Class consciousness

[rednblack]

The fact you have to ask this question shows how little you understand about communism.

you sad little cock, eduate him then, rather than bringing out the pointless statements

 

[revol68]

you sad little cock, eduate him then, rather than bringing out the pointless statements

i wouldn't be so arrogant as to try and educate anyone nevermind a dyed in the wool trot.

Old dogs and new tricks come to minf.

 

[mk12]

and you dare call yourself a fucking marxist?

exactly where else will it come from?

Oh wait the great bored spoilt youth of the bourgeois whose all bitter cos the Tsar killed his brother.

The fact you have to ask this question shows how little you understand about communism.

I won't ask for other people's views in future then. Twat.

 

[mk12]

In Bloom posted a link, called "the leadership of ideas".

In this, it says:

In opposition to the Leninist ideas of leadership, the anarchist organisation fights for the 'leadership of ideas' within the class through example and suggestion. In a non-revolutionary period the potential revolutionary masses by and large hold conservative ideas and values. In this period there needs to be an organisation that holds on to revolutionary ideas. In this sense we recognise a 'leadership of ideas'. However, at the outbreak of revolutions, organisations invariably are taken by surprise by the audacity and imagination of the revolutionary masses. At this stage a revolutionary organisation could act as a brake on progress. Again however, as the revolution progresses, counterrevolutionary forces generate statist and civil war options. The revolutionary organisation now has a role to defend the advanced ideas of the masses in their initial revolutionary stage.

How does this differ to modern day Trotskyist and Leninist parties?

Here is the International Socialist Tendency's views on the role of the party:

To achieve socialism, the most militant workers must be organized into a revolutionary socialist party to provide the political leadership and organization essential to a successful revolution.

The member groups of the International Socialist Tendency are taking the first steps towards the building of such international revolutionary socialist parties--rooted in the work place and able to provide political direction within the working-class movement. As revolutionaries, we help to build every struggle that strengthens the self-confidence, organization and socialist consciousness of workers and the oppressed. The revolutionary socialist party can only be built through the involvement of socialists in the daily struggles of workers and the oppressed.

What's the difference between the two strategies?

 

[rebel warrior]

However, at the outbreak of revolutions, organisations invariably are taken by surprise by the audacity and imagination of the revolutionary masses. At this stage a revolutionary organisation could act as a brake on progress. Again however, as the revolution progresses, counterrevolutionary forces generate statist and civil war options. The revolutionary organisation now has a role to defend the advanced ideas of the masses in their initial revolutionary stage.

How does this differ to modern day Trotskyist and Leninist parties?

Good point - also how does it differ to Lenin's own position in 1917 (and afterwards)- he had to overcome the conservatism within the Bolshevik Party, and he was a tremendous champion of soviet power hence his call 'All power to the Soviets' and his anti-statist work The State and Revolution?

 

[In Bloom]

In Bloom posted a link, called "the leadership of ideas".

In this, it says:



How does this differ to modern day Trotskyist and Leninist parties?

Here is the International Socialist Tendency's views on the role of the party:



What's the difference between the two strategies?

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the language used. But the basic concept is that the role of the revolutionary organisation is not to provide leadership, but to provide good ideas, iyswim.

Also, the second, as I read it, implies that the role of a revolutionary organisation is to lead the working class.

 

[mk12]

Isn't providing good ideas leading?

 

[bluestreak]

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the language used. But the basic concept is that the role of the revolutionary organisation is not to provide leadership, but to provide good ideas, iyswim.

Also, the second, as I read it, implies that the role of a revolutionary organisation is to lead the working class.

thats how i read it as well. i'd prefer to subscribe to the first i think. come the right moment there will be loads of people who have ideas relevent to after the downfall of capitalism rather than just a new system of bosses.

 

[In Bloom]

Isn't providing good ideas leading?

There is a subtle difference. The leadership of a movement has a special status within that movement.

Malatesta's essay Gradualism is quite relavent here, but I can't find an online copy.

 

[rebel warrior]

come the right moment there will be loads of people who have ideas relevent to after the downfall of capitalism rather than just a new system of bosses.

Undoubtedly there will be loads of people with good ideas for living without capitalism in a revolutionary situation- but the key question is will those people win the battle of ideas against those with old 'common sense' ideas about why we need to put our trust in '[capitalist] democracy' etc?

The reason we need a revolutionary organisation is to ensure 'our side' wins that battle of ideas at the crunch time and goes on to establish a new society based on workers power.

 

[Pickman's model]

The reason we need a revolutionary organisation is to ensure 'our side' wins that battle of ideas at the crunch time and goes on to establish a new society based on workers power.

i thought that the reason we needed a revolutionary organisation was just so your lot - the swp &c - didn't win.

 

[gurrier]

The reason we need a revolutionary organisation is to ensure 'our side' wins that battle of ideas at the crunch time and goes on to establish a new society based on workers power.

To 'ensure' that our side wins whether they like it or not? Considering that the only people who have decided that the leaders doing the 'ensuring' are acting on behalf of the workers is themselves; considering that every time that a group has found themselves to be in such a position to 'ensure' that 'we' won at the 'crunch time' they have gone on to create party rule as a sick parody of workers power; considering that I would rather put ultimate power over the fate of the working class in the hands of a baby seal than in the hands of any of the little lenins who are putting themselves forward for the job; considering all this and various other things, you need to be fucking blind to participate in such a project.

What's more, I think that this particular line of pushing leninism - "but we're just like the anarchists really" is particularly pathetic and shows an abject lack of confidence in your own politics.

Although I too don't like the terminology, I think anarchists who ascribe to the concept consider that the phrase 'leadership of ideas' simply means that anarchists are people who think that anarchist political ideas are the best basis on which to organise society and hence want the mass of the working class to also hold these ideas in similar esteem. Thus anarchist organisations, which primarily exist in order to increase the spread of anarchist ideas, seek to become the 'leadership of ideas' by making these ideas popular. In less mis-readable terms, I think that most anarchists would understand the concept to mean that the relationship between anarchists and the rest of the working class should be one of "our only power is persuasion".

 

[In Bloom]

Although I too don't like the terminology, I think anarchists who ascribe to the concept consider that the phrase 'leadership of ideas' simply means that anarchists are people who think that anarchist political ideas are the best basis on which to organise society and hence want the mass of the working class to also hold these ideas in similar esteem. Thus anarchist organisations, which primarily exist in order to increase the spread of anarchist ideas, seek to become the 'leadership of ideas' by making these ideas popular. In less mis-readable terms, I think that most anarchists would understand the concept to mean that the relationship between anarchists and the rest of the working class should be one of "our only power is persuasion".

Well put

 

[In Bloom]

and you dare call yourself a fucking marxist?

exactly where else will it come from?

Oh wait the great bored spoilt youth of the bourgeois whose all bitter cos the Tsar killed his brother.

The fact you have to ask this question shows how little you understand about communism.

If you keep waving that thing around, you're going to take somebody's eye out, you know.

 

[revol68]

If you keep waving that thing around, you're going to take somebody's eye out, you know.

so, you don't think the fact a member of a suppousedly revolutionary socialist "workers" party has to ask for evidence that the working class are quite capable of developing communist currents within itself is abit askew?

I mean it's not like he's some sort of Swappie newbie ffs.

Honestly the fact the SWP would have a member who would even pose such a stupid question shows them to be the farce they are.

 

[oisleep]

revol hasn't quite grasped the concept of "learning/developing" yet folks, he thinks everyone is either born with innate ideas of true communism or their not (therefore discounting any impact of life experiences/conditioned by circumstances etc and substituting this for some kind of religious infusion of knowledge at birth) , if they're not as lucky as him to be born with such special powers they're not even worth bothering debating/talking with, i'd suggest you all reciprocate

 

[montevideo]

i wouldn't be so arrogant as to try and educate anyone nevermind a dyed in the wool trot.

or you are incapable, which is becoming all the more apparent by the day. More swearing or the mask might slip completely.

 

[revol68]

revol hasn't quite grasped the concept of "learning/developing" yet folks, he thinks everyone is either born with innate ideas of true communism or their not (therefore discounting any impact of life experiences/conditioned by circumstances etc and substituting this for some kind of religious infusion of knowledge at birth) , if they're not as lucky as him to be born with such special powers they're not even worth bothering debating/talking with, i'd suggest you all reciprocate

oisleep i'm afraid you are once again talking shit.

if mattkid was just some newbie or liberal or fuck even one of my mates who aren't bothered by politics then that would be fair enough.

But he is a self proclaimed revolutionary socialist ffs, a fully paid up member of the apparently Socialist Workers Party and hence surely i can be allowed to expect a bit more from him, no?

 

[revol68]

or you are incapable, which is becoming all the more apparent by the day. More swearing or the mask might slip completely.

quite, I mean it wasn't like I ran rings round you in the French riots thread.

Haven't you got union fulltimers arses to be licking you very confused cretin?

 

[oisleep]

oisleep i'm afraid you are once again talking shit.

if mattkid was just some newbie or liberal or fuck even one of my mates who aren't bothered by politics then that would be fair enough.

But he is a self proclaimed revolutionary socialist ffs, a fully paid up member of the apparently Socialist Workers Party and hence surely i can be allowed to expect a bit more from him, no?

so you'd rather pass the chance by to inject some of your much vaunted (correct) knowledge into a disillusioned swappie who, uncharistically of them is looking for knowledge outwith their usual provider, the cc? if i was a libertarian communist i'd see that as a positive situation and try and help in that process

as i said earlier, your disdain for people who want to learn, to me seems totally at odds with your supposed flag to which you wrap yourself up in

 

[revol68]

so you'd rather pass the chance by to inject some of your much vaunted (correct) knowledge into a disillusioned swappie who, uncharistically of them is looking for knowledge outwith their usual provider, the cc? if i was a libertarian communist i'd see that as a positive situation and try and help in that process

as i said earlier, your disdain for people who want to learn, to me seems totally at odds with your supposed flag to which you wrap yourself up in

so if you were debating with a catholic and they turnt round and said something which implied they didn't believe in god or someother central tenant of their faith you wouldn't point that out.

For the last time he is a suppoused "revolutionary socialist", the fact her raised such a question should show he is not infact a revolutionary socialist. I mean as much as I don't rate the average SWP in terms of anything I would expect a bit more than that, I mean don't they have some sort of internal education?

 

[oisleep]

so if you were debating with a catholic and they turnt round and said something which implied they didn't believe in god or someother central tenant of their faith you wouldn't point that out.

For the last time he is a suppoused "revolutionary socialist", the fact her raised such a question should show he is not infact a revolutionary socialist. I mean as much as I don't rate the average SWP in terms of anything I would expect a bit more than that, I mean don't they have some sort of internal education?

that's the thing, catholic, revolutionary socialist, libertarian communist, blah blah blah, why can't you just debate/engage with the person and the ideas that come from that person, instead of putting some pre-conceived plan of what they should be saying/doing based on their label and then basing your position on that

 

[revol68]

that's the thing, catholic, revolutionary socialist, libertarian communist, blah blah blah, why can't you just debate/engage with the person and the ideas that come from that person, instead of putting some pre-conceived plan of what they should be saying/doing and then basing your position on that

and i will as soon as he recognises he's no more a revolutionary socialist than my ma.

And since your so keen to facilitate learning and development why have you spent your time having a pop at me rather than explaining some stuff to Mattkidd, I mean i've read some of your stuff on nationalism on Libcom and your capable enough.

 

[sovietpop]

quite, I mean it wasn't like I ran rings round you in the French riots thread.

Haven't you got union fulltimers arses to be licking you very confused cretin?

Classic Troll behaviour, introduce something that is totally off topic to attack the person who it trying to engage you in debate.

 

[oisleep]

and i will as soon as he recognises he's no more a revolutionary socialist than my ma.

you've got it arse about tit, through being curious and learning, people can then define themselves in light of that experience, if they choose to define themselves as something on the basis of some other method, then only through learning can they recognise that that's not quite the case, your interjections in most debates i've seen here and libcom usually stop that process at the front door

And since your so keen to facilitate learning and development why have you spent your time having a pop at me rather than explaining some stuff to Mattkidd, I mean i've read some of your stuff on nationalism on Libcom and your capable enough.

because there is a recurring theme, as referred to above, that i see running through the majority of threads you involve yourself with, one of disdain for that learning process, i see that as being a more important issue to tackle, this is after all meant to be a place for people to learn and distill new ideas

 

[revol68]

Classic Troll behaviour, introduce something that is totally off topic to attack the person who it trying to engage you in debate.

oh sorry, i must have missed the constructive contribution Montevideo made with this post.

or you are incapable, which is becoming all the more apparent by the day. More swearing or the mask might slip completely.

And to really take things off topic, why do the YSM spend so much time licking the WOMBLES arse when they have nothing but distain for youse?

 

[rebel warrior]

To 'ensure' that our side wins whether they like it or not? Considering that the only people who have decided that the leaders doing the 'ensuring' are acting on behalf of the workers is themselves;

It is not the leaders doing the 'ensuring' - it is the advanced section of the working class in general - so in Russia actually the person who decided that the debates in the Constituent Assembly were over and it was time for soviet power was actually an anarchist guard who was tired of the bullshit. Rather ironical that - or was this anarchist exercising power over the working class in your view?

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1895-1919-anatoli-zhelezniakov/index.php

considering that every time that a group has found themselves to be in such a position to 'ensure' that 'we' won at the 'crunch time' they have gone on to create party rule as a sick parody of workers power;

So the October insurrection was just a party coup? Because that was not how it appeared to many anarchists at the time:

Zhelezniakov saw the ending of the Constituent Assembly as a constructive move, coinciding with the development of soviets and factory committees that would take lead to the complete self-organisation of the masses. To defend the Revolution he then fought as a commander of a flotilla and then of an armoured train, in the Red Army. He fought against the reactionary White generals Krasnov and Denikin, and against the Don Cossacks of Ataman Kaledin

- from the link above.

What's more, I think that this particular line of pushing leninism - "but we're just like the anarchists really" is particularly pathetic and shows an abject lack of confidence in your own politics.

Rather it shows that in revolutionary situations the best anarchists have tended to move closer to revolutionary Marxism - even in Russia joining Lenin's Bolshevik Party - precisely because in those situations anarchism offers so little of use when it comes to decisive questions of strategy and tactics.

Although I too don't like the terminology, I think anarchists who ascribe to the concept consider that the phrase 'leadership of ideas' simply means that anarchists are people who think that anarchist political ideas are the best basis on which to organise society and hence want the mass of the working class to also hold these ideas in similar esteem. Thus anarchist organisations, which primarily exist in order to increase the spread of anarchist ideas, seek to become the 'leadership of ideas' by making these ideas popular. In less mis-readable terms, I think that most anarchists would understand the concept to mean that the relationship between anarchists and the rest of the working class should be one of "our only power is persuasion".

Or to quote, er, Lenin in 1917 - the task of revolutionary socialists in a revolutionary situation was to 'patiently explain' to the rest of the class the case for revolution...

 

[118118]

...

 

[sovietpop]

And to really take things off topic, why do the YSM spend so much time licking the WOMBLES arse when they have nothing but distain for youse?

The day you are actually interested in talking about political ideas is the day I will start answering your questions. Right now, you use these and forum to demonstrate your destructive ability for inventive swearing and gossip.

 

[revol68]

The day you are actually interested in talking about political ideas is the day I will start answering your questions. Right now, you use these and forum to demonstrate your destructive ability for inventive swearing and gossip.

I do post stuff up discussing ideas, but perhaps i'm bored going over the same shit.

And by gossip i take it you don't think the WOMBLES slag youse off to all and sundry despite all the shit you've done for them.

Perhaps theres a political lesson there, no?