| Theory |
|
Are Workers "Sheep"? June 10, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
What I think is interesting about the theme developed in this series of recent posts is the curious identity between those who advocated a "democratic road to socialism" (bourgeois electoral politics) and those who advocated manipulation of the working class "for its own good" by a Leninist party.
It seems to me that both approaches arise from frustration and impatience. As a relatively "new" class in history, the working class advances and retreats in an irregular, almost chaotic, "pattern". This is normal.
The capitalist class took the better part of four centuries to develop the psychological self-confidence and theoretical clarity to rule in its own name, to learn how to "run things" in its own interests with competence. I certainly hope the working class will not take nearly as long...but I do not think it useful to develop revolutionary strategies based on hope alone.
Communist workers generally "know more" than non-communist workers; that is not a "license to rule"...either through a bourgeois parliament or a vanguard party.
=============================================
Like many, you are thinking of revolution in the same way as people think about battles between armies; who has the best weaponry, the best-trained troops, the largest numbers, etc., etc.
Revolutions are not like that. If "10,000,000" communists in an advanced capitalist country rose up, the army would be useless...first, because if there were that many communists, then there would also be 20 million or more sympathizers, many of them in the army itself.
Secondly, professional soldiers tend not to obey impossible orders. Of course, you can bomb Paris or London or San Francisco into rubble (if you can find a crew willing to fly the planes or launch the missiles)...but you still have to reoccupy it and meanwhile, many of the insurgents have scattered all over the place. It is a nightmare for the ruling class...and their lackies in uniform, many of whom will quietly and discreetly demobilize themselves without bothering to inform their commanding officers.
Thirdly, and most importantly, revolutions don't depend on military strength per se. If the vast majority of the working class wishes to overthrow capitalism, they can do so by refusing to work. How long would it take to bring capitalism to its knees in such a struggle? Probably six weeks or less.
And with almost no shooting at all; wouldn't that be nice.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 4, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The answer is clear. give the workers no option, force their hand so to speak. The sheep will gather when the right dog is herding them and once they are herded, control is simple.
Isn't it a shame that some so-called "leftists" think that only thing really wrong with the ruling class is that they weren't born in it? A historical oversight, by the way, that they clearly intend to rectify at the first opportunity.
If the workers are "sheep", then why not become a capitalist? What do "sheep" really "deserve" but to be sheared, killed, and eaten? What is the real difference between a "communist" or "socialist" who sees himself "herding" workers and any capitalist politician or, for that matter, advertising executive?
There are many reasons for the 20th century failure of the communist project, but I submit that this sort of intolerable arrogance toward the working class has to be one of the big reasons!
It is a Leninist tradition...an insufferable contempt for the class they are "supposed" to serve. And "serve" them they do, roasted with garlic and oregano.
What else do you do with sheep?
As to Scandinavia, those countries have been "history's lucky winners" in the 20th century; an unusually rational capitalist class (sobered by the proximity of the USSR) combined with Social Democratic parties eager to win reforms and willing to abandon any socialist goals resulted in "capitalism with a human face"...sort of.
But the competitive pressures of the international capitalist class are "eating away" at that mask; things are going to get worse there, too.
Social Democracy did as well there as that particular political tendency has ever done anywhere; but their day is clearly over. They will put up some uneven resistance to the assault on working class interests, but I think they are incapable of going over to a revolutionary outlook. Those are capitalist countries; if Marx was right, then communist revolution will come to Scandinavia.
The suggestion that socialism could be peacefully "voted in" as a consequence of bourgeois elections may have been credible prior to 1914; since then, there's really been no excuse for such illusions.
Except, perhaps, a really bad memory.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Live on June 5, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
There's this...
quote:
If you still fantasize about the workers suddenly banding together in revolution you are sadly mistaken considering the average IQ in the USA is 100 or below.
And then there's this...
quote:
You have two choices RS do what is necessary to advance the movement or be quiet, hit another gaming convention and leave the real work to the men.
And, finally this...
quote:
The 'Vanguard" are a reality. Some are indeed smarter than others. Soldiers are neccessary as the "vanguard" are too valuable. Are you one of the sheep RS?
Now, let's translate this into ordinary terms and see exactly what is being said.
1. The idea of workers spontaneously uniting to make revolution is "fantasy". (I guess historical examples of this "fantasy" are "out of order" in this discussion.)
2. Because the "average" IQ in the USA is "100 or below". Well, the tests are actually designed to produce that result. In fact, they have to be revised every few years to make that happen, otherwise test results wouldn't be comparable. I won't even start a discussion on how such tests are the "scientific" equivalent of palm-reading.
3. "...leaving the real work to men." Such a manly sentiment...it sounds like something from one of those nostalgic World War II films, or maybe a John Wayne western. Men do "real work", women have babies, and boys play games. That's certainly a lot simpler and easier to understand than class analysis, isn't it?
4. "Some are indeed smarter than others." Yes, I've noticed that. However, I've also noticed that people who make this point have either already disqualified themselves or will do so in the remainder of their posts.
I always wonder, when people make this kind of statement, just what consequences they would wish to flow from acceptance of this fact. Should "smart people" have the automatic right to rule the "dummies"? Perhaps own them as slaves? Kill and eat them?
These days, you never know.
"Soldiers are necessary as the vanguard are too valuable." From the above, I assume "soldiers" are the "dummies" and the "valuable vanguard" are the "smart" "men". Now tell me, does this picture of a "revolution" fill your heart with a burning desire "to be a part of it all"?
Are you willing to risk "taking a bullet", hell, even breaking a fingernail, for this pile of shit?
quote:
Are you one of the sheep RS?
The worst kind, one who very much wishes to acquire a taste for roast shepherd.
From another...
quote:
but it`s a new day and age we are living in, we have to get involved in the democratic structures in our societies and fight for our ideas (as well as for equal fighting chances, i.e political party finance laws, etc) there.
As I've said to others who've made this argument, go ahead and try this again if you wish (it is an idea that is far older than I am). But I can tell you with almost mathematical precision how it will turn out. You will gain actual political clout in inverse proportion to the degree of change you wish to implement. In other words, if you want to make only modest reforms to capitalism, you have a reasonable chance of a successful political career in bourgeois electoral politics. If you want major changes (never mind socialism), you will be lucky to win a seat on the Berkeley City Council.
Why? In a phrase, those "democratic institutions" that you speak of are not democratic. They have the appearance of popular sovereignty...but no serious opposition from a real left will ever be permitted to, for example, capture a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. There are many legal ways to stop that from happening...but, hell, if all else failed, they'd cheat.
Sad to say, but there's another mathematical equation that also comes into play here. A person's committment to radical political change declines in direct proportion to the number of years they spend in bourgeois electoral politics. The longer you do that stuff, the less radical you become, the more co-opted you become, and the more corrupt you become. Everyone who starts down that road thinks "it won't happen to me."
But it does.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 6, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Is it that if we can not, in an unrigged democratic system, get the majority to legitimize the changes we want we should go over the majority?
Clearly not, as I have said many times. The way the working class majority rises to power, if it is to happen at all, is completely outside of the "legitimate" institutions of the bourgeoisie. Paris in 1871 and Paris again in 1968 point the way: you don't win bourgeois elections, you seize power and smash the old bourgeois state machinery (or not, depending on how determined you really are).
The role of communists is to teach working people that they have both the right and the power to do that whenever they wish.
In the eyes of a class conscious worker, all of the institutions and nearly all of the practices of bourgeois society have zero legitimacy.
Of course, the number of class conscious workers is quite small, essentially insignificant, in the U.S. In Europe, the picture is somewhat brighter, from what I've read.
quote:
He has to do this [undermine the legitimacy of existing democratic institutions] at any cost or his whole edifice crumbles.
And not just mine. If I'm wrong, then so are Marx and Engels. I think all of the historical evidence supports the three of us...but history may be more complicated than we think.
quote:
Why? because we must take your word for it that they will change the rules of the game if Socialists start winning it.
Is there any reason to think otherwise? You admit yourself that they have done so in the past. There are not many "iron laws" of history, but one of them certainly is "if it has happened, then it can happen".
Do you wish to assert that the capitalist class has changed its nature? That they have become "men of honor" who will "behave decently" and "accept the will of the majority"? On what grounds would you make this astounding assertion?
quote:
In nş 2 you speak of laws, laws that exist here and now, that prevent the "appearance" of Democracy from being or becoming the reality of Democracy. Thats concrete, thats an argument. Show me what you are talking about.
Thinking how a capitalist would think does not come "easy" for us, but here are some ways I would do it if I were in their shoes...
Have my Democratic Party lackies and my Republican Party lackies nominate the same guy to run against the "socialist".
Run a massive advertising campaign two or three weeks prior to the election threatening a "strike of capital" if the "socialist" is elected; e.g., "don't bother coming to work Wednesday morning if the "socialist" is elected because we are closing down and your job is down the toilet".
Have both the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service launch massive and well-publicized "investigations" of the "socialist"...who will be "thought" to "possibly" be "involved" in illegal drugs, child pornography, tax evasion, and failure to pay parking tickets...whatever will be useful. If necessary, seize the "socialist" party's funds and records as "evidence".
Hire someone to come forward and claim that the "socialist" candidate raped/molested that person years ago.
And so on. And like I say: if those don't work, cheat. Rig the outcome in whatever way seems most practical; purging voter rolls is a good way to do it without looking "too" bad.
quote:
and it`s just a polite way for Redstar2000 to tell me that I`m being a bad boy...
Not "bad", just foolish. And at least, as you recognized, I was trying to be polite about it.
Not that it ever does any good.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 6, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, looks another can of worms on the menu...
quote:
This is a contradiction in terms. The legitimate institutions in question - Democratic system - are not "of the bourgeoisie", they simply are. They are off all of us, they are of society and further more they are indeed legitimate if they are truely Democratic.
Nothing simply is. Everything has a history.
The modern capitalist state came into existence through struggle with the old feudal/clerical aristocracy. It was intended from the very beginning to be a tool of the capitalist class.
Over the last couple of centuries, it has become a remarkably sophisticated tool...giving the appearance of popular soverignity while never letting the "people" decide anything of substance.
There are so many instances of a bourgeois "democratic" government making decisions directly contrary to popular opinion that it would take another entire server just to list them. I cannot believe that you know nothing at all of what has taken place in the last century on this planet; you are reading the label on the package without ever actually looking inside the box to see what's there.
quote:
In my country there is a constituion that sets out the fundamental laws of my society. There is a separation of judicial, legislative and executive power. The elected parliament passes the laws, the elected goverment runs things within the constraints of the law and the courts pass judgement. That, basically, is the legal, institutional, organisational, functional reality. There is nothing, anywhere, that says Socialists can`t become goverment, that says Socialists can`t have a majority in parliament.
Remember the Weimar Republic? They had all that stuff too. When the capitalist class decided that its usefulness had come to an end, they got rid of the whole thing with all the regret you'd have for throwing away an empty beer can.
Would you like to suggest that "they don't do things like that any more"?
quote:
...I wish to assert that the Capitalist class doesn`t have a choice in the matter. They have to shut up and accept what the majority rules because thats what is in the law, thats the fundamental principal our societies operate on.
No, the fundamental principle that your society (and mine) operates on is more or less absolute rule by the capitalist class and the subjugation of all other portions of the population. The "law" is a set of useful pieces of paper to be preserved, modified, or discarded as the interest of the capitalist class dictates.
I have little choice but to conclude that you are completely unfamiliar with Marxist analysis or that you have rejected it in favor of some early bourgeois liberal theory (utilitarianism, perhaps?).
As a non-Marxist "socialist", you are under no obligation to pay any attention to class at all. You can be "for" socialism for humanitarian or even theological reasons; you can do this or refuse to do that based entirely on whatever happens to please your mood of the moment and can be appropriately "pissed off" whenever the capitalist class shows its real hand.
But, in my view, it's all just a big waste.
quote:
For the sake of half an hour of your day, you might as well try and get the lesser of two evils out of power; as much as possible.
Well, you have a choice here. You can spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out who exactly is the "lesser of two evils" or you can flip a coin. Since none of us have received the gift of prophecy, you're really just guessing on the basic of meaningless campaign rhetoric. Guess away or not, it makes no difference. The real decisions of substance are made in corporate boardrooms...where you don't get to vote.
quote:
Do you think it must "get worse before it gets better"? Where is the line, does it have to keep getting worse until the people rise up? Is that the idea?
What is "worse"--that's what we don't know and can't predict. It seems to be a subjective feeling that has a very distant and enormously complex relationship to actual material conditions.
You can point to a lot of instances in history where it seems as if people "ought" to have rebelled...and didn't. And then there's Paris in May 1968...why did almost the entire French working class pay attention to a bunch of radical kids (the "Situationists"...) in a period of relative prosperity?
So we communists can tell people what they could do if they wished...but when they will wish it and how they will choose to carry things out is, thus far, beyond our abilities to ascertain.
Certainly the mechanical "predictions" of the Leninists are just silly; anything they get right is a matter of pure chance.
I do think that it is safe to predict that the material conditions of the working class will continue to deteriorate for the rest of this century, slowly or quickly depending on many variables. That "ought" to increase the probability of communist revolution in western Europe...but we'll see.
quote:
How long do you wait for the people to open their eys RS?
As long as it takes. And we don't have to passively "wait", of course. There are many things taking place or that could reasonably take place in present times which might encourage some "eye-opening". It seems to me that the place for communists to be is in struggles that are or might soon become outside the "legitimate" (ritual) forms of controversy in bourgeois society.
There could be lots of fruitful discussions of particular struggles within this framework without wasting time and energy on that which is already known to be useless.
It needs to be emphasized that we communists are outsiders. It is not "legitimacy" or "respectability" for ourselves or our ideas that we seek, it is the awakening of our class to the knowledge that it is and will always remain "outside" of bourgeois society...and that it need not accept this forever or even another day, if it so wishes.
Tough job, isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 7, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yep, Bush is the first president since Hoover in which jobs were actually lost. Depression is in the air, and George W. Bush is the man responsible for it.
This is what I wrote (on May 9th) in response...
quote:
It is something of a tradition in American politics to hold the current occupant of the White House responsible for whatever happens to be taking place in the economy.
This is not only un-Marxist but extremely misleading as well. The factors that govern the ebb and flow of capitalism as well as its long term tendencies have little or nothing to do with the parade of ambitious personalities in bourgeois politics.
Nothing has happened in the meantime to change my mind.
But it's difficult to avoid laughing at the idea that U.S. presidents "create" or "destroy" jobs...except for their personal friends and associates, of course. The ruling class and the laws of its free market make those decisions...without regard to who happens to be getting a blowjob in the oval office.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 8, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
============================================ |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| If we cannot teach people how to be free, then everything else we lefties yap about is just glorified social work...
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
