Signing In!

[Our Enemy Is Cynicism]

Hello, I am "Our Enemy Is Cynicism" (though that name looks a little hard to shorten now :p). I'm a teenager from the Tory hell hole of South East England, and I thought I'd check this site out since I'm amazed at the quality of the posts I've read :)

I first really identified with socialism because of my father's influence (though unfortunately in my younger years that also caused me to be rather authoritarian) but I'd also credit Billy Bragg and Punk in general as major helps. I've been reading up on it all for a while, and although I first considered myself a Trot, I've since been disillusioned by his views on centralised government and his actions against the Kronstadt sailors et al. A list of some of my thoughts:
-I support civil rights and liberties, though I'm never sure how I might have to juggle this with socialism, and what comes first. Same really for environmentalism.
-I believe that communism will only be possible after:
--the industrialisation of much of the world through capitalism
--the gradual process of socialism to re-educate people and prepare
--the world has formed under a single world (federal) government, all revolutions must attempt to spread since a single country can easily be overwhelmed by capitalist aggression
-I disagree with anarchism, though I have sympathies with extreme liberalism. I think that at the moment people are not ready for communism as we need to evolve to get rid of greed, and anarchism will just cause death and destruction otherwise.
-I think that we should try and hold off fractures until after the revolution, and that reform should be used wherever possible if that is all we can get. We should be sure to recreate a new system after the destruction of the old.
-I disagree with centralised government, but I also disagree with isolating communities.
-I fundamentally agree with democracy, a "Democracy of the Proletariat" if you will.

Also, a quick question. What is the socialist view on grammar schools?

[Sean]

Welcome to the board. And may all your ideas be torn apart! ;)

[Q]

Welcome :)

[RedAnarchist]

Welcome:)

[bailey_187]

I've since been disillusioned by his views on centralised government and his actions against the Kronstadt sailors et al.

You mean saving the revolution from the irresponsible action of a few ultra-leftists? (I'm not a Trot, btw)



welcome though :D

[Black_Flag]

Welcome :)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yo bro where bouts form the south east are you from?



Also, a quick question. What is the socialist view on grammar schools?

They can suck my ballsack.

[LOLseph Stalin]

(I'm not a Trot, btw)

I am. Is that a bad thing? :confused:

[hugsandmarxism]

I am. Is that a bad thing? :confused:

Yes. ;)

And welcome, Our Enemy Is Cynicism. :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes. http://www.revleft.com/vb/signing-p1423064/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


:(

[hugsandmarxism]

:(

You know I'm just teasing you. :D

*big hug*

;)

[Our Enemy Is Cynicism]

Thanks, guys :)


You mean saving the revolution from the irresponsible action of a few ultra-leftists? (I'm not a Trot, btw)I was under the impression that they basically wanted the Bolsheviks to do as they said they would?


Yo bro where bouts form the south east are you from?Kent.


They can suck my ballsack. I would agree with regards to private, but I struggle to see the problem with state ones. What is wrong with teaching children appropriate to their ability?

EDIT: And btw, to the guy who left a visitor message, I can't seem to respond. Either way, I'm not a primmie and I'd suggest that there is no need to question new members in such a way...

[bailey_187]

I am. Is that a bad thing? :confused:

LOL


You could be worse :D



I was defending Trotsky so i just wanted to make it clear I am not a Trotskyite

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I would agree with regards to private, but I struggle to see the problem with state ones. What is wrong with teaching children appropriate to their ability?

Well it dosent though does it , it presumes that because one 11 year old is shit at maths and english etc he must be shit at history , geography etc - its not its a stupid system and as long as schools operate a sets system there is no need for grammer schools.

[bailey_187]

Also, a quick question. What is the socialist view on grammar schools?

From what i have seen from the kids that left my (state) school for Grammar schools, it breeds the same kind of 'elitism' as i would imagine Private schools do

Mines hardly an informed opinion though as i didn't go to a grammar or private school

[ZeroNowhere]

Hello, and welcome to Revleft. Prepare for every post you make to have any possible holes torn into. :)


I disagree with anarchism, though I have sympathies with extreme liberalism. I think that at the moment people are not ready for communism as we need to evolve to get rid of greed, and anarchism will just cause death and destruction otherwise.
Why the hell do we have to get rid of greed?


the world has formed under a single world (federal) government, all revolutions must attempt to spread since a single country can easily be overwhelmed by capitalist aggression
So why the hell is this necessary?


I fundamentally agree with democracy, a "Democracy of the Proletariat" if you will.
I prefer abolishing the proletariat, personally. Still, suit yourself.


I support civil rights and liberties, though I'm never sure how I might have to juggle this with socialism, and what comes first. Same really for environmentalism.
It doesn't conflict with socialism. Still, if you need to do some juggling, I'd advise you to chuck away the environmentalism, it's something of a nuisance.


Also, a quick question. What is the socialist view on grammar schools?
Haven't been to one, but if they resemble other schools, then fuck them. Though there is technically no 'socialist view on schools'.


I was defending Trotsky so i just wanted to make it clear I am not a Trotskyite
Don't worry, the Trots are just as horrible at it as you are. :D

[scarletghoul]

Welcome. I'm sure with adequate criticism and self-criticism you can become a cool libertarian maoist

[Pogue]

Also, a quick question. What is the socialist view on grammar schools?


Initially, they were seen to have some benefits, as for example intelligent children from poorer families could get an education of a higher academic standard despite their poverty. However this was relevant more to the times when Grammar schools were Academic, and the only real alternative for working class children in Britain would be secondary moderns which focused on vocational things, so if you were interested in academic subjects you were kinda fucked.

You could look at it from the approach that it gives children, regardless of background, higher quality education in what tends to be a more settled environment if they have 'proven' themselves to be educationally capable at age 11, and so is a prime example of meritocracy in action.

However, this would ignore the usual problems of meritocracy, and the problem with grammar schools in general, i.e. that usually it is children whose parent's were rich enough to afford them tutors in the first place are the ones who get in. In this case, it could be argued that they are reproducing class inequality, and also justifying it, by putting up a facade of meritocracy when really differences in income and social background and capital mean that children from more traditional working class families are disadvantaged into getting into them. The assumption with grammar schools that the only determining factor for getting in is your personal effort, but obviously personal effort is restricted by social background.

Having said that, I went to a grammar school, and I can honestly say without fear of contradiction that both my parents were not 'middle class'. Their both nurses on average pay and have worked hard in such jobs for most of their lives. I never had a tutor, but just a mother and father who spent *alot* of time reading with me and encouraging me in education which was and still is (to some extent) something I enjoyed and have in the past done quite well in. Both worked full time for my childhood in their jobs, but when they could (and they did regularly) they helped me out so I did well.

It'd be debatable whether I'd have done so well in a comprehensive, but I'd say my results would have been largely the same, as I have some personal drive, and the comprehensives I would have gone to are not that bad, despite the reputations. I think I would have enjoyed it alot more too. I know a girl who went to one of the worst reputed schools around who got full A*s at GCSE because she was hard working and I guess, talented.

Grammar schools do tend to be full of priviliged children. I'd say theres only about 10% of the people I know from there who had parents earning average to lower pay. Most had suits for parents, so you know. They are also elitist environemtns with alot of empahsis on compeition, conservativism/tradition, and a strong focus on business and competition. Even among students. Theres also alot of competitive pressure and snobbery, i.e. getting a B grade (E is the lowest pass, C is the first grade that is held in much regard by colleges/universities, so B represents a good grade, A is really good and A* is fantastic) was seen as an awful thing and would warrant dropping out of th subject at the school I went too. This is obviously bad, as is the pressure and competition which led to me resenting the place, quitting and now having a very negative view of grammar schools.

I think they're a product of a British society which has long had an emphasis on compeition and class divides. Undoubtedly, they're not easily accesible to working class children because meritocrayc is a myth that doesn't work. If the government invested more time and money into the right places rather than pritvatising failing schools into the crap 'City Academies' which often have priests and company executives on the board for a mere 2 million pound investment in exchange for highly business like schools, then they would become defunct. In communism I'd like to think schools would be radically different and every single school could provide an adequate level of education for all students, and the choice and freedom will be there to excel forever. I think this vision is entirely fulfillable if the government is dedicated to it.

So in summar yeh I'd say most socialists should seen them as rubbish, the meritocracy is a lie, and if they get better results, as they do, its the result of the fact that they only recruit 'brighter' students in the first place, and apply a hell of a lot of pressure to keep grades high elading to alot of depression, low self esteem and even (and I have experienced this - not myself getting suicidal but someone else actually killing themselves over grammar school exam pressure) suicide. They reproduce class inequality and are utterly unnecesary if the government just dealt with education properly and on the basis of impriving standards and the enjoyment of the pupils inside rather than marketising it and turning it into a recruiting ground for obedient workers and priviliged bosses. They are something brought about by the irregularities of capitalism and should and could be done away with if we sorted out education accroding to need.

[ZeroNowhere]

So in summar yeh I'd say most socialists should seen them as rubbish, the meritocracy is a lie, and if they get better results, as they do, its the result of the fact that they only recruit 'brighter' students in the first place, and apply a hell of a lot of pressure to keep grades high elading to alot of depression, low self esteem and even (and I have experienced this - not myself getting suicidal but someone else actually killing themselves over grammar school exam pressure) suicide. They reproduce class inequality and are utterly unnecesary if the government just dealt with education properly and on the basis of impriving standards and the enjoyment of the pupils inside rather than marketising it and turning it into a recruiting ground for obedient workers and priviliged bosses.
Well, the educational system is a reflection of the social system surrounding it. Capitalism was the source of much progress in terms of knowledge, allowed books and such to be accessed by more than ever before, and created centralized places for education, bringing together children who used to generally be taught at farms and such back in feudalist times. However, it made this into basically a reflection of the factory system, with a very strong hierarchy, unhealthy competition among students (including to get into certain schools), homework (which gets people used to obeying orders for no apparent reason except that they need to get through), etc, that basically churns out students who know their place, looking down on those below and respecting those above, and are generally ready to be basically 'cogs in a machine'. It also generally reinforces capitalism, especially through brainwashing in classes such as History. Women working and co-ed led to more equality for working women with working men, but also subjected them to the same class hierarchies as workingmen. Therefore, under socialism, with democratic rule of the workplace should come democratic rule over places of education. Centralizing education was a progressive role, and allows students an easy way to gather together and teach each other, attend lectures, or request help from teachers, but capitalism's implementation of it was marred by the hierarchy inherent within it. Of course, there are already unschooling and free skooling (eg. Sudbury skools) movements under capitalism, but they're severely restricted, with unschoolers having to deal with fairly strong laws against them when they're not outlawed altogether, and free skools not having much space for campuses, meaning that most have to rely on a few classes from time to time all over the place, with only a few Sudbury skools and such around. Also, of course, unskooling may be hard to afford for most (cheaper than many private schools, probably, but it still requires books to be bought and such, certainly, it's not a viable option for most), and also has seen many parents complain about the large amounts of going all around the place necessary for it with most centralized educational resources being schools, except perhaps public libraries ("If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to a library"), though it'll still generally be necessary to go to groups and such (for learning, for sports, etc), tuition in some subjects, perhaps, etc. However, the abolition of hierarchal authority in schools (after which they would cease to be schools) would make things a lot easier, giving students easier access to centers of education, where they can learn from other students as well as democratically elected adult helpers, participate in groups, etc. Though alternatively, they could just stay at home and surf the web or read something if they wish. When the social system is that of a union of free individuals, it shall (or at least should) be the same with education. Also, of course, the eradication of poverty shall mean that children don't end up wasting their childhood on minimum wage labour in order to pay the bills, and that they will have far more free choice in terms of education now, where it's pretty much just going to some school, generally somewhat crappy, in order to get any access to textbooks (or possibly books in general), learn about mathematics and such.

[Our Enemy Is Cynicism]

Thanks for some great responses. I go to a grammar, and while I did have a tutor for a little while I don't think this was really significant in me getting in. I think the pressure is bad (and from experience, I prefer non-setted subjects over setted ones, within the school), I think that everyone should have an education tailored to what they want/need. That is what I think the main problem is with the education system, and I'd be interested to see how the system might work with a more Summerhill-like structure.

Also,

Why the hell do we have to get rid of greed?
I don't think we can progress on to communism until the mind set which drives capitalism has been eliminated. I don't agree with slaughtering those who disagree with the system, so a gradual evolution towards our utopia would be preferable.


So why the hell is this necessary?
I think that a single region cannot function alone for extended periods of time without taking measures counter-productive to the cause we fight for. A single world-government would make this easier, and also help to diminish the nationalistic tendencies which could hinder unity between the workers.


I prefer abolishing the proletariat, personally. Still, suit yourself
Not really sure what you mean- I would prefer to abolish oppression and the presence of an underclass...


It doesn't conflict with socialism. Still, if you need to do some juggling, I'd advise you to chuck away the environmentalism, it's something of a nuisance.
I know, I was more thinking of a hypothetical situation where you have to choose one, or something. As for environmentalism- I think that we need to move towards nuclear and a limited amount of wind/solar/wave/etc (as appropriate to region). A communist utopia sounds nicer when the world isn't a flooded, scorching (or freezing) hell.

[Pogue]

I don't think we can progress on to communism until the mind set which drives capitalism has been eliminated. I don't agree with slaughtering those who disagree with the system, so a gradual evolution towards our utopia would be preferable.



We hear this quite alot, how do you propose we'd eliminate greed? I'd say most humans are not that greedy, that for communism to work people don't have to be radically different, and any changes will develop through struggle and solidarity.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think we can progress on to communism until the mind set which drives capitalism has been eliminated. I don't agree with slaughtering those who disagree with the system, so a gradual evolution towards our utopia would be preferable.
You didn't answer the question.


I think that a single region cannot function alone for extended periods of time without taking measures counter-productive to the cause we fight for. A single world-government would make this easier, and also help to diminish the nationalistic tendencies which could hinder unity between the workers.
And why would we need a single government for a wide-scale revolution?


I know, I was more thinking of a hypothetical situation where you have to choose one, or something. As for environmentalism- I think that we need to move towards nuclear and a limited amount of wind/solar/wave/etc (as appropriate to region). A communist utopia sounds nicer when the world isn't a flooded, scorching (or freezing) hell.
Eh, I don't know, I would say that the advocacy of nuclear means that you're at least not that Green, so good on ya.

Edit: Don't worry about being debated in your introduction thread, things go downhill from here. ;)
Anyways, I'm off.

[Dóchas]

welcome to revleft!! :)

[Our Enemy Is Cynicism]

We hear this quite alot, how do you propose we'd eliminate greed? I'd say most humans are not that greedy, that for communism to work people don't have to be radically different, and any changes will develop through struggle and solidarity.
I assume you accept that people are affected by their upbringing? And thus the society they grew up in? The majority of people conform to that which is normal, and at the moment communism isn't seen to be normal.

Firstly, people need to be shown that (1) socialist ideas work at the very least, (2) communism would actually be feasible.

Secondly, people need to be brought up with some form of mild indoctrination. I'm not talking authoritarian stuff, I'm talking the socialist equivalent of capitalist indoctrination. Adverts, schooling, even kids' TV shows. Remove all this capitalist propaganda (i.e. stuff like the American Dream) and replace it with socialist 'propaganda' (e.g. examples of people working together to achieve something). In history classes, we should emphasise the victories of the masses, not the fates of a few men.


You didn't answer the question.
Indeed, I worry that you're right. At the moment, the vast majority of people care more about themselves (and people they know) than anyone else. People would rather earn £10 for themselves than earn £1 for themselves and 9 other people (or even 99 other people!). Capitalists regularly argue that it is human nature to be greedy, and that this would cause communism to be impossible because someone will always try to do better than the rest. If we just destroy capitalism, have anarchy, then what is there to stop Marxist history repeating itself. Why won't the new society progress from what could be classed as 'primitive communism' into a slave society, etc. It would be worse, because people would still have the capitalist mindset and so each stage would be worse than they were in our current history.

I argue that greed isn't human nature, but that it is human nature to be affected by ones society. I don't think it will take long- my estimate would be perhaps 150 years, although it could be longer.


And why would we need a single government for a wide-scale revolution?
A good point. I think that the socialist stage will need a single (devolved) government to function as it should. The purpose of the capitalist stage is to industrialise and build up the structure we need to go forwards. I think that maybe the world government could be a part of this.


Eh, I don't know, I would say that the advocacy of nuclear means that you're at least not that Green, so good on ya.
True, I forget that some enviromentalists are against it :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

Capitalists regularly argue that it is human nature to be greedy, and that this would cause communism to be impossible because someone will always try to do better than the rest. If we just destroy capitalism, have anarchy, then what is there to stop Marxist history repeating itself.
Well, firstly, because we're actually Marxists, and secondly, that we hopefully won't be trying to start a revolution in a semi-feudal state and hoping for it to be anything more than a bourgeois revolution (or, at least, speeding up and completing the bourgeois revolution).


Capitalists regularly argue that it is human nature to be greedy, and that this would cause communism to be impossible because someone will always try to do better than the rest.
Perhaps, but how the hell does this undermine socialism? If I want to be a better guitarist than somebody else, it doesn't mean that I somehow need to own the means of production.


Secondly, people need to be brought up with some form of mild indoctrination. I'm not talking authoritarian stuff, I'm talking the socialist equivalent of capitalist indoctrination.
The only indoctrination we need is freedom.


Why won't the new society progress from what could be classed as 'primitive communism' into a slave society, etc.
Because hopefully industry would not suddenly collapse for no apparent reason.


At the moment, the vast majority of people care more about themselves (and people they know) than anyone else. People would rather earn £10 for themselves than earn £1 for themselves and 9 other people (or even 99 other people!).
Well, yes, but socialism doesn't exactly require anybody to plunge themselves into poverty. Greed is something that we should have no issue with, really.

[Our Enemy Is Cynicism]

You make some very good points. I still think though, that if we had a revolution tomorrow, people wouldn't suddenly share everything and work in the manner which is needed for communism to succeed. People are still indoctrinated with the idea of private property, and we need time to remove this indoctrination. Yes, the only indoctrination we need is freedom, but we need time for that 'indoctrination' to sink in.

If you're a Marxist, don't you believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[ZeroNowhere]

You make some very good points. I still think though, that if we had a revolution tomorrow, people wouldn't suddenly share everything and work in the manner which is needed for communism to succeed.
Um, but people don't need to share everything for socialism to work. We only seek to abolish ownership of the means of production, and have no issue with posessions. People can still own iPods, houses, or whatever. Only a small minority own the means of production, this ownership serving to allow them to expropriate the surplus labour of the vast majority. Abolishing this does not mean that people have to somehow become 'less greedy'.
Though, of course, we can't have a revolution tomorrow, because to have a successful revolution in the first place you need a class conscious majority, which does not exist at the present.


Yes, the only indoctrination we need is freedom, but we need time for that 'indoctrination' to sink in.
Not really, the only way in which people can experience this freedom is to live under socialism (also known as communism), and people living under socialism as a requirement for people living under socialism does sound somewhat strange. However, under socialism, where the condition for the free development of one will be the free development of all, one would not expect people to suddenly crave slavery.


If you're a Marxist, don't you believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat?
If I'm a Marxist, don't I believe in proletarian revolution? Well, of course I do, as do pretty much all revolutionary socialists (including anarchists) except those with Blanquist tints who want a minority dictatorship over the working class.


People are still indoctrinated with the idea of private property, and we need time to remove this indoctrination.
As long as the majority support capitalism and private property (or state capitalism), we aren't going to have any successful revolution. Note that by private property I am referring to private ownership of the means of production rather than possessions.