Does the left understand the working class and how would they answer their concerns?

[revol68]

job is already filled and has been for some time. if you want to go and stay with him and see how the working class really live then a number of us can advise you how to get in touch with him.

I'm confused, is it joke?

 

[LLETSA]

Stop saying proletarian. It isn't 1902.

 

[revol68]

Stop saying proletarian. It isn't 1902.

Why did the proletariat finally abolish itself then?



I think the term proletariat is more useful than working class, certainly it is much clearer in it's definition and conveys better the antagonism in capitalism.

 

[LLETSA]

Why did the proletariat finally abolish itself then?



I think the term proletariat is more useful than working class, certainly it is much clearer in it's definition and conveys better the antagonism in capitalism.

The way you throw it around makes you sound like a character they might introduce into Family Guy.

 

[revol68]

The way you throw it around makes you sound like a character they might introduce into Family Guy.

As opposed to how you throw around a very ambigous 'working class'?

Do you ever have a point beyond 'it's not very popular' or 'no one talks about, like or is interested in that anymore'?

Is everything you do and say dictated by the whims of populism?

 

[DotCommunist]

The way you throw it around makes you sound like a character they might introduce into Family Guy.

it might if marxist discourse was irrelevant to modern society, which demographics proves not to be so. Perhaps he should be referring to Dc-1 or bollocks, or whatever label demographers are using to refer to low earning folks these days.

 

[LLETSA]

As opposed to how you throw around a very ambigous 'working class'?

Do you ever have a point beyond 'it's not very popular' or 'no one talks about, like or is interested in that anymore'?

Is everything you do and say dictated by the whims of populism?

People generally have a lot more idea who you're talking about if you say working class than proletariat. Try it out.

I haven't said anything remotely populist in this thread or any other, and nor have argued against something because it isn't popular, although you might say that the idea of no borders is unpopular because most people have the sense to realise that it's an unachievable aim.

In fact it isn't even desirable. It's puzzling why some lefties are so keen on it.

 

[revol68]

People generally have a lot more idea who you're talking about if you say working class than proletariat. Try it out.

i think most people on this thread know what proletarian means and hence I use it because it is more precise and comes with less baggage than 'working class'.

 

[revol68]

Also it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone might ask what it means if they don't know and might learn something.

Oh fuck I forgot the notion of working class people leanring things like political theory is middle class student wank.

 

[LLETSA]

i think most people on this thread know what proletarian means and hence I use it because it is more precise and comes with less baggage than 'working class'.

Does it? You can't have much more baggage than the former eastern bloc, where they had the word proletariat on their bank notes and emblazoned all over the show.

 

[LLETSA]

Also it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone might ask what it means if they don't know and might learn something.

Oh fuck I forgot the notion of working class people leanring things like political theory is middle class student wank.

Don't know who might have said anything like that, but it wasn't me.

 

[revol68]

Does it? You can't have much more baggage than the former eastern bloc, where they had the word proletariat on their bank notes and emblazoned all over the show.

Yeah and they also had Marx statues all over the place, as well as talk of communism and the smashing of capital.

Maybe we should just shut up about Marx too.

Workng clas comes with tonnes of cultural baggage that only muddies the water.

 

[LLETSA]

Yeah and they also had Marx statues all over the place, as well as talk of...the smashing of capital.

Not only did they talk-they actually did it.

 

[revol68]

Not only did they talk-they actually did it.

that's an interesting concept of smashing capital I always saw it as more capital being ran through the state.

 

[LLETSA]

that's an interesting concept of smashing capital I always saw it as more capital being ran through the state.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[revol68]

Why doesn't that surprise me?

because though you'd loathe to admit it you know I'm a rather clever lil shit and don't think of capitalism as simply people in top hats counting their money.

 

[LLETSA]

because though you'd loathe to admit it you know I'm a rather clever lil shit and don't think of capitalism as simply people in top hats counting their money.

Yes, it does take a considerable amount of intelligence to notice that capitalism isn't people in top hats counting their money.

 

[CyberRose]

Oh dear. So what bourgeois social institutions shall we maintain in the name of populism? The nation: for sure. The monarchy: why not? Hey why not "capitalism" itself? Seems to be working out well enough.

I didn't ask how the left can be populist, I asked how they can convince the working class, who they supposedly act in the interests of, that their ideas are worth voting for.

However, while we are on the subject, I will pose a few quandaries...

The left go on and on and on about "democracy" (and between you and me we both know that by "democracy" they mean a means by which they can obtain political power, but I digress) - isn't an adherence to popular will democracy? If everyone in the country wanted an end to immigration, shouldn't that be supported by "democrats" despite their misgivings? I find it amusing that when the government does something unpopular the left all scream democracy, but as soon as the majority of the public desire something that contradicts leftist thinking all of a sudden it's pandering to populism!

Also, if a given political party refuses to allow their principles to be compromised by the popular will (not to say they should, of course), and they also fail/refuse to gain popular support for their policies, then what exactly is the point of them?

 

[tbaldwin]

An important part of the truth.

We used to have a party on the left that had a mass membership, and a democratic structure that allowed that membership a reasonable input into policy making and overall control of the shape of party policy. Its membership sold it out to a group of activists who wanted to prevent any input that wasn't thoroughly vetted to ensure it was acceptable to the editors of the tabloids.

The rest of the left was already a set of smaller groups closely moulded round a fairly specific ideology or leadership clique. It hasn't changed.

We now have no political party that actually allows ordinary working people to even air their concerns within the policy making structure, at least not openly. The question is whether there is sufficient desire to create or recreate a genuinely democratic party of the left, or whether nobody is willing to deal with any form of politics that might upset Daily Mail readers.

The first thing ALL of us have to accept is that to make anything happen in real politics requires either fanaticism, compromise or complete ruthless amorality. We've got plenty of the first and the last in British politics. Are there enough people on the left prepared to compromise their ideals enough to form a genuinely democratic alternative?

I hope so!
There is a need for a left opposition to Labour that is ambitous and pragmatic not content to waste time on pointless dogma.

On many issues most people are to the left of the main political parties but there opinions are largely ignored.
Many people in polls express support for less inequality and are against things like PFI and would like to see rail re-nationalised etc.
It would be good to think that there was a broad based political party
on the Left to reflect that not everybody wants a choice between the parties of the status quo.

 

[audiotech]

Yes, it does take a considerable amount of intelligence to notice that capitalism isn't people in top hats counting their money.

revol68 by a nose I think, or am I 'hearing what I want to hear'?

 

[_pH_]

because though you'd loathe to admit it you know I'm a rather clever lil shit and don't think of capitalism as simply people in top hats counting their money.

'Having read a lot of books' doesn't necessarily equate to 'being clever'. You seem to have a vast knowledge of political theory, but seem clueless as to how you're going to persuade people to come across to your way of thinking. Seems a bit of a waste of time reading all those books to me, not that clever at all.

 

[LLETSA]

revol68 by a nose I think, or am I 'hearing what I want to hear'?

SWP groupies need not apply.

 

[audiotech]

SWP groupies need not apply.

The wit.

 

[treelover]

'The left go on and on and on about "democracy" (and between you and me we both know that by "democracy" they mean a means by which they can obtain political power, but I digress) - isn't an adherence to popular will democracy? If everyone in the country wanted an end to immigration, shouldn't that be supported by "democrats" despite their misgivings? I find it amusing that when the government does something unpopular the left all scream democracy, but as soon as the majority of the public desire something that contradicts leftist thinking all of a sudden it's pandering to populism!'



The Dutch Socialist Party for instance has accepted this and afiak is doing very well electorally

 

[Carousel]

I asked how they can convince the working class, who they supposedly act in the interests of, that their ideas are worth voting for.

Well, what are these ideas?

isn't an adherence to popular will democracy? If everyone in the country wanted an end to immigration, shouldn't that be supported by "democrats" despite their misgivings?

Just because working class people see eye-to-eye on democracy, doesn't mean they universally subscribe to other, what you might call, socialist values. The Chartists discovered this to their disappointment as the franchise widened. Part of the development of the science of public choice. (Which since the mid 50's has called the general applicability of concepts such as the "public will" and "the interests of the working class" into serious question.)

Also, if a given political party refuses to allow their principles to be compromised by the popular will (not to say they should, of course), and they also fail/refuse to gain popular support for their policies, then what exactly is the point of them?

What's the point of their principles? Without these principles they'd cease to be the left and the question becomes a matter of circular logic. They'd be Putinesque populists. "Bread and circuses" as the Romans put it.

 

[CyberRose]

Well, what are these ideas?

What is the point of asking me that?

Just because working class people see eye-to-eye on democracy, doesn't mean they universally subscribe to other, what you might call, socialist values

I specifically referred to democracy, not other, what you might call, socialist values...

What's the point of their principles? Without these principles they'd cease to be the left

Compromising their principles wasn't the only option tho, was it? The other option, that people have spent 10 pages trying to get an answer to, was convincing people that the left's answers were worth supporting

But, if they truly cannot convince a sizeable amount of people round to their way of thinking, then their ideas are worthless and yes, they must be abandoned to some extent or another. The objective is the control of political power, otherwise there is no means of implementing those ideas into society (aka 'putting their money where their mouth is'), and control of political power cannot be achieved through democratic means if there is no support for the ideas of the group aiming to gain power...

 

[Carousel]

What is the point of asking me that?

To appraise whether these ideas are worth voting for and to explore what means of persuasion might be deployed to further them.

I specifically referred to democracy, not other, what you might call, socialist values...

Indeed. What is the left if not socialist? The right?

The objective is the control of political power

Bread and circuses it is then. This is a different objective from the left's though, which, unless I'm much mistaken, is socialism or some variant thereof.

 

[Carousel]

Oh, I suppose you could be really asking "What's the point of socialism if the working class don't like it?" or "What, then, is the meaning and content of socialism?". In which case, I can only refer you to the International Communist Current's and SoB/Castoriadis's missives respectively.

Compromising their principles wasn't the only option tho, was it? The other option, that people have spent 10 pages trying to get an answer to, was convincing people that the left's answers were worth supporting

If their own experience of life doesn't convince them then you're basically left with NLP or some other hypnotic remedy. Bread and circuses. Boneist stuntism maybe. Ha ha.

One of the reasons for the failure of the revolutionary movement is that the real life of individuals is played out on a different level than the instigators of social revolution believe...
…find the connection with the petty, banal, primitive, simple everyday life of the broadest mass if the people…
…politicise private life, fairs, dance halls, cinemas, markets, bedrooms, hostels and betting shops

To put my own cards on the table, what really cripples the left is the actual meaning and content of its ideology.

 

[revol68]

'Having read a lot of books' doesn't necessarily equate to 'being clever'. You seem to have a vast knowledge of political theory, but seem clueless as to how you're going to persuade people to come across to your way of thinking. Seems a bit of a waste of time reading all those books to me, not that clever at all.

How many times have I pointed out to you that I don't see my role as persuading some passive working class but rather think sections of the working class will move towards such ideas through the necessity of struggle. Like I said struggle and conflict tends to break the grip of 'common sense' and provoke interest in different ideas.

The very notion that an individual can simply persuade a mass of people into accepting their politics is the most childish of bourgeois myths, to then use it as a criticism of someones politics is pathetic, especially when the person in question has no illusions of doing so and the person doing the criticising has no answer either.

Like I said I might not have a 12 step plan drawn up but I'd imagine at least having a clear understanding of what my politicsare puts me one step a head of pseudo populists such as yourself.

 

[CyberRose]

To appraise whether these ideas are worth voting for and to explore what means of persuasion might be deployed to further them.

Eh? Aren't you supposed to be the one championing these ideas?

Indeed. What is the left if not socialist? The right?

You're losing the plot, I said I referred to democracy, not to socialism

Bread and circuses it is then. This is a different objective from the left's though, which, unless I'm much mistaken, is socialism or some variant thereof.

Are you telling me the objective of a political ideology is not the control of power?