Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:A brief perusal of the case for Socialism, is the most that can be given to the claim of the, "heard and rejecting our case".
And most people stop there. they have no need to read on, they reject at that point. In discussion, though, they do put forward sophisticated understandings of how markets work, they might not have a deep knowledged of collatoralised default swaps or futures trading, but then, neither do most economists. We're getting close to "No True Scotsman" Fallacies here.If the workers are 'conditioned' we are doomed, and the only alternative is Leninist style leqadership to break the chains. We should be wary of the siren voices of the 'What if I told you…' Matrix memes. the workers are Sheeple. If the working class makes itself, and capitalism, then it has the power to transform itself and capitalism. The capitalist class are like the villagers tryign to placate a volcan, they're not in charge, their just riding their luck.
I stand by the claim that many workers have heard and rejected our case, and that they stand consciously by capitalism, that can be seen in any conversation with even the mosts eemingly politically illiterate worker, in my experience. For now, they have something that works (for them) even when our case is explained, they have the examples of failed revolutions in their mind as real examples against our hypothetical (and different) model.The work ethic was very much developed by our class and is part of the way the working class built capitalism. Yes, it has historic roots with the apprentices in the guilds which were (late middle ages) part of the wider bourgeois coalition. If it didn't work for us, it wouldn't have such a hold. We have use of it too. The working class fought hard to create the wages system, for fair markets, to build capitalism, because that freed us. We need workplace discipline, because that's the only way our workplaces can function.Tehre's no muddle here. the working class could have socalism if it wanted, and has chosen not to.
Sp,I can only take you at your word, and try and explain my position accordingly. I'd rather not see the working class as the passive objects of the ruling class, teh work ethic, things like 'never say thank you for a pay check' run deep within working class culture: you worked for it, you earned it. Also, looking out for your mates, and wanting to see them allright, mutual aid. The most venemous people wrt benefits are usually those who don't have to work for a living themselves, but that doesn't mean that they aren't latching on to some genuine wworking class feeling (that they hvave to do so is testament to the political power of working class votes). We do the same when we talk about the scroungers in Buckingham Palace.Those millions of conversations take the form of suspicion against political changes that may weaken the working class (workers are very keen on the vote) and its current freedoms; also a suspiscion that the claims of the socialists will not be delivered. After all, the examples of the Russian and French and other revolutions are there. Personally, I'd advise you not to talk down the sophistication of working class political analysis. The key point is that the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class, but they're not the only ideas. There is a constant contest, but it is towo sided, and sometimes (some sections of) the workers entirely in their own interests take positions with which we would profoundly disagree.
Quote:The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act. Substitution not allowed. The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do? Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way? Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'? It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.
SP,Identity is simply how a person sees themself being and becoming. So long as thy live up to their own expectations, they will be relatively content. The question is, what is more revolutionary, wanting to be more, or trying to stay the same when it is being taken away.Marx used the analogy of living next door to someone in a bigger house, it doesn't matter if you live in a mansion if your neighbour lives in a palace, you'll always want a palace. In that instance, part of your identity is being the same, or equal to your neighbour.The alternative is when, say, after swinging rounds of redundancies, people's communities are ripped apart, and they can no linger see themselves living as they have hitherto, and they rise up to defend a communal and personal identity.To take another example, in a heternormative society, a person might identify as heterosexual, and get married, have children, etc. but be confronted with their lack of engagement with heterosexual sex and their experience of feelings of homosexual attracton, this would lead, eventually, to the collapse of their heterosexual identity, and drastic change in their life.A further point, there is plenty of socialisation going on, but much of that is the working class socialising it's memebrs in it's interest. yes, the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class, but they're not the only ideas. A lot of working people dislike scroungers, and believe in work: the ruling class home in on such views, but they are not alien viws to the class.
LBird,I trot it out because, in spite of your protestations, there's precious little real in your realism. Railing against the tyranny of rocks is to be a Cnut railing against the tides. Understanding that we are rocks, that rocks.
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.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Charlie and Fred wrote:Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.JUst because we know how things are now, doesn't mean they always have to be the same, but if we don't know how they are, we won't be able to change them.
But the world as it stands isn't standing still, it moves, and our understanding is both shaped by and shaping of that movement. As Charlie wrote, "To discover the various uses of things is the work of history."
LBird,I think this comes down to the nub between us. I'd say socialism arises from the world as it actually exists now, and the only way we can understand socialism is by understanding this world (and therein the possibilities that present themselves to us which, whilst they may have already and always been present were not conscious previously). That is, revolution does not come from a rejection from the world as it is, but through a dogged grip on the world as it stands. I think that's the key distinstion between utopianism and marxian socialism.
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.
LBird,Having already provided quick descriptions of materialism, idealism and marxism I also provided a definition of epistemology. I'll also note I pointed out that your blank page description of idealism was just plain wrong, so of no use to workers whatever.SP,
Quote:For most would be socialists, it takes active investigation that can include asking questions and debating (it's what this forum is for).Quite, and most workers don't even feel the need to begin that level of examination. If the workers wanted socialist ideas, they'd be beating a path to our door. Or, as I'm sure you did, they'd be putting across socialist ideas themselves. As it stands, for them the sun is green, and their daily experience concurrs with this.
