[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

As I'm not the one claiming our class conceived the "work ethic",  it's up to YMS to present the evidence. But I'll log it in my books to read list.

FWIW no-one's obliged to spoon feed you. If you really are interested in these things you should take the time to learn about it yourself. The origins of capitalism where not some kind of clever con trick inserted by a clever elite from the outside but the result of a process of which the to-be working class did play an active role….

No way DJP, honestly! There I was thinking the capitalist "machine" was a giant robot from outer space, that enslaved human kind and chose a few to play the role of prison guards, while we all meekly bowed our heads in obedience. [sarcasm]I'll say it again just in case you don't get it. I didn't make the assertion that we as a class, conceived the notion of the "work ethic".Am I now the one who must read a dull book to prove or disprove what someone else is asserting?  

DJP wrote:

If you're feeling brave try reading EP Thompson "The Making of the English Working Class" or something like that…

It sounds like a rivetting read. I'll go off and find myself a copy, spend an age dragging through it and then write up a report for the class and…. Whatever happened to the idea of sharing knowledge. We can't all read every book, nor want to. If there is something definitive in that book or any other book, that proves beyond doubt that the "work ethic" was conceived by our class then a few quotes would work wonders in educating this forum.  

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But the wages system precisely does away with betters, "never say thank you for a paycheck" means there is no gratitude to the employer, but money paid for work done well.  The independent workers is freed from subservience and looks the employer in the eye and says 'How much?'.We can look to sport, the gentlemen versus players.  For the middle class, they venerated the gentlemen, seeing professionalism as being subservient to the aristocracy (17th Century squires kept farm hands who were professional cricketers to play for them and back up their gambling), being a gentleman amateur meant playing the game for itself. For the working class sportsmen being paid for a job well done was a necessity and also a point of pride: just look at today how amateur is a universal perjorative, wheras professional is a positive term.For the work ethic, ask: who were the quakers, the protestants, the dissenters?  Why were so many weavers of that disposition?

YMSI want to get back to our original discussion about the millions of our class conciously rejecting socialism in favour of capitalism, as I think we are both taking opposite stances whereas I think the truth lies somewhere in between. But first we need to resolve this "work ethic" issue.I got my socialist education, firstly from the Socialist Standard and a few pamphlets, discussing things with my dad from his encounters with the SPGB. Then when I joined via the North East branch in the late 1990's. During that time I came across the idea of the "work ethic" and the socialist view that it's origins lay in the early industrialisation of capitalism. A religious, moral value system emerged that excused the worst exploitation of workers, while justifying the wealth of the owners in some divine work inspired "know thy place"scheme.The question then becomes, did the workers in those "dark satanic mills" conceive such a notion as to placate themselves?That many religious minded workers adopted and ran with it, is no surprise, and presenting anecdotes and proverbs does not amount to proof that it was our class that conceived the religious justification for their exploitation. 

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I still need proof of the "work ethic"being a concept of our class and not as my socialist education taught me, before I ditch it. If shown the error of my thinking I will amend it accordingly.

If you're feeling brave try reading EP Thompson "The Making of the English Working Class" or something like that…

Thanks DJP,As I'm not the one claiming our class conceived the "work ethic",  it's up to YMS to present the evidence. But I'll log it in my books to read list.

[SocialistPunk]

YMSI still need proof of the "work ethic"being a concept of our class and not as my socialist education taught me, before I ditch it. If shown the error of my thinking I will amend it accordingly.On the position of our class developing ideas and fighting to improve conditions, I have no disagreement. But the examples you give are still fixed in a conservative viewpoint of how society functions. Us at the bottom and our betters at the top. It's a lot more complex than that, but in essence for most people that is how the world works and always has. That is the socialsation that is the most pervasive. It is why our definition of socialism is so alien and difficult to grasp.Difficult yes, not impossible. 

[SocialistPunk]

YMSIf our class is aware of socialism as we define it and therefore aware that other socialisms are distortions of the actual true concept of socialism, then how can we as a class reject socialism on the grounds that it has been tried and failed?There is also the vague often untangible notion that socialism is about social fairness. It so often leads people to call for redistribution of wealth via the tax system, as personified with the old school Labour Party, in Britain.So with those two ideas still being the dominant notions of socialism, I reject your claim of millions of our class being aware of socialism, as we here define it. So your last statement about our class choosing to reject socialism is, sadly flawed.When you say our class developed the "work ethic", do you mean that it was conceived by our class or adopted? As I came to see it, the "work ethic" was conceived as a religious, moral value system, hence "work ethic", to encourage our class to accept the horrendous changes in working conditions occuring during the process of industrial change, as capitalism emerged as the dominant socio economic system.If I've been wrong all these years, then I'm happy to ditch my socialist education in favour of another theory, but understandably I'm gonna need a bit of proof.  There is something I find rather odd when you say we built capitalism etc, because it freed us. I'm damn sure when our class suffered and died in the mills and factories, I don't think they were thinking it was for freedom. It was out of pure degrading financial necessity.  

[SocialistPunk]

YMSI am in no way undermining the political sophistication of our class, I have never said anything to that effect. I know we are capable of thinking beyond the limitations of the ruling class ideology. No two people have the same experiences in life, and so some end up "thinking outside the box" in all manner of ways including political thought. Despite this, ruling ideology is still supremely dominant in terms of how we organise society.My point is the examples you use such as the "work ethic" do not originate from our class for the benefit of our class, as you stated several of posts back and still seem so keen on clinging to. That those ideas are then adopted as "common sense" (that you yourself have stated is ideology and so minority dominance) by our class is proof of the effectiveness of the minority ruling class in controlling our education the majority of the time. (It was to counter the ruling minority control of education as to why the early SPGB socialists thought a socialist education so important to our class.) It is this "common sense" that sees our class seemingly accept overwhelmingly the idea that the way it is now is the way it's always been.My original point was that how can anyone make a deliberate, fully informed choice when it comes to supporting or rejecting a concept without being fully informed? In response, you stated that millions of workers were aware of socialism as we here define it, so suggesting millions had conciously rejected socialism in favour of capitalism. Now you accept that various revolutions most notably the Russian so called communist/socialist revolution, has clouded the view our class has of socialism. But how can our class reject socialism on those grounds when they have made concious decisions based on awareness of what the SPgb has to say? I suspect your suggesting I'm down playing the ability of our class in the field of politics is an attempt to distract attention from your muddled posts.

[SocialistPunk]

I don't really know ALB, I wasn't in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s.I was having a bit of a laugh with my post in case you couldn't tell. I really must start to put warnings in brackets.By the way both the Patriotic Socialist Party and The Socialist Party of Great Britain, both contain the word socialist in their title, whereas The Social Democratic Party of Germany and The German National Socialist Workers Party do not share the word socialist.

SocialistPunk wrote:

It's probably a very good idea that The Socialist Party of Great Britain never contest an election against the Patriotic Socialist Party. At first glance it would be difficult to tell who were the national socialists.Before anyone says anything, read my words "At first glance" again.Imagine how a voting slip would look with the following line up, Patriotic Socialist Party, The British National Party and The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The first part is simply comparing the "At first glance" nationalistic conotations of the names, that has been mentioned by a few SPgb members in recent weeks.The second bit is tongue in cheek, again playing on the patriotic symbolism of the words, Great Britain.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, we are on the ballot paper at elections as "The Socialist Party (GB)" and on our leaflets as "The Socialist Party".

Using different names during an election strategy is surely quite a unique approach. Actually in practice it's three, as the poster for the meeting of the Kent and Sussex branch states.Oops, there I go on my hobby horse again.

[SocialistPunk]

It's probably a very good idea that The Socialist Party of Great Britain never contest an election against the Patriotic Socialist Party. At first glance it would be difficult to tell who were the national socialists.Before anyone says anything, read my words "At first glance" again.Imagine how a voting slip would look with the following line up, Patriotic Socialist Party, The British National Party and The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

To mark the start of the Branch's 2015 General Election campaign in Brighton this meeting's been arranged in nearby Burgess Hill on Sunday. 9th November.

It's great to see a branch getting stuck in, reminds me of when I was in the North East branch.One small criticism, though perhaps not so small given the recent discussions on this site about Party identity and confusion over multiple names. The lead sentence at the top has the Party going by the name of Socialist Party.

[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. 

[SocialistPunk]

As usual some in the SPgb miss the point about why Russell Brand is being discussed on this site.It isn't so much about him, I don't think those of us here who think he is a positive force are falling in love with the bloke. It's more about his fans, the people who might be switching on to his discussion about revolution. It's those people who are importantAs for the messiah complex thing, the guy is a comedian, film "star" social commentator. all rolled into one and he's stated a number of times that he doesn't take himself too seriously. If he was only concerned about being a darling of the entertainment industry he wouldn't bother with the social commentary. I get the impression he means what he sys when it comes to changing society for the better.I've subscribed to Brand's YouTube show, Trews and there are a lot of times when, if I closed my eyes, I could be listening to what we call a socialist and because he tackles a variety of social topics, there is plenty of opportunity for us socialists to get involved with some discussion on the comments section of his YouTube broadcasts.

[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?    

[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?

[SocialistPunk]

J Surman wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I don't see how Brand could be talking about the former Soviet Union, Vin. Apparently the SPgb has successfully managed to get through to millions of our class, that must mean the myths of "communism" have been laid to rest, surely?

I'd be interested who and where the millions are you mention Soc. Punk, your source I mean. It certainly doesn't strike me like that.As to what people think of when 'communism' is mentioned that would make for a good discussion on this forum. I often find it to be a stumbling block, having to politely point out the huge gap between 'state capitalist communism' and what we mean by communism/socialism. I'd also like to hear from the younger generation on this one – the under 30s say.A new thread?

Hi JSAlan is correct when he said I was being sarcastic, with reference to another discussion with a Party member who made a statement along the lines of millions or our class being aware of our definition of socialism. It's from the thread "Can the workers ever be wrong", if you would like to comment.In reality I agree with Vin when he says Brand is probably referring to the old Soviet Union and other communisms, and I think he sees a distinction between communism and socialism, with socialism being preferable.

[SocialistPunk]

Vin Maratty wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

 'I'm not talking about some sort of crazy communist thing, I'm talking about democracy' (Brand) 

 He may have been referring to the likes of the Soviet Union. 'communism'

I don't see how Brand could be talking about the former Soviet Union, Vin. Apparently the SPgb has successfully managed to get through to millions of our class, that must mean the myths of "communism" have been laid to rest, surely?

[Author]

Posts