what is figurative is literal.Let"s  stop discussing  about the Bible, and concentrate our time on socialism. that is the main purpose of this forum, and that is what newcomers are looking for when they become a member of this forumIf we follow this discussion, as some idealists want to present it,  we can say that religion had an idealist origin,  instead of a materialist origin, therefore, preachers, religion historians, metaphysical,  and biblical commentators are totally correct.The needs of the workers at the present are materialist, and they are: Unemployment, Housing, Homeless, Wars, medical needs, diseases,  and Psychological problems have a materialist origin.

[my bold]All I'm asking, mcolome1, is does 'materialist' mean 'social'?Why can't you, or anyone in the SPGB, answer that question?When Marx says 'material', does he mean 'social', or does he mean 'matter'?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

It is the same discussion of the Evangelical, of what is literal, and what is figurative, for some idealists  evangelicals, ( similar to the ones we have in this forum )   what is literal is figurative, and what is figurative is literal.Let"s  stop discussing  about the Bible, and concentrate our time on socialism. that is the main purpose of this forum, and that is what newcomers are looking for when they become a member of this forumIf we follow this discussion, as some idealists want to present it,  we can say that religion had an idealist origin,  instead of a materialist origin, therefore, preachers, religion historians, metaphysical,  and biblical commentators are totally correct.  The needs of the workers at the present are materialist, and they are: Unemployment, Housing, Homeless, Wars, medical needs, diseases,  and Psychological problems have a materialist origin.

[my bold]All I'm asking, mcolome1, is does 'materialist' mean 'social'?Why can't you, or anyone in the SPGB, answer that question?When Marx says 'material', does he mean 'social', or does he mean 'matter'?

L BirdWe have answered to all your questions in many occasions, you are the one who have  never answered any questions that we have asked you, what you have  done is,  to spend all the time ,attacking the SPGB and Frederick Engels, and too little for the ruling classEverything that Marx wrote has a social, or sociological character character,( he was not a physicists,)  including his Anthropological point of view. You continue insisting on that Marx was a philosopher, and personally,  I think that he was more of an Anthropologist than a Philosopher, or an Economists, even more, he said that Political Economic was a trash.Both rejected the bourgeois materialist concept of their times, and both rejected Philosophical idealism, and both rejected vulgar materialism, but they did not combine both. That conception came from the School of Frankfurt, as indicated below:Let me sum it up by repeating briefly the two true historic unchainings of the dialectic: (1) No separation between thought and reality; dialectics characterized both the subjective and objective development. (2) He was not keeping in totally separate departments materialism and idealism. He was uniting them to create a totally new category–a “new Humanism.”  ( An extract taken from News and Letters ) The one that always had an opinion about Natural Sciences, and the Universe,  was F. Engels, that was his specialty ,up to the point that mistakenly applied Dialectic to Nature, but at the very beginning the economist was Engels, it was not Marx.For me, socialism, would be like Marx and Engels envision it, as the unification of human beings with nature. For that conception in my brain, I do not need 200 philosopher, thousands of economists, and thousands of biologists and physicists. It is simple, and that is reason why I like the SP, because we have turned complicated conceptions  into a simple ideas

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Everything that Marx wrote has a social, or sociological character character,( he was not a physicists,)…

  No, Marx was a 'physicist'.That's the point. 'Physics' is a socio-historical product, and 'physicists' are ideologists. [edit: this is why his Capital is more scientific than works produced by bourgeois physicists, like Hawking, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc., who attempt to conceal their ideologies]This argument is contained in your next words:

mc wrote:

No separation between thought and reality; dialectics characterized both the subjective and objective development. (2) He was not keeping in totally separate departments materialism and idealism. He was uniting them to create a totally new category–a “new Humanism.” …

Thought-reality, subjective-objective, materialism-idealism, unity.This is no less than Marx's 'idealism-materialism', a unity.'Rocks' are ideal-material products of human society. That's why the ideologies behind 'physics' (and all 'science') must be addressed.

mc wrote:

The one that always had an opinion about Natural Sciences, and the Universe,  was F. Engels, that was his specialty ,up to the point that mistakenly applied Dialectic to Nature, …

Yes, Engels was 'mistaken'.'Dialectics' means 'idealism-materialism', human social theory and practice, which produces our 'organic nature'.

mc wrote:

For me, socialism, would be like Marx and Engels envision it, as the unification of human beings with nature.

And for me, too, mcolome1.But not for the 'materialists', who continue to argue that 'rocks' are simply 'out there' (ie. there is no unity between 'humans' and 'their rocks'), and that the 'materialists' can 'know' rocks 'as they are', and so they don't need a vote about the social production of 'rocks', because they, and they alone, 'know' nature 'as it is'.mcolome1, you're confused, because you correctly argue about 'unity' (that societies produce their 'external' world), but then refuse to allow the producers to democratically decide upon their world (social-natural, a unity).This is a contradiction that must be addressed.Are 'rocks' simply 'out there', awaiting 'disinterested scientists' to 'discover' them (so that when they do so, they 'know Truth')?Or, are 'rocks' our social product, that we are already aware that different societies produce differently, and that in a socialist society, being democratic, only we can determine our 'rocks-for-us'?If one agrees with Marx on the 'unity of science', then one must agree with 'democratic control of science', mcolome1.That's what's at issue, here.The SPGB does not agree the workers should democratically control their science (but argues that 'science' is an elite activity, with disinterested experts, who employ a politically-neutral scientific method, and that there is no place for democracy in the production of 'Truth').'Truth' is a socio-historical product, and changes.We must be in control of those changes – we can't be told to merely contemplate what an elite has produced, for their own interests and purposes, in the past.Marx was correct – 'philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it'.

[moderator2]

REMINDER (for LBird)1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. I think we all know we have been here before but there are other aspects to the topic thread that others would prefer to concentrate upon rather than be distracted by the now well-trod path you seem intent upon taking it down once again.  No need to reply to this message, LBird, just heed the reminder for the benefit of the other forum users and if you wish, just treat it as another cop-out by the SPGB but  it is time to move on…Your views can continue elsewhere on the appropriate thread, if you so desire.  

[twc]

LBird wrote:

If matter is ‘social’ then ‘material’ includes consciousness.

Here is a copy of my response…“Yes, the relations are social, and they necessarily involve consciousness.  Otherwise they could never explain consciousness.”“That is the whole point of a materialist explanation of consciousness—which explanation you despite yourself frequently slip into unconsciously.  I’ll enumerate occasions if you wish.”“It is a pity that your constricting Berkeleanism prevents you from comprehending the Marxian distinction between appearance and essence—something you assert to be impossible, and so your insular philosophy justifies its insularity by denying the Marxian distinction as myth.”“So long as your Berkelean mindset prevents you from making the essential Marxian distinction between appearance and essence you have no hope of comprehending a materialist explanation like Marx’s.  Marx must forever remain totally unfathomable to you, as you confess his Capital does remain so for you.”“It’s a pity, because Marx’s materialist explanation of capitalist and working class consciousness totally permeates his work.  I’ll enumerate instance upon instance if you wish.  You might start with his sublime “Trinity” chapter I referred to earlier in the thread.”“The key point is…”“Materialism, Marx’s historical materialism included, is a simply an explanation of thought as being essentially determined, despite overwhelming appearance to the contrary, despite the centuries old class dominant illusion that thought determines everything—the grand illusion of the class epochs.”If that failed to answer your question, I take the opportunity to explain further:The slaveholder, in palpable appearance, owns the material body of his slave and the product of the slave’s labour over and above his slave’s upkeep.The feudal lord, in palpable appearance, appropriates the material land on which his serf lives and that portion of the serf’s [corvée] labour on the land that exceeds his serf’s upkeep.The capitalist, in palpable appearance, owns the machinery, raw materials and capacity-to-labour of the worker while he labours, and the product of his working day that exceeds his worker’s upkeep.These appearances are expressions of fundamental class relations between ruling and ruled classes.Above all, these appearances can be adequately expressed and comprehended in non-ideal terms, i.e. as pure material relationships—which simply means that we, in our minds, can abstract out the consciousness that clings to both parties in the social relation without doing damage to the essential relation, just as we can abstract out country, nationality, creed, etc. without doing damage to the essential relation of ownership and control of the means of life.When dealing with essentials, one abstracts from contingency, while simultaneously acknowledging that essence is only expressed through contingency.And yes, consciousness actually does adhere to the relation.  But the issue at hand, the essential question, is not that consciousness is present in the relation but “how do we comprehend the consciousness of the relation scientifically?"This is the issue on which materialism and idealism offer opposing accounts.  Both agree that their task is to explain consciousness.And materialism doesn’t need to resort to atoms and molecules to explain this, contrary to your repeated assertions ad nauseam, just as idealism doesn’t need to invoke god, contrary to your repeated assertions ad nauseam.What Engels materialistically implies, because his rapid notes abstract generalities from history, and are not explicit, is:Slaves, despite appearances to the contrary, do not essentially stand in an intellectual inferiority (= consciousness) relation to their masters.Serfs, despite appearances to the contrary, do not essentially stand in an ecclesiastical spiritual (= consciousness) relation to the lord of their domain?The working class, despite appearances to the contrary, does not essentially stand in a transactional market (= consciousness) relation to the capitalist class.In each of these social relations, the consciousness adhering to both parties in the relation begs deeper explanation than their mere consciousness of it.Engels says elsewhere in these German Ideology scraps that he and Marx adopt the skepticism of the shopkeeper who refuses to take customers at their own estimation of themselves:“While in ordinary life every shopkeeper knows very well how to distinguish between what someone pretends to be, & what he actually is, yet our writing of history has still not arrived at this trivial insight.  It takes every epoch at its word, what it says & imagines about itself”That brief note adequately encapsulates the attitude of Marx and Engels to the veracity, accuracy and quality of the consciousness of social classes about themselves.  Marx and Engels were social scientists, not suckers.For your part, LBird, your sustained and concerted attacks upon the capitalist market and upon capitalist apologetics falls for capitalism’s own esteemed estimation of itself, and runs totally counter to Marx’s materialist comprehension of the essential capitalist relation.You esteem the phenomenal “forms of appearance” of market and apologetics—that arise out of (or alternatively arise as a consequence of) politically privileged exclusive class control of the means of life—as if they were essential to the class relation.  You even tell us in an attempt to convince us of the veracity, accuracy and quality of your estimation of capitalism that the shopkeeping “capitalists even consciously tell us so”.  Oh well, a sucker is born…Don’t feel embarrassed about this, your conscious tilt at forms of appearance parallels the equally sustained and concerted—and equally misdirected—attacks by anarchists upon the state, which is just another such phenomenal form of appearance that arises out of the same essential material social relation as does the market, even though this fantastic estimation rises paramount in the anarchist’s idealist consciousness.So, in summary…My answer to you, as yesterday, remains yes.I hereby assert that the materiality of a slaveholder owning a slave is an essential social relation of production, independent of the consciousness of each.I also assert that this social relation does incorporate consciousness.The consciousness of one party to the ruling–ruled class social relation is relatively liberated.The consciousness of the other party to the ruling–ruled class social relation is relatively crippled.The consciousness of each party to the ruling–ruled class social relation deludes itself about its essential determining role in the social relation itself.The consciousness of both parties to the ruling–ruled class social relation is not determinate of the social relation itself, but is determined by it.

[LBird]

moderator2 wrote:

…if you wish, just treat it as another cop-out by the SPGB …

[my bold]It's not merely my 'wish', mod2, but, ironically, an ongoing 'social fact'!OK, if mcolome1 wishes to reply to my last post and continue, he can do so on a new thread.I won't respond any further on this one.

[jondwhite]

The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.

[Young Master Smeet]

And the thesis qI was building was that for the working class, the sale of their votes in return for 'gifts' from politicians, suggests welfare statism and a social wage is the 'natural form' of capitalism, and the working class may not necessarilly be the or even an agent of communism.The sheeple/brainwashing explanation doesn't wash, because any ideological control must conform in some way to lived experience, or it would be totally rejected.The working class have built a Labour Party, not a Socialist Party.

[Author]

Posts