Gravediggers
New Member
Socialist are always trying to explain the case better and fresher. As for seeing the light I hope you are not suggesting we are on a religious crusade?
SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
Socialist are always trying to explain the case better and fresher. As for seeing the light I hope you are not suggesting we are on a religious crusade?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
v
To you accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing+ It's just the way it is?
To you accepting capitalism is like accepting breathing+ It's just the way it is?
I didn't say just that
that is just repeating what I have just said. You haven't answered "Are you an anarchist? if so, how can you say that your being conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society means nothing at all???? And that not enough working class sharing your conscious of this need for classless society, to make it a reality today, means nothing at all?"
Perhaps I should put the question even simpler, are you conscious of the need of the working class, for classless society?
cue freds exit from the thread...
I'm an anarchist and I think that there's every chance that the working class that I know, that I'm part of will never see a classless society no matter how desireable it is. I think that recognising the desiribility of a classless society is not a matter of consciousness and describing it as necessary is a lot of bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for, there wasn't one yesterday and there won't be tomorrow yet here I am.
Dreams of the impotent.
I think she needs cocaine for her brain to work properly. Semi-retirement has turned her into a blithering idiot.
I went for UKIP because I can't forgive Germany
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
So, you are not only conscious of "how desireable it is", you are also conscious how to "define what it's necessary for". now this "working class that you know, that you are a part of", are they as conscious as you of "how desireable it is", and "what it's necessary for"?
Gravediggers
New Member
Well if that's not a classic exit post I don't know what is. For it contains so many glaring contradictions I would be ashamed to describe myself as a 'class struggle anarchist', for it plainly illustrates you have no idea what class struggle is about, denies involvement in the struggle raises class consciousness, foresees no outcome and is of the firm opinion that capitalism is here to stay and inevitable, finally it claims that socialism is not necessary for socialists do not define why socialism is necessary, which is clearly saying that inequality is an insufficient reason to abolish capitalism.
How more defeatist can you get?!
newbie
undisambiguated
I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious
Of course you're always trying to explain. Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better. Then they'll get it. Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.
No-one could hear the ideas, think about them and then reject them because they prefer capitalism, could they? Well, the odd one or two can be written off as class traitors or somesuch, but when more or less the entire class does it, it must be because the case hasn't been properly put. There's no other possibility.
I never said I could define what it's necessary for. I said saying it's necessary is bollocks unless you define what it's necessary for.
We're back to the Watchtower with the second part of your post. hich brings your mate in nicely.
Did you know the Jehovas have an angel living in their New York headquarters? This angel told them that the world would end, second coming the lot, in 1910 it was supposed to happen and we'd all be living with in harmony with the tigers, the chosen ones anyway.
Was it an angel that the SPGB of 1904 were following or was it a frayed copy of the manifesto that they were interpreting? Either way they never saw a classless society and neither did any of the people they knew.
So is now the time? Because now is when I live and all the people around me live. Painting pretty pictures of this socialist utopia is no more use to them than it is to you.
Consciousness my arse.
JimW
支那暗杀团
He could join the SPGB and accept permanent verbose irrelevance.
Gravediggers
New Member
I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious
Of course you're always trying to explain. Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better. Then they'll get it. Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.
No-one could hear the ideas, think about them and then reject them because they prefer capitalism, could they? Well, the odd one or two can be written off as class traitors or somesuch, but when more or less the entire class does it, it must be because the case hasn't been properly put. There's no other possibility.
Yes the facts are that the case for socialism hasn't been properly put. Not by socialists I may add but by the private and state capitalist opposition. Despite the fact that a socialist society as never existed the term 'socialism' has been defined and identified with what occurred in Russia (and elsewhere) as socialism in practice when it was state capitalist in existence there. Nationalisation has also been associated with socialism when in truth it is the state operating businesses and industry on behalf of the capitalist class. The most ridiculous recent assertion of socialism is of Obama being a socialist because of the introduction of health reforms.
Clearly, socialists have an uphill battle just explaining what socialism isn't more often than explaining what socialism is. Although this is all par for the course it paradoxically helps us to explain how capitalism operates to besmirch any opposition to the profit system.
Gravediggers
New Member
What makes you think we would accept him as a member when clearly he has no understanding of what class consciousness consists of.
It consists of agreeing with you. I think that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated.
Gravediggers
New Member
Its not so straight forward or one sided as you might think. Of course agreement on class consciousness by both parties is central to a succesful application for membership, for what is the point of having non-socialists in a socialist party? On the other hand, there are plenty of socialists who have decided not to apply for membership because they disagree on certain points in our case. Again there have been socialists who have left the SPGB for any number of reasons. Robbo for instance, left because he thought the hostility clause was being strictly applied in all cases, yet he still adheres to socialist principles, despite these disagreements.
Gravediggers
New Member
Such dreadful caricatures stand out like a sore thumb and do nothing to support your claim you are a class struggle anarchist.
The stuff about the Jehovas is true (I might have the year wrong though) I don't know about the SPGB. You tell me, what went wrong, what happened to the classless society that was promised to the followers in 1904?
Is it coming soon?
fractionMan
Custom Title
It's good to dream eh?
fractionMan
Custom Title
As in, there's no point denying we live under capitalism and it's not going to change?
Yes.
I can moan about it all day long, but I'm one of a small few irl I know that does.
Gravediggers
New Member
Nothing gone wrong or even went wrong, for in 1904 and since, we have never promised anything just made a basic proposal based on an analysis of capitalism and the solution of socialism. The case for socialism is a proposal for change to be enacted by the working class not the SPGB. In this proposal we make it quite clear that our role is specifically a vehicle for the workers to use - if they so wish - and as they see fit. The SPGB can help the working class to obtain a change in the revolutionary transformation of political power, but it is not the engine or the driver for those roles remain firmly with the workers.
The type of vehicle used will depend on the circumstances of the time. It could a large car, or if thought necessary a double decker bus. The choice of direction and the speed and who will be in the passenger seats will be entirely up to the workers. The actual route taken will depend on them and the map used will created by them, and the compass bearings will be their own experiences of the class struggle. The instruments used to help them on the journey will be of their own creation and all excess baggage containing the promise of reforms will be left behind.
The stopovers along the route will be used to distribute socialist literature and street meetings held to encourage other workers to join them on the journey of a lifetime. Some of the stopovers may consist of a few days, whilst others may take longer in an effort to set in motion the necessary planning and preparation for the eventual transformation.
There will of course be the occasional breakdown in communications and the vehicle will require maintenance from time to time, but the fuel for the journey will not be a problem for it will consist of all the miseries, poverty, wars and inequalities imposed by capitalism. As the journey progresses the vehicle will be adapted to the climate and geography of the regional differences. But whatever the adaptations the basic framework of the vehicle will remain the same and consist of socialist principles.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
just out of interest, what perspective are you politically? Because, I am honestly interested in mutual understanding what we have to say. I don't think that has happened so far in this thread.I wouldn't be so bold, although the parallels are blindingly obvious
Of course you're always trying to explain. Anyone who hasn't achieved what you think of as class consciousness (which is a bit different from what RMP3 thinks it is) just needs the explanation to be put slightly better. Then they'll get it. Anyone who doesn't get it clearly hasn't had the opportunity to hear the explanation properly.
What has claimed to be dismissed so far in this thread, is the Marxist understanding of class consciousness. However, it is plain from what you write, and what everyone else has written, we have not clearly defined that yet. To illustrate that point, I do not think there is any real difference between what I see as class consciousness and grave digger sees as class consciousness. There is a tactical difference of how we apply it to party and class, but I don't think there is a difference in the understanding of the term. So what is a Marxist understanding of class consciousness?
Firstly I don't think you can understand a Marxist understanding of class consciousness, without first understanding Marxist understanding, the Marxist method. An understanding of the Marxist method, which applies to every area of investigation, will quickly illustrate that many of the assumptions being made about the Marxist understanding of class consciousness, about it being static, a testament of thoughts of Marx, with no connection to an ever changing world, are incongruent with the Marxist method.
Dialectical Materialism, the Marxist method, is really simple, and really complex at the same time. But quite simply, the whole point of the Marxist method, is to understand why society changes.
There are three main elements to it.
1. Everything is part of the whole. So you cannot understand the evolution of society in terms of Kings and Queens, how history was taught at school for many years. But it is equally true to say, you cannot understand history just in terms of history from below. There is an inextricable dialectical relationship between the ruled and the rulers.
2. It is a scientific fact, that there is nothing you can think of, that is not enough process of change. Nothing can exist in stasis, including society.
3. The driving force for change, is contradiction. It is the contradiction between the interests of the rulers and the ruled, that has caused the evolution of human society. So, "the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle".
And so the Marxist understanding of class consciousness, as in every other area of analysis, is holistic, dynamic, and contradictory, and attacking class consciousness as it being static, a testament of thoughts of Marx, with no connection to an ever changing world, is not attacking what I actually think.
So with regard to class consciousness. You cannot really view class consciousness in terms of, "that is class conscious and that is not". For a start, it is part of the society with two main classes. So there is two forms of class consciousness. There is ruling class consciousness, and working class class consciousness. (let's forget the middle classes for now).
Every day there all kinds of pressures which inculcate into people the ruling ideas, but at exactly the same time there are all kinds of pressures which lead people to question those ruling ideas. In the vast majority of people this leads to "contradictory levels of consciousness". If you are any kind of activist, you will be familiar with this. You meet somebody, say in some kind of trade union campaign. This somebody is absolutely excellent. They have really got working class instincts, of what is in the interest of their campaign and the working class, and what is not. And then all of a sudden, they come out with a whole load of racism, sexism, or homophobia etc. They have contradictory levels of consciousness. They are aware of many aspects of what is in their class interest, but at the same time they accept many ideas which are in the interests of the ruling class, ideas which divide and rule the working class.
So what I am saying here, is that the idea of consciousness is very complex, it covers a whole spectrum, it is not just black and white, you have either got it or you haven't. Everybody has varying degrees, and contradictory consciousness.
Also this is a very dynamic situation. Shifts in consciousness between the left and right, can happen on a daily basis not only in the individual, but in society as a whole. It is part of the whole, the class struggle. And so the class struggle intervenes in that consciousness, every day.
And lastly, and this is where I might be at odds with the SPGB, Marxist's are not immune to the pressures that create contradictory levels of consciousness.[1] The Marxist's do not have all the answers. The answers, especially about the here and now, change on a daily basis, as the circumstances change. That is why, imo, the SPGB is wrong, it is NOT a vanguard. You have to be connected to the working class, to test your ideas in the class struggle every day, just like a Vanguard has to be connected to the train, to see whether they cut the mustard. Creating communism/anarchism, isn't just about standing on the sidelines acting as a Siren beckoning the working class to socialism, it is about fighting for it in the here and now.
well, I am led to believe, Stephen Hawkins believes in god. At the same time he postulates scientific based theories. Now I dare say, more people in the world accept his ideas about god, than they do his scientific theories. This does not mean his scientific theories are wrong, and his belief in god is right. That is not a scientific methodology.
Likewise, Marxism claims to have scientific insight into evolution of human society. This insight is based upon observation, which makes predictions. One of these predictions is that “the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class”. That this idea is not accepted by the working class, does not make it necessarily untrue. And that there is “another possibility”, is very well documented amongst Marxist’s. “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
eta So, IMO accepting or rejecting Marxism as an understanding of capitalism and a guide to action, needs to be done so on a scientific and rational basis.
Footnote.
1. I don’t know whether this will illuminate or confuse, but I do think it is an analogy which illustrates the Marxist method of analysis, and the pressures upon consciousness even for Marxist’s.
Marxist’s argued that chartists were the first flowering of working class consciousness. Now the chartist movement produced many of its own newspapers, writings, ‘culture’. However, the same Marxist added, there is no such thing as working class culture. This is because, even though these items of culture where produced solely by and for the working class, they were produced in capitalist society and, however autonomously the working class produced those items of culture, they only ever did/do so whilst in relation to their oppression by the ruling class, and so this mediated their production of culture. You can only really have working class culture in communism/anarchism, where you have only one class the working class.
Gravediggers
New Member
And its good to know how we live and to imagine how we might live, for it would be a poor world if we did not have this capacity to think what is possible.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
No, with 300 members you're going to need at least two or three double decker buses. Bicycles might be better, though.
Tell us more about 1904, FreddyB
fractionMan
Custom Title
I don't disagree. I just think your utopia is unobtainable with our current levels of technology and will remain so until long after we're dead.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
And that is my sole point. You are " one of a small few irl I know that does" that has a different working class consciousness to those outside your "small few". There are indeed different degrees of working class consciousness.
fractionMan
Custom Title
You appear to be agreeing with me. Either that or your point is as clear as mud.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
ye, I think I am agreeing with you. I think I got you mixed up with freddy b the anarchist who denies the existence of class consciousness, when I originally responded to you.
fractionMan
Custom Title
We'll then it's even more confusing, because I'm fairly convinced class consciousness doesn't exist too.
People might be fed up with their boss, hate working long hours for fuck all and wonder why their electricity bill is so bloody high. They may even notice that a lot of people are in the same boat as them. But that's not the class consciousness you and diggers are describing.
People might be fed up with their boss, hate working long hours for fuck all and wonder why their electricity bill is so bloody high. They may even notice that a lot of people are in the same boat as them. But that's not the class consciousness you and diggers are describing.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I cannot logically see a classless society being any other way. You would be living in a situation where you, as part of a collective, would have responsibility for and control of your destiny. Where all production, work, would be for human need not profit, so where you would be quite literally working for the satisfaction of helping your brothers and sisters. All the elements that now promote competition, would promote cooperation. And if there were any shortages, inadequacies, in the system, they would be there because we had chose them instead of others, they were not created because of some privileged minorities greed.Every single day would be a holiday? With work and leisure as we know it being a thing of the past? Seriously?
Will there be unicorns?
The consciousness of capitalism, individualism greed and competition, would be as alien to communards, as is the consciousness of feudalism is to us today.
Gravediggers
New Member
Excellent analysis and arguments which should broaden the discussion on this thread. My apologies for editing but I spotted an obvious contradiction right at the end in the last sentence, "You can only really have working class culture in communism/anarchism, where you have only one class the working class." If the working class still exist by definition there must be an opposing class and a class society. Socialism will be a classless society and cultural expression will cease to be an expression of class interests but of the common interests of the community in producing for use and human needs.
Btw the quote from the CM referring to the history of class struggle was commented on in the prefaces of the later subsequent editions should have actual read, "All written history of the class struggle". Also it should be made clear that Marx's use of the dialectic method was a tool to be used for further investigation into his main theory of historical materialism.
Gravediggers
New Member
The current levels of technology are quite sufficient to produce and deliver the goods to satisfy human need. Indeed in many respects under capitalism they have been over efficient. They have been since the beginning of the last century when capitalism became an integrated production unit on a global scale. The abundance is there already it will take socialism to deliver it, for capitalism is incapable of completing the delivery when there is no profit to made at the end of the journey.
Similar threads
