A new workers party.... for workers only?.

[TremulousTetra]

If you mean 'less cock waving and shouting down of anyone who didn't know Joe Tranmere from the Socialism WOW! Conference and his amazing impassioned speech for the w/c to rise up' then yes, the level of 'political knowledge' has decreased.

Fucking spot-on! I've never met anybody who did not have contradictory ideas in their head. Even revolutionaries are effected by their surroundings. So what is the point of shouting and screaming at people because they repeat some bourgeois ideas? Philosophers describe the world, the the point of activity for revolutionaries is to change it. If you're not trying to change people's viewpoint, you are not a revolutionary. Obviously some people are beyond convincing, well just "fucking ignore them cock waver!" what are they like?

That would ultimately include the definition of middle class as well - a manager who can hire an fire has been hired by someone on par or superior to him, can still be sacked arbitrarily and has to sell his labour on the jobs market. The key difference between the m/c and w/c is in the level of protection that their skills afford them in the marketplace, and this is usually due to extended periods ofacademic or job related training.

now to be fair to me I was trying to give as simple as definition as possible, merely as a starting point. Secondly, I didn't mean for one sentence to be pulled out of the post, the definitions are related to each other.

1. Ruling class. = those who own and or controlled the means of production.

2. Middle-class. = those who are paid to in some way to manage/control the means of production. and/or those who are paid to supervise workers.

3. working-class. those whose sold Labour is supervised.

Now I am not saying your definition is not valid, I would argue though it is not a Marxist definition. A Marxist definition of class is all about your relationship to the means of production. The relationship to the means of production of the ruling class, is that they own and control it, I don't think we disagree about that. The relationship to the means of production for the middle-class, is that they manage/control the means of production, and/or those who are paid to supervise workers. Now of course in some cases the manager can be hired and fired by somebody else, but not always. Those who own and control the means of production may do so through a share system. Shareholders can own the means of production, without necessarily being part of the management apparatus. They are not directly taking part in the managing/control of the company. Now that can seem still a little bit muddy, because the manager is still selling his labour, however one thing we can say is that the worker does not have any control over the production process/means of production, only the managers have this. And it is this that distinguishes the worker from the middle-class for me. Perhaps I should have put: Working-Class. Those whose only relationship to the means of production is that they sell their labour. (This is what the "is supervised", was meant to denote.)

Now don't forget this is a really simple model. It is merely a starting point from which you go into a highly convoluted look at the pros and cons of each example of worker/middle-class/ruling class. And even then, in some occasions you're going to get people who are on the borderline between one class and another.

Incidentally - would 'working class' mean you actually have to work for a living as well? I saw a letter in the Obs a couple of weeks ago from someone pointing out that they were proud to be working class and were annoyed that they were lumped in with someone who has never worked and has no inclination to ever work.

well be fair to me, I was trying to keep it as simple as possible, and I think pulling one sentence out of the post does me no favours.[/QUOTE] these people are still working class when they are unemployed. Their relationship to the means of production is that their only option in the society is to sell their labour to the means of production, what they don't do in anyway is control and manage the means of production. Also, it is very rarely true that the unemployed never work. Even if it is on the black market they are selling their labour to the means of production.

Respect ResistanceMP3

PS. The means of production, and people's relationship is probably the most important element of Marxist economics. People's class relationships to the means of production not only defines People's class position, but each mode of production, each epoch, ie hunter gatherer, slave society, feudalism, capitalism. For Marxist feudalism is defined by how the various classes of people related to the means of production.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No.

I'm sorry, I should have added "by the definition I gave earlier". I think by the definition I gave, a Marxist definition, they qualify as working-class. You still no agree?

Respects ResistanceMP3

 

[tbaldwin]

.

Having experience as a worker won't make you a revolutionary. For that you need morality and vision.

Yeah like most self proclaimed revolutionaries have such great morality and vision.......

 

[Das Uberdog]

Was it really only yesterday you joined? Maybe a tad early to be giving advice to people you know nothing about...?

I know all I need to know about internet forums to know that you shouldn't be moaning about the lack on intellectual stimulation on them - just on practical terms.

 

[kyser_soze]

Fucking spot-on! .....

Cheers there mate - nice to have a proper reply!

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Maxism - classical or neo since I think it's 'one perspective to analyse everything' approach limits it, especially when looking at social interaction (is it all driven solely by the economic superstructure? I don't think so), but I don't think you're being overly simplistic - and you've given a better answer than I ever got about the management/worker difference before from here!

 

[Fruitloop]

The 'dialectics of everything' flavour of Marxism that you dislike is complete bollocks anyway, and a deviation from what Marx actually meant. Marxism proper is a tool for analysing the processes of capital in society, not for claiming that mutation and competition in biology consitute a dialectical process or some such horseshit.

 

[kyser_soze]

Marxism proper is a tool for analysing the processes of capital in society,

And yet some still bandy it around as some 'answer' the same way some people use evolutionary psychology to claim that Cap is 'right' or 'natural' in some kind of moral framework.

 

[Ryoma]

Another reality check that Sue won't have anything to say about:

The working class has as much of a vested interest in capitalism as the capitalists. The capitalists get profit out of the system; the workers get 'jobs'. In their (the workers') minds, that's the deal. They don't realize or don't want to know how exploited they are. They are easily bought off with wages, beer, TV, holidays, porn, religion and football. It's only when the (inherently unstable) capitalist system can't give them enough of these that they complain.

Having experience as a worker won't make you a revolutionary. For that you need morality and vision.

Oh Yes and the Middle and even upper classes don't require wages, alcohol, TV, holidays, consume porn, pray to their gods and attend sport?

Anti-Working Class BS in my opinion. Anti-Working Class hatred has been around as long as their has been a modern class system and the Upper Classes (and their Working Class turn-coats) always take great pleasure in denegrating the lower orders.

 

[kyser_soze]

Oh Yes and the Middle and even upper classes don't require wages, alcohol, TV, holidays, consume porn, pray to their gods and attend sport?

Anti-Working Class BS in my opinion. Anti-Working Class hatred has been around as long as their has been a modern class system and the Upper Classes (and their Working Class turn-coats) always take great pleasure in denegrating the lower orders.

No it isnt'. It stands to reason:

Marxism shows clearly that the w/c is exploited by capitalism, and is bought off by it. It's not some kind of suppressed information, so why don't the w/c rise up en masse and fight it? Logic would suggest that if the information to provide the w/c with both perception of their plight and a semi road map to something better (you can go into any bookstore and find stuff on Marx, even Marx easy readers - it's not like publication of Capital or Manifesto is suppressed in this country). Can you not argue that the w/c are therefore partly complicit in their own plight?

 

[neprimerimye]

Marxism shows clearly that the w/c is exploited by capitalism, and is bought off by it. It's not some kind of suppressed information, so why don't the w/c rise up en masse and fight it? Logic would suggest that if the information to provide the w/c with both perception of their plight and a semi road map to something better (you can go into any bookstore and find stuff on Marx, even Marx easy readers - it's not like publication of Capital or Manifesto is suppressed in this country). Can you not argue that the w/c are therefore partly complicit in their own plight?

No it is not possible to argue convincingly that the working classes are complicit in our own exploitation. Workers do not benefit from our exploitation but receive less than the value of that which we produce.

Nor is it possible to argue convincingly that if the working classes are aware of our exploitation that we are complicit with it should we fail to revolt en masse. For the good reason that the vast majority of workers are not swo aware but remain innocent of that exploitation in any generalised sense.

The reasons for this are ideological. This entire society being structured for the conveniance of the boss class and the systematic brain washing of workers in the values of bourgeois society. As a result of which workers can only attain a revolutionary class consciousness through their own actions not as a result of private study of Marxist texts.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Cheers there mate - nice to have a proper reply!

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Maxism - classical or neo since I think it's 'one perspective to analyse everything' approach limits it, especially when looking at social interaction (is it all driven solely by the economic superstructure? I don't think so), but I don't think you're being overly simplistic - and you've given a better answer than I ever got about the management/worker difference before from here!

No it isn't all driven solely by the economic superstructure in my version of Marxism either. But for me to follow understand your criticism of Marxism, and so respond, you would need to explain your criticism more clearly.

Respect Resistance MP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

The 'dialectics of everything' flavour of Marxism that you dislike is complete bollocks anyway, and a deviation from what Marx actually meant. Marxism proper is a tool for analysing the processes of capital in society, not for claiming that mutation and competition in biology consitute a dialectical process or some such horseshit.

On the key issue of whether Marx endorsed the idea of a dialectic in nature there can be little doubt. In Anti-Dühring Engels specifically quoted Marx's Capital to this effect: 'Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel in his Logic, that merely quantitative changes beyond a certain point pass into qualitative differences.'35 And Marx goes on to say in a footnote that: 'the molecular theory of modern chemistry... rests on no other law'.36 Marx himself had earlier drawn Engels' attention to these passages in Capital, explicitly stating his belief that dialectical laws were in evidence in natural science: 'in that text I quote Hegel's discovery regarding the law that merely quantitative changes turn into qualitative changes and state that it holds good alike in history and natural science'.37 Also in Capital Marx described exchange relations as operating like 'a determining law of nature'. And, despite Carver's claim that Engels' admiration for Darwin is evidence of his inclination toward the model of natural science, Marx shared Engels' assessment: 'Darwin's book is very important and it suits me well that it supports the class struggle in history from the point of view of natural science'.38
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj65/rees.htm

 

[Binkie]

People like Tony Benn,Paul Foot etc had a academic knowledge of the working class but that is very different from real knowledge.

Define 'real knowledge' - as distinct from 'knowledge'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Having experience as a worker won't make you a revolutionary. For that you need morality and vision.

I think tht is a hegalian, rather than marxist or revolutionary veiw, and look where hegel ended.

Rmp3

 

[Binkie]

I think tht is a hegalian, rather than marxist or revolutionary veiw, and look where hegel ended.

Rmp3

There's some truth in it though. The trouble with Hegel was he was an idealist.
OK "whose morals" I hear you ask, and you would have a point. In answering this, I can't say 'working class morals' because they have largely accepted those of their rulers. And in any case they vary from individual worker to individual worker. (I just can't see this vox pop view of workers' objective interests'.) I DO agree that morals break down to class interests, largely.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There's some truth in it though. The trouble with Hegel was he was an idealist.
OK "whose morals" I hear you ask, and you would have a point. In answering this, I can't say 'working class morals' because they have largely accepted those of their rulers. And in any case they vary from individual worker to individual worker. (I just can't see this vox pop view of workers' objective interests'.) I DO agree that morals break down to class interests, largely.

which is Karl Marx's argument, "the dominant ideas in any society, are those of the ruling class", but then you make a classic bourgeois mistake, you take the static view, you forget the first key lesson of Hegel, that everything is in motion. There is nothing you can think of that is not in a process, a process of change, including "morals". And so, "men make history", and which men, "the emancipation of the working-class, has to be the act of the whisking class".

You cannot dip into parts of Marxism, selecting tools for the job, and then discarding the rest, for it is a holistic analysis, everything is connected (the second of the three key lessons of Hegel).

Respect Resistance MP3

PS. As I said earlier, being a Marxist revolutionary is scientific, not moral.

 

[tbaldwin]

Define 'real knowledge' - as distinct from 'knowledge'.

Binkie What i meant was the difference between experiencing something yourself and reading about it.

 

[Binkie]

but then you make a classic bourgeois mistake, you take the static view, you forget the first key lesson of Hegel, that everything is in motion.

True, but that doesn't mean that 'what is' is 'what will be'.

You cannot dip into parts of Marxism, selecting tools for the job.. .

Yes you can. Marxism isn't a religion. Marx himself 'dipped'.

it (Marxism) is a holistic analysis, everything is connected (the second of the three key lessons of Hegel).

It might be holistic, but it isn't provably complete or entirely consistent. You are free to revise and modify. That is the scientific way.

As I said earlier, being a Marxist revolutionary is scientific, not moral.

Don't counterpose science to morality. Morals can be studied scientifically. Trotsky had a go at that in 'Their morals and ours'.

 

[Binkie]

Binkie What i meant was the difference between experiencing something yourself and reading about it.

Knowledge is knowledge no matter how you acquired it. Reading a book or arguing with someone may yield knowledge. But I agree that opinions you might read or hear need to be tested in practice - all else is only faith.

 

[tbaldwin]

Knowledge is knowledge no matter how you acquired it. Reading a book or arguing with someone may yield knowledge. But I agree that opinions you might read or hear need to be tested in practice - all else is only faith.

Yeah a bit like religion.Suspect.

I had a tumour growing on my spine in january. The Doctors had a kind of knowledge of it,i could try and tell them or you what it felt like.
But feeling it and hearing or reading about feeling it,is a very different thing from experiencing it.

 

[Binkie]

I had a tumour growing on my spine in january. The Doctors had a kind of knowledge of it,i could try and tell them or you what it felt like.
But feeling it and hearing or reading about feeling it,is a very different thing from experiencing it.

Nasty. Oh I agree. Words, diagrams, music, paintings, dance and lots of other human inventions sometimes fail to fully represent things like agony, ecstasy etc. But they sometimes come close.
We've strayed off-topic a bit. But as MP3 says - all things are connected. Hope the doctors' knowledge is helping your condition.

 

[tbaldwin]

Hope the doctors' knowledge is helping your condition.

It is straying off topic a bit yeah sorry. But my experience of the last 3+ years of having a very aggressive cancer has shown me that yes some doctors can be really good and some can be complete and utter shit.
The good ones are those with humility who actually listen to their patients.
My point is there is an analogy with middle/upper class people in left politics.
I dont think you can stop Middle class people joining left groups but when they act in ways that show so little respect for the views,aspirations and experiences of working class people.

 

[TremulousTetra]

True, but that doesn't mean that 'what is' is 'what will be'.

couldn't agree more, "the choice is socialism of barbarism", but whichever stasis is not possible.

Yes you can. Marxism isn't a religion. Marx himself 'dipped'.

yes you can, because it isn't a religion, but the tools will not fit together. You cannot have a Keynesian view of economics and the Marxist view of imperialism as Marxist economics a Marxist imperialism are mutually supportive. I am going to get all poetic on your ass, but that is the beauty of Marxism and the dialectic, it is all like a three-dimensional spider's web, each strand connected to and supportive of the next. Sometimes I just trip, just thinking about the beauty of the dialectic.

It might be holistic, but it isn't provably complete or entirely consistent. You are free to revise and modify. That is the scientific way.

again, I couldn't agree more. That is why I am a Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Cliffist.

Don't counterpose science to morality. Morals can be studied scientifically. Trotsky had a go at that in 'Their morals and ours'.

yes, I knew this was coming. But in my experience comrades often take the moralistic way to guide action, rather than praxis. Good revolutionary morals are as a result of good praxis, not the other way round, which is what you seem to be saying.

Originally Posted by Binkie
Having experience as a worker won't make you a revolutionary. For that you need morality and vision.

I do not do what I do because I am morally superior, I do it because it is logical.

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[mutley]

Not sure i agree with u rmp3, but I've got to go canvassing..

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not sure i agree with u rmp3, but I've got to go canvassing..

Nice one! "Let's have a heated (sw) debaaaaate!" to quote Mrs Merton. When Ur free.
R+Rmp3

 

[oneflewover]

The working class has as much of a vested interest in capitalism as the capitalists. The capitalists get profit out of the system; the workers get 'jobs'. In their (the workers') minds, that's the deal. They don't realize or don't want to know how exploited they are. They are easily bought off with wages, beer, TV, holidays, porn, religion and football. It's only when the (inherently unstable) capitalist system can't give them enough of these that they complain.

Having experience as a worker won't make you a revolutionary. For that you need morality and vision.

Of course we have and look how readily we buy into it. We have ISAs, we have share options, we have FTSE based pension funds. We have unions that are buinesses. As long as we get, what we believe, to be our just rewards we are all like Larry. Lose our manufacturing industry,our coal mining and steelmaking do we care? no. Invade a foreign country, thats Ok. We have no appetite for any sort of fight. We've rolled over shown how spineless we are and are laid ready to have sand kicked in our faces.

The we that I write of are the working class, those who could make a difference with their withdrawal of labour.

The reading of this thread has been educational (thanks ResistanceMP3) yet wholly frustrating as we wait, apathetically, for someone to tell us what to do next.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course we have and look how readily we buy into it. We have ISAs, we have share options, we have FTSE based pension funds. We have unions that are buinesses. As long as we get, what we believe, to be our just rewards we are all like Larry. Lose our manufacturing industry,our coal mining and steelmaking do we care? no. Invade a foreign country, thats Ok. We have no appetite for any sort of fight. We've rolled over shown how spineless we are and are laid ready to have sand kicked in our faces.

The we that I write of are the working class, those who could make a difference with their withdrawal of labour.

The reading of this thread has been educational (thanks ResistanceMP3) yet wholly frustrating as we wait, apathetically, for someone to tell us what to do next.

. "Frustrating", excruciatingly frustrating, but what can one do? It's like getting frustrated with the weather. The material circumstances are what they are, one can only try to eek out a revolutionary path, surely? The working-class have the potential to be all you say, but they also have the potential to be so much more, surely?

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[Binkie]

I do not do what I do because I am morally superior, I do it because it is logical.

Agreed. That is the only rational way. However, some people are better than others at envisioning new solutions, new strategies, new tactics. That's vision. And some people clearly have the interests of their fellow man at heart while others don't. That's morality - a good and necessary starting point that must be sustained. I say this because I believe it to be true in practice, not because of any myths of old. The 'morality' of the current ruling class - well we know all about that - it derives in general from their class interests - the interests of a privileged, irresponsible and vicious minority. We need a new morality based on the common interests of all good people.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Binkie, I haven't done any specific reading on this topic such as Trotsky, and as I get into the philosophy my ideas may become muddled,please bear with me. I suppose also these are my own confused wonderings, rather than the Socialist worker party line, as I already have one member questioning my position.

Agreed. That is the only rational way. However, some people are better than others at envisioning new solutions, new strategies, new tactics. That's vision. And some people clearly have the interests of their fellow man at heart while others don't. That's morality - a good and necessary starting point that must be sustained. I say this because I believe it to be true in practice, not because of any myths of old. The 'morality' of the current ruling class - well we know all about that - it derives in general from their class interests - the interests of a privileged, irresponsible and vicious minority. We need a new morality based on the common interests of all good people.

perhaps we don't have a big disagreement here I think, perhaps it's just a way we are both wording it.

It is this thing about being "better than others" at "envisaging new solutions" and that having "the interests of their fellow man at heart while others don't". I think there is a great deal of truth in that, in that real revolutionaries far more than Christians or any other religion truly do have the interests of others, the collective, at heart. I think because they are the memory of the class they should try to "envisage new solutions", and not only remember the lessons of the class, but learn what the classes teaching us in the here and now. But.........

I think rather than being better than others, a happen chance of material circumstances have brought me to a different perspective........ That's it really, anybody else could be a revolutionary, and I could not if my life had took a different turn at any number of junctures. Secondly, to be truly scientific, you have to admit the possibility, no matter how remote you believe it to be, that you could be wrong, surely? All of us believe we are logically right in our ideologies. The truth of whether I, or the anarchist, or the social Democrat is right or wrong, can only be proven by making history. Can only be proven in the class struggle. I don't believe this is humility, I believe it is logical.

the same is true for "having the interests of their fellow man a heart". It is just happen chance that some take this view, and others don't. But more interesting is the philosophical discussion.

You seem to have been saying, you have to be moral to be a revolutionary, but don't have to be a revolutionary to be moral? and isn'twhat teaches you to be moral the fact that as you say " I say this because I believe it to be true in practice", that we learn what is moral through praxis"? So through a process of theory and practice we learned what is and what isn't moral

but then again, what is moral? what is revolutionary morality? it is the morality of the working class, for that revolutionary morality is merely whatever achieves the maximum amount of well-being for the maximum number of people. And achieving the maximum amount of well-being for the maximum amount of people, is the logical thing to do isn't it?

to look at it another way, even if we achieve this, who is to say it is the right/good or wrong/evil thing to do? Is the survival of the human species right, good? Why?to my mind it is neither good nor evil, right or wrong, it is the only logical option open to us. Being a logical option does not necessarily mean it is the one we will choose. For we all know human beings have the capacity to be illogical as well as logical.

I suppose in short I am arguing that the morality you talk of it is as much a class based morality [working-class], as is religion and common sense morality we have today based on the class interests of the bourgeoisie. I suppose I am arguing real morality, good and evil right and wrong, does not exist. And when we have a truly classless society this will be the most obvious truth.

Respect ResistanceMP3

 

[kyser_soze]

No it is not possible to argue convincingly that the working classes are complicit in our own exploitation. Workers do not benefit from our exploitation but receive less than the value of that which we produce.

Nor is it possible to argue convincingly that if the working classes are aware of our exploitation that we are complicit with it should we fail to revolt en masse. For the good reason that the vast majority of workers are not swo aware but remain innocent of that exploitation in any generalised sense.

The reasons for this are ideological. This entire society being structured for the conveniance of the boss class and the systematic brain washing of workers in the values of bourgeois society. As a result of which workers can only attain a revolutionary class consciousness through their own actions not as a result of private study of Marxist texts.

Sorry i fundamentally disagree with this - especially the bit about 'innocent of the expolitation'. Wilfully ignorant about it perhaps, but not innocent.