Why are we failing? [Archive]

scarletghoul

6th September 2009, 00:46

The British people are discontent, capitalism has shown its true colours, and no one likes the government. This is fertile ground in which to sow the seeds of revolution, however the revolutionary left has failed to pick up momentum and become a significant social force. Why is this? Why is such a golden opportunity of capitalist crisis and popular rage simply passing us by at a leisurely pace, its institutions unharmed? Why is the far right (a branch of capitalist politics) gaining prominence where the revolutionary left remains in the shadows? Why are we failing? We need to pinpoint, discuss, and then confront the reasons for this. (Note: As I'm British I'll be mostly talking about this country, however the problem seems to be present in the USA and other first world countries)

It seems to me that there are 2 main reasons, which are related. 1 is that the revolutionary parties do not take into account the current material situation enough. Another reason is the stupid sectarianism which divides our movement along irrelevent lines. I will elaborate on these 2 points.

1. The parties are divorced from the here and now.
They, or at least their leadership, are guided purely by the theories of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. All people who were born and died long ago. They are stuck in the Russian 1910s, or whatever. They want to transplant the Russian Revolution into contemporary Britain. This approach is doomed to failure, because obviously Britain now is very differant to how it was then, let alone how Russia was. Of course, it's vital to learn from the experience and wisdom of the past, to keep the ideas that are true and useful, however we cannot do only this. We also must analyse the material situation we face today! We must understand the situation and become a part of it in order to change it. This is something every successful revolution in history has done, and without this basic approach failure is inevitable. This is being demonstrated right now by the poor performance of the communists in what should be our time to shine.

Britain is a highly developed first world imperialist country. In the past couple of decades we've seen a mass lumpenisation of the working class, increased exploitation of immigrant labour, continued imperialist foreign policy (mostly as an American ally), among other things. These are just the examples that I think of right now, but I'll elaborate on them a little. (As you all know I'm not very experienced so this isn't gonna be a particularly good analysis, and its not supposed to be; that's what the parties, their leadership, and the commie intellectuals are for! This is just to show what we should be doing more, focussing on the present situation.)

The lumpenisation of a big part of the working class.
The lumpen is now one of the most prominent classes in British society, and is ever growing. Effects of this include the increased crime and the ridiculous levels of apathy. These are people who don't fit into the capitalist system, whose lives are made and kept shit by it, and who therefore logically would be willing to help overthrow it. But the communist parties don't seem to notice this, in theory or practice. When was the last time you saw party work being carried out in council estates, ghettoes and other lumpen areas? The Black Panther Party was based mostly in the lumpen black community of America, and they had great success in organising them. The Panthers went about organising the lumpen and instilling a revolutionary conciousness in them, and this became a huge political force requiring the concentrated power of US state repression to bring it down. It was a clear demonstration of the revolutionary potential of the lumpen class, and most importantly it took place in a modern first world society much like ours. The relevence of the Panthers extends far beyond the role of the lumpen in the revolutionary process; they were in general a highly successful revolutionary organisation the managed to mobilise a whole community of the modern first world around a revolutionary program. In my opinion the Black Panther movement is as relevent to us as the Russian Revolution, maybe even more. But the communist parties don't seem to give a single thought to this. They are run by old out of touch intellectuals who have probably never read anything by the Black Panthers, or indeed by anyone born in the 20th century (except maybe some other out of touch intellectual who was also living in the world of Lenin and Trotsky or something). These people totally ignore the huge success of the Black Panthers and other modern movements, instead dwelling on intellectual egowankery or some historical event that finished 100 years ago that no normal person gives a shit about. This drags down their party and the whole movement, detatching them from the here and now.

The increased exploitation of immigrant labour
Here we have a huge subclass or immigrant workers who are severely exploited to the point of what even mainstream commentators have described as slavery. No one knows exactly how many there are as many of them are "illegally living" in this country, but most estimates are pretty high and its clear that this is a huge group of people full of revolutionary potentional. Untapped revolutionary potential. No communist organisations seem to be paying much or any attention to this, let alone organising these immigrant workers and communicating revolutionary ideas to them. (The immigrant worker issue is huge in the US, and as I've said before parties are not paying enough attention to it.) A byproduct of the increased immigrant exploitation is that many British workers and lumpen get angry at the foreigners for "stealing our jobs" (in reality, being more exploitable). We need to communicate to these angry people the reality, the correct view. They need to understand that this is capitalism that's fucking their lives up. Then they need to understand the need for and methods of revolution. But there's not much of this going on. The nearest thing we had was No2EU, an attempt of some organisations to hijack the widespread anti-EU sentiment and steer it to the left. It had a little success, however I don't think there was enough socialistic propaganda, and other parties should have been involved but weren't (this is a problem of sectarianism though, which I'll get to later).

I could go on but I'm bored and hungry.

These are 2 major examples of issues that are at the forefront of public conciousness, issues that are extremely significant in today's Britain, and issues that the revolutionary left is doing barely anything about. We need to modernise, to take into account analyse the current situation. We need also to pay attention to other successful relevent groups like the Panthers, and not just live in the world of the Russian Revolution with nothing but intellectual dead Europeans leading us. To reiterate, we need to understand the present situation, the here and now. Only then can we become a part of it and only then can we hope to change it.

This was touched on in a cool conversation in RevLeft chat the other day-

<Bellyscratch> we dont have to reinvent the wheel
...
<scarletghoul> no but we have to find a context to use the wheel correctly
...
<scarletghoul> ie, not some old 19th century wagon thing
...
<scarletghoul> because workers wont ride a fuckin wagon
...
<Comrade-Joe> fo wheelThis is a correct analogy, the wheel being communist revolutionary theory. Yes, we already have some of the necessary ideas for making communist revolution. However they must be applied in the modern way and modified for our vehicles and terrain, improved and stuff.

2. Sectarianism.
So many organisations argue over stupid pointless issues. This ranges from the Stalin-Trotsky divide (which has some theoretical value, but isn't important at this stage of revolution) to the intellectual theoretical debates (that are also usually not important), to the incompatible egotism of party leaders. This is bad for our movement, obviously. It creates a load of small useless groups that no one cares about. Some of you might think that these issues that divide the groups are actually important. They may be important at some later stage, or they may have been important back in the 20s, but most of them are now not important, as we have not even started the revolution! I don't see why Trotskyites, Lenininists, and even Anarchists can't work together at the grass roots level, the preliminary stage, spreading revolutionary thought and propaganda. The Stalin-Trotsky stuff has nothing to do with this very necessary step. On the one hand its a historical issue that the average worker doesn't really care about, and on the other hand there are theoretical points of dispute like that over Socialism in One Country, which is also not too important at this stage. Even the issue of establishing a workers' state or abolishing the state altogether is not worth dividing ourselves over, as we're not in a position to do either right now. We are still struggling to bring the people around to the basic idea of revolution. Of course, these are not completely irrelevent points of dispute, and it's healthy to debate them, but it's certainly not worth dividing our movement over them, as they remain abstract theoretical issues for now. Maybe people would pay attention to us if we were united as a tangible political body, or at least acted together.

It is especially ridiculous when Trots and M-Ls split, and even more so when Trots split their own organisations (experts estimate this happens every 3 seconds), because they are all supposed to be using the system of democratic centralism. Centralism can't work if you just freakin split every time there's an argument. The lack of centralism then makes any democratically made decision weak and pointless. Leninist parties should totally unite. Then there's a possibility we could have some real presence in the politics and society of this country.

It's important to undestand that these 2 problems, sectarianism and detatchment from the here and now, are feeding and living off of one another. These stupid sectarian divides come about because we get so into abstract intellectual shit that it becomes the focus of our discussions and stuff, when really it needn't be. And conversely, the detatchment from the material situation is not helped by the fact that much of the left's time and effort is spent *****ing at eachother and dwelling on these irrelevent sectarian issues.

Urgh I got carried away and wrote loads. :lol: But anyway, what do you think are the main reasons the revolutionary left is failing? Also discuss what I wrote

pierrotlefou

6th September 2009, 01:04

oujiQualm

6th September 2009, 01:30

There is little to no organization between the actual left. Especially in the US, the left that the media talks about is in fact quite centrist or center right, not anywhere one would call the Left. Most of us here feel like hopeless minorities.
------

I think that one of the problems is that there is not enough awareness of media politics, such as history of CIA in US media etc. The left could use this knowledge to ACTIVELY DELIGITIMATE THE CORPORATE MEDIA as opposed to just passively crawl away to some "alternative" news site, which sometimes is controlled to allow a,b, and c. so long as it intensely marginalizes variable d in the equation. Hence the alternative can actually be managed through niche marketing so that the real achiles heal of the state at any given moment can be made to seem a really uncool topic for those who percieve themselves as on the left. This was how the CIA funded "left" (but for rightest ends) magazine Encounter worked btw. 1950 and 1964. It was aimed at professors and the idea was to make a Social Democratic sounding magazine that would be comfy for tweedy professors, but would have specially niche marketed pro-cold war propaganda tailored just for this small but infulencial audience.

The goal of Encounter Magazine was not so much to turn these left-liberals into armchair General Walkers but rather to tame their criticisms of US Cold War policy so that the louder lying voices of the right would be all that anyone heard interupted periodically by the snoring of a narcoleptic democrat like the Harry Reid of that day.

Media politics, media history WITH ITS INTELLIGENCE LINKS. The left has not studied it nearly enough. I fear this is in part an overreaction to the 1990s ubiquity of the phrase Conspiracy Theory. This has made the CIA-- once the subject of a lot of study by the left during the 1960s and 1970s-- very unfashionable and we are feeling the results, IMO.

red cat

6th September 2009, 19:52

Do you have a single region where the people are so oppressed that they are willing to challenge the state?
If so, concentrate your work there. Because the communist parties in bourgeois-democrartis countries have been non-clandestine for a long time, it is expected that they will contain quite a few spies who will convey your plans to the ruling class and encourage splits within the party. Therefore it is necessary to challenge the state, atleast through mass demonstrations, and by recruiting from amongst the youth, and giving them radical political education.

*Red*Alert

6th September 2009, 21:56

We are too split up, we Leftists are always fighting amongst our selves and constantly disagreeing on how to achieve our objectives. The only way there will ever be change is if we can all agree that we're after the same basic objective and co-operate on that basis.

The Far Right like the BNP learned this and has formed alliances with other far right groups, because there objectives are the same. The whole American fascist and racialist movement functions because they all agree on the same basic points: if its white or has white ancestors, its ok.

Pogue

6th September 2009, 22:16

*Red*Alert

6th September 2009, 22:24

Get involved in real life. This has been debated time and time on here before. We can't just hope the handful of us there are in the real world will create a revolution, only the working class can do that. Just do meaningful activism in the real world, theres nothing else you can do.

Personally I'm involved in converting people towards the Left everyday, and regularly active in protests, leafleting and campaigns. But it would help if there was a broader grouping of Leftists co-operating and doing this together with a common objective.

scarletghoul

7th September 2009, 01:55

I agree with *Red*Alert. Of course its fundamental that we are active and stuff, but it would make a hell of a lot of differance if we acted together, instead of as seperate splinter groups that no one pays attention to.

------

I think that one of the problems is that there is not enough awareness of media politics, such as history of CIA in US media etc. The left could use this knowledge to ACTIVELY DELIGITIMATE THE CORPORATE MEDIA as opposed to just passively crawl away to some "alternative" news site, which sometimes is controlled to allow a,b, and c. so long as it intensely marginalizes variable d in the equation. Hence the alternative can actually be managed through niche marketing so that the real achiles heal of the state at any given moment can be made to seem a really uncool topic for those who percieve themselves as on the left. This was how the CIA funded "left" (but for rightest ends) magazine Encounter worked btw. 1950 and 1964. It was aimed at professors and the idea was to make a Social Democratic sounding magazine that would be comfy for tweedy professors, but would have specially niche marketed pro-cold war propaganda tailored just for this small but infulencial audience.

The goal of Encounter Magazine was not so much to turn these left-liberals into armchair General Walkers but rather to tame their criticisms of US Cold War policy so that the louder lying voices of the right would be all that anyone heard interupted periodically by the snoring of a narcoleptic democrat like the Harry Reid of that day.

Media politics, media history WITH ITS INTELLIGENCE LINKS. The left has not studied it nearly enough. I fear this is in part an overreaction to the 1990s ubiquity of the phrase Conspiracy Theory. This has made the CIA-- once the subject of a lot of study by the left during the 1960s and 1970s-- very unfashionable and we are feeling the results, IMO.
This is true. Certainly people need to be more aware of the anticommunist suppression and bullshit that plays a huge part in our history, and people need to be aware that all major media is an instrument of the ruling class. But I think this is part of a wider issue, that of the propaganda war. We're hardly even participating in this propaganda war, just letting ourselves be massacred by the capitalist press!

We really need to increase our propaganda in general, to make our message heard. What would be cool would be the establishment of a strong leftist information outlet, like radio tv or newspaper. Yeah these exist in small forms, but nothing prominent enough to get our message to the general public. Again, sectarianism is holding us back here. If the CPB, CPGB, CPGB-ML, SWP, SPEW, SLP, etc allied they could easily establish a good propaganda organisation. An FM Radio station, a TV station, a newspaper that actually appears on sale with the main papers, or whatever, something that will allow us to communicate with the people on mass. Their collective membership and money would make it possible I reckon.

Do you have a single region where the people are so oppressed that they are willing to challenge the state?
If so, concentrate your work there.
This is a good point. It would be good to build up support bases in certain areas. Or maybe in certain sectors of the population. Like I said before, the ghettoes and the immigrants are full of revolutionary potential (this is demonstrated not only by their present sorry state but also the history of socialist rebellion in immigrant communities and the general discontent in ghettoes). It would be well worth propagating and recruiting in immigrant communities, or ethnic minorities in general. This has been done a little, with some muslims turning left due to socialists' role in the anti-war movement, and I think this is worth taking note of. In fact, it's a great example of what I mentioned earlier, the need for leftists to be involved in the present situation. Many socialist/communist parties were marching against the Iraq war and the 'War On Terror', playing a big role in the anti-war movement. Because of this, participation in the greater socialist movement seems to have increased slightly, especially among muslims. This shows that when we actually get involved in real life, real issues, addressing real peoples' needs, then our movement will appeal to the people more. If only more time was spent on stuff like this, rather than useless abstract debate about the kautskyan dialectical menstruations of the plato commune or whatever the fuck these people are talking about.

KurtFF8

7th September 2009, 02:37

There should certainly be some effort to unite leftist groups in a place like the US. This is often talked about but little action is ever taken or even considered.

I was thinking the other day that something like a national committee on unifying the left needs to be formed ASAP. Such an "organization" would not be a formal party but would have the sole goal of unifying the left, nothing more nothing less.

Now whether anyone would be willing to start such an initiative like this in a place like the US or not is a different subject altogether.

Bitter Ashes

7th September 2009, 05:58

I agree with *Red*Alert. Of course its fundamental that we are active and stuff, but it would make a hell of a lot of differance if we acted together, instead of as seperate splinter groups that no one pays attention to.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. While I wouldnt ever join an organisation that I felt was working towards something I disagreed with, I would join a federation that concentrated on the stuff we all hold in common and allowed autonimatation of the individual groups and members within. We need to get away from this whole idea of "You must pay us £15 a month to be a part of our organisation" bullshit too. NOBODY in the federation needs to be fulltime and even if somebody deciedes that they must be, then why should that mean that they're rescued from the dole any more than any other worker else who's stuck on it? As it's been pointed out, the mainstream media can never work for us and neither can pushing ourselves through reformist parlimentary procedures work, so there's no need to throw money at that either. Keep it simple ffs.

This is true. Certainly people need to be more aware of the anticommunist suppression and bullshit that plays a huge part in our history, and people need to be aware that all major media is an instrument of the ruling class. But I think this is part of a wider issue, that of the propaganda war. We're hardly even participating in this propaganda war, just letting ourselves be massacred by the capitalist press!

We really need to increase our propaganda in general, to make our message heard. What would be cool would be the establishment of a strong leftist information outlet, like radio tv or newspaper. Yeah these exist in small forms, but nothing prominent enough to get our message to the general public. Again, sectarianism is holding us back here. If the CPB, CPGB, CPGB-ML, SWP, SPEW, SLP, etc allied they could easily establish a good propaganda organisation. An FM Radio station, a TV station, a newspaper that actually appears on sale with the main papers, or whatever, something that will allow us to communicate with the people on mass. Their collective membership and money would make it possible I reckon.
Indeed! It's time to reexamine our propaganda armoury and learn what's effective and what's a lost cause. Mainstream newspapers, radio and TV are a no-no. They have bourgeois editors who will suppress us at every turn and even outright misquote us at any opportunity and a definate no-platform tactic should be used with the media.
Attempting to sell somebody a newspaper to get our messages across is fruitless too. Nobody will part with thier cash to read it unless they already had an intrest, which could only mean they have already heard the truth in the past.
What does that leave us with?
-Word of mouth
-Leafletting
-Internet forums, blogs, games, etc, wherever people congregate
-Graffiti
-Fly-posting
-Rallys
-Canvassing
-Pirate radio

Some of those are going to be more effective than others for us to perform and also for it to be recieved. What middle-class suburbia may consider to be vandalism, the youth of an inner city estate may consider to be a hand reaching out to them. What may give housewives the chance to voice thier own concerns and have somebody pay attention to what they have to say, may be interpretted as harrasment ammoungst other circles.

A key message in our work should be to denounce the mainstream media. A poster with a slogan pointing out that the "free" media is entirely controlled by the personal opinion of one or two Rupert Murdoch's is what I'm talking here. The workers need to understand why we cant use the mainstream media and why the tactics we use are all we have left.

This is a good point. It would be good to build up support bases in certain areas. Or maybe in certain sectors of the population. Like I said before, the ghettoes and the immigrants are full of revolutionary potential (this is demonstrated not only by their present sorry state but also the history of socialist rebellion in immigrant communities and the general discontent in ghettoes). It would be well worth propagating and recruiting in immigrant communities, or ethnic minorities in general. This has been done a little, with some muslims turning left due to socialists' role in the anti-war movement, and I think this is worth taking note of. In fact, it's a great example of what I mentioned earlier, the need for leftists to be involved in the present situation. Many socialist/communist parties were marching against the Iraq war and the 'War On Terror', playing a big role in the anti-war movement. Because of this, participation in the greater socialist movement seems to have increased slightly, especially among muslims. This shows that when we actually get involved in real life, real issues, addressing real peoples' needs, then our movement will appeal to the people more. If only more time was spent on stuff like this, rather than useless abstract debate about the kautskyan dialectical menstruations of the plato commune or whatever the fuck these people are talking about.
Yup! I recently made and started distributing leaflets directly to retail workers about the Swine Flu epidemic and how it was time for them to get full sick pay if they catch it (they're high risk because they're in contact with the public and are that sector is least likely to recieve SSP). I wish I could say it's been flooded with success, but it's largely been ignored, so I think that maybe we've gone too fast too soon.
Anyway, seeing as though it's my intellectual property...
http://rapidshare.com/files/276666533/Rachsleaflettmulti.pdf.html

MarxSchmarx

7th September 2009, 07:08

You wanna know the real problem of the left?

Here's what it comes down to.

WE LACK A VISION.

That's why we have sectarianism. We put analysis before vision, divisions before commonality. Part of this is because our analysis is well thought out, but our visions less so.

Not just an analysis, but how will you transform society? How should people live? How do we harness the wonders of modern technology.

We have been silent on this for too long. We are so focused on what is wrong with capitalism, on protesting wars and bad laws.

Yes, of course our analysis needs to be hard hitting. And we should call out those who perpetrate the crimes of capitalism. But there should be more. We need to speak to the soul, we need to give people a reason to join us, to desire our kind of society.

I understand skepticism about a blue print. But we need to convince many people that there is an alternative. Not just that the status quo is unacceptable, or that XYZ did or didn't work in the past.

We're afraid of ourselves. We think it's "weak" to demand things like a nurturing society, solidarity and compassion. We have to unapologetically embrace these core values. We need to be the change we seek by embodying solidarity, a high sense of right and wrong.

Eat the Rich

7th September 2009, 07:31

Bitter Ashes

7th September 2009, 09:56

The "Stalin-Trotsky" stuff has a lot of relevance. I will only touch upon this for now.
Stalinists, have a famous theory, called the two-stage theory. This "sacred" theory does not allow them to be revolutionaries in most of the countries of the world, as capitalism "has not yet developed". So let's leave revolution out of the question until capitalism get's built by the "progressive" bourgeoisie, whom we are going to ally with and subordinate ourselves to.

The two Stalinist parties that still have some strength within the working class movement, the KKE in Greece and the CPN (maoist) hold this ideology. A lot of less "visible" stalinists also talk about "anti-imperialist fronts" and alliance with the patriotic bourgeoisie. This is what the CPC-ML talks about, concerning Canada, which they see as an imperialist dominated country:lol:.

How can a real communist ally himself/herself with them?

Also the debate Stalin vs Trotsky is a practical one in a million other ways. Ranging from internal party democracy, to transitional demands and attitude towards centrist currents etc. It's indicative that in the CPC they are advancing a party cult around Miguel Figueroa and that you get expelled if you deviate from the party line, as a conspirator!! This is how democratic most stalinist parties are. Using expulsion instead of political debate. This is not surprising, considering that the current leadership, was the one that had the authority to do so, while the USSR was still existent.

About the anarchists, well that didn't happen in the first international. Today someone talking about uniting with the anarchists is either lunatic or ignorant. There are simply too many differences on every aspect of work. It would make an alliance more counter-productive than productive.

In general, the left should unite on a principled basis. If someone unites today on an un-principled basis, tomorrow they will be broken up in more pieces than they were before the "unification".
In the intrests of trying to prevent you from derailing the topic, I'm not going to sit here and type upthe 101 ways to poke holes in your post, merely to have you respond in kind. Nethertheless, I think you're wrong.

What I am going to ask though, is what's your alternative? We all become Trots/Stalinists/Anarchists (unlikely), or we continue as we are currently in our Somme-like march to the trenches? Unless of course, you have a better idea than uniting, converting, or carrying on as normal.

willdw79

7th September 2009, 10:29

I am extremely impressed with your analysis. It is thoughtful, honest, and unapologetically revolutionary.

There is only one thing that I am compelled to mention.

I am surrounded by the lumpen. They cannot be stereotyped, but what I will say is that generally, crooks should not be organized. Their are unemployed workers and underemployed workers that are not lumpen, and I believe that they tend to be more revolutionary than professional crooks.

Sectarianism: Screw sectarianism, I am with you 100%! I said in a different thread, and I have consistently pointed out to people that I am in touch with, "the revolution is going to change us profoundly". The act of killing people and the process of gaining power always changes people in ways that are unpredictable.
This should not stop us from fighting for what is right, but it should be a warning for us not to be know-it-alls, because what is thought to be "right" changes with new evidence and analysis. I mean this as argument against sectarianism and a rationale for joining people who do not belive precisely what you believe at this exact moment.

I support Scarlet's position.

7th September 2009, 10:41

The "Stalin-Trotsky" stuff has a lot of relevance. I will only touch upon this for now.
Stalinists, have a famous theory, called the two-stage theory. This "sacred" theory does not allow them to be revolutionaries in most of the countries of the world, as capitalism "has not yet developed". So let's leave revolution out of the question until capitalism get's built by the "progressive" bourgeoisie, whom we are going to ally with and subordinate ourselves to.

The two Stalinist parties that still have some strength within the working class movement, the KKE in Greece and the CPN (maoist) hold this ideology. A lot of less "visible" stalinists also talk about "anti-imperialist fronts" and alliance with the patriotic bourgeoisie. This is what the CPC-ML talks about, concerning Canada, which they see as an imperialist dominated country:lol:.

How can a real communist ally himself/herself with them?

Also the debate Stalin vs Trotsky is a practical one in a million other ways. Ranging from internal party democracy, to transitional demands and attitude towards centrist currents etc. It's indicative that in the CPC they are advancing a party cult around Miguel Figueroa and that you get expelled if you deviate from the party line, as a conspirator!! This is how democratic most stalinist parties are. Using expulsion instead of political debate. This is not surprising, considering that the current leadership, was the one that had the authority to do so, while the USSR was still existent.

About the anarchists, well that didn't happen in the first international. Today someone talking about uniting with the anarchists is either lunatic or ignorant. There are simply too many differences on every aspect of work. It would make an alliance more counter-productive than productive.

In general, the left should unite on a principled basis. If someone unites today on an un-principled basis, tomorrow they will be broken up in more pieces than they were before the "unification".

I think this exemplifies the problem with the left. How about I go into work tomorrow and explain to my coworkers how this relates to them? Except that it doesn't, which should be obvious. It doesn't relate to the working class at all, and that is exactly the problem. If this is the sort of loaded elitist drek that has come to constitute revolutionary philosophy, then we're as good as done. Most workers (in the US) don't know what class they belong to, confuse socialism with fascism, and think we want to take away their "freedom", but we concern ourselves with the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky (which translates into "STALIN/TROTSKY WUZ 2 BETTER THAN TROTSKY/STALIN!!!!") in Soviet Russia during the first half of the previous century, and yet somehow are so oblivious to reality that we have the nerve to claim to represent (or have any iota of familiarity with) the interests of the working class - its just laughable, or it would be, if it wasn't in fact really very sad.

RHIZOMES

7th September 2009, 11:45

I think scarletghoul's post is one of the most refreshing posts I've seen on Revleft in a long time. I too have noticed this problem in my time on the "far left activist" scene. A lot of this stuff about sectarianism and the theoretical Stalin vs. Trotsky stuff is the general opinion of my organization. However I think we have a lot to learn from the Black Panthers, and once I'm out of University into the real world I am hoping to try out some of those tactics of grounding far left radicalism in oppressed communities, I think it's one of our best bets.

Get involved in real life. This has been debated time and time on here before. We can't just hope the handful of us there are in the real world will create a revolution, only the working class can do that. Just do meaningful activism in the real world, theres nothing else you can do.

Did you even read his post? Christ. The entire post is about correct practical activist tactics. Just holding random protests everywhere that noone but the area's local far left goes to is activism but it's not very productive activism. One of the biggest flaws I find with your politics and a lot of anarchist politics generally is that the working class isn't just going to magically collectively decide to overthrow capitalism without any sort of agitation, mobilization or organization. I have yet to see proof through practical experience that will happen and such sentiments tend to be quite utopian rather than grounded in any sort of cold hard reality.

This is a very interesting discussion, I plan on responding to a bit more later.

7th September 2009, 12:36

To contribute something to the discussion of unity and rebuilding the movement, here goes:

1. I agree with the point of a "down to Earth" approach. Truth is concrete, so is our playing field, so let's start from there. That is not to say theoretical discussions aren't important, because they very much are. The question of principled internationalism versus "Socialism in one country" for example has very important strategical consequences for today. Because, internationalism and the strive for worldrevolution has the consequence of having an internationalist outlook in your activism (individually) and building the movement (collectively). You strive for international campagns for international problems (I can see lots of potential here in EU wide campaigns for example). Especially in the case of the EU, I think the slogan of building a European unified Socialist/Communist party is nigh. Fundamentally I think this is the right strategy because we live in a worldcommunity with all historical events and developments on a worldstage.

This is all of course contrasted to the view of building socialist movements purely on a national scale, because of the view that you can strive for national development still, as if the nation in question was still an island, independently able to develop capitalism and socialism. This then leads, as we have seen in the past to isolation and defeats of the revolutionary movement.

So internationalism is important, not as a "future coalition of peoples", but in the here and now. And this is just one example in which I think theory is important, if not vital. So, can we ever unite? Yes and for this I'll go to the point of sectarianism.

2. I obviously agree that there is a problem here aswell. But I'm missing a solution. I understand that you left this open to let the discussion provide some solutions and some interesting stuff has indeed emerged, like the setting up of a tv station together. But for this to practically work we have to set some "groundrules" as it were.

The problem, or one of the problems, with sectarianism is that it is based on the restriction of discussion. What I mean with this is that, if you disagree with an issue and don't have the freedom to develop your disagreement properly through debate, you'll become very frustratred very quickly. I think this is the basis of much of the egocentric organisations as they exist today, which this or that organisation based on the views of person x, y or z and that z's views are inherently incompatible with that of x's. Etc.

So, what we need is to take another look at democratic-centralism, our (or at least much of the far left's) organisational structure. What we need is openness/transparency of disagreement. With this I mean the obvious (yet I need to state it explicitly, since some didn't get it right in previous discussions): Let the whole world know of our disagreements.

Why is this important you ask? Doesn't it weaken our movement and confuse the class? Absolutely not, in fact the complete opposite is the case. There are three reasons why I defend this and why I indeed think this is the only way out of the sect mentality:

1. On the plane of the individual member. Members that think differently on an issue have a conflict, with themselves. In a closed environment you have to defend both the official line which was decided upon by the organisation, but have a different opinion personally. This conflict is termed cognitive dissonance and is a well known phenomena in psychology. People have several options to "solve" these conflicts, the most easy way is to give in to group pressure, in other words, conformity. However conformity then leads to conservatism if everyone thinks this way. I believe this is contradictory to the idea that we're building an organisation consisting out of leading cadres that are supposed to make a difference in working class struggle. In an open environment this issue becomes redundant.

2. A related issue on the leadership plane. If after all individual members follow the group, the leadership leads the group. They then become the "thinkers" of the organisation. Discussion then only takes place within the official structures of an organisation, everything outside that is a threat to that. Open discussion breaks this monopoly of discussion by the leadership. It acts as a counter-balance to too much centralism.

3. On the plane of the working class movement. In a closed discussion environment, my experience with entryism is that the party you work in (that is, the general consensus by members, there are of course exceptions) sees you as an alien entity. This of course is strongly related to the nature of the party. I work in a strongly bureaucratic top-down unitary party. But open discussion enables everyone to follow your organisation's discussions, it's conflicts, it's development. I like to make a parallel with the concept of open source software: there are only a few real developers of the software, yet because the source is open and reviewed by hundreds or even thousands of people, patches drop in, suggestions are made, features are requested, bugs are tested out, etc. The software gets improved, gets correcter. Similarly, if the organisation is open to a wider audience, the political line gets correcter, we become an integral part of the working class, if only a layer of it. In fact, we become the political leadership of the movement, because we internalise the discussions that are already happening within the wider movement.

So, proper democratic centralism is identified with two basic points: it'stransparent and it cultivates disagreement. Only this can help to develop our movement, help unite it and strive for political hegemony.

7th September 2009, 12:52

With the risk of letting this slip into a personal flamewar, I'll point to this discussion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-appeal-and-t110938/index.html?p=1536269#post1536269) (from there on) as an example of the classic sectarian arguments used against transparency. Attitudes aired by individuals like these are sadly dominant within our movements as it is and a major reason of us not getting anywhere.

scarletghoul

7th September 2009, 13:05

I agree completely with Q's second point, about the need for an open and free democratic centralism.

The first part, about the need for internationalism, is a good point..

I think scarletghoul's post is one of the most refreshing posts I've seen on Revleft in a long time. I too have noticed this problem in my time on the "far left activist" scene. A lot of this stuff about sectarianism and the theoretical Stalin vs. Trotsky stuff is the general opinion of my organization. However I think we have a lot to learn from the Black Panthers, and once I'm out of University into the real world I am hoping to try out some of those tactics of grounding far left radicalism in oppressed communities, I think it's one of our best bets.
Did you even read his post? Christ. The entire post is about correct practical activist tactics. Just holding random protests everywhere that noone but the area's local far left goes to is activism but it's not very productive activism. One of the biggest flaws I find with your politics and a lot of anarchist politics generally is that the working class isn't just going to magically collectively decide to overthrow capitalism without any sort of agitation, mobilization or organization. I have yet to see proof through practical experience that will happen and such sentiments tend to be quite utopian rather than grounded in any sort of cold hard reality.
Right on.
There should certainly be some effort to unite leftist groups in a place like the US. This is often talked about but little action is ever taken or even considered.

I was thinking the other day that something like a national committee on unifying the left needs to be formed ASAP. Such an "organization" would not be a formal party but would have the sole goal of unifying the left, nothing more nothing less.

Now whether anyone would be willing to start such an initiative like this in a place like the US or not is a different subject altogether.
This is a pretty cool idea. Perhaps parties could appoint unification ministers to talk to eachother like in Korea. I also think a common forum for leftist groups to discuss and debate would be very healthy.

Indeed! It's time to reexamine our propaganda armoury and learn what's effective and what's a lost cause. Mainstream newspapers, radio and TV are a no-no. They have bourgeois editors who will suppress us at every turn and even outright misquote us at any opportunity and a definate no-platform tactic should be used with the media.
Attempting to sell somebody a newspaper to get our messages across is fruitless too. Nobody will part with thier cash to read it unless they already had an intrest, which could only mean they have already heard the truth in the past.
What does that leave us with?
-Word of mouth
-Leafletting
-Internet forums, blogs, games, etc, wherever people congregate
-Graffiti
-Fly-posting
-Rallys
-Canvassing
-Pirate radioIt's true that trying to enter into the mainstream media is a stupid idea (see: Glenn Beck interview with Sam Webb), however I don't think we can rely on canvassing and graffiti and stuff alone. That's not to say we shouldnt do that - these are definately tactics worth using - but we need a stronger and more prominent way to confront the mainstream media. Like setting up a leftist TV station for example. Ordinary people will come across it, and be exposed to our commie propaganda. It will reach many more people than a leaflet or an internet blog. But yeah there are a load of propaganda tactics to use, and propaganda should be a big priority at the moment.

Yup! I recently made and started distributing leaflets directly to retail workers about the Swine Flu epidemic and how it was time for them to get full sick pay if they catch it (they're high risk because they're in contact with the public and are that sector is least likely to recieve SSP). I wish I could say it's been flooded with success, but it's largely been ignored, so I think that maybe we've gone too fast too soon.
Anyway, seeing as though it's my intellectual property...
http://rapidshare.com/files/27666653...multi.pdf.html (http://rapidshare.com/files/276666533/Rachsleaflettmulti.pdf.html)That's interesting.. What reaction did you get?

I am extremely impressed with your analysis. It is thoughtful, honest, and unapologetically revolutionary.:blushing: Thankyou!

I am surrounded by the lumpen. They cannot be stereotyped, but what I will say is that generally, crooks should not be organized. Their are unemployed workers and underemployed workers that are not lumpen, and I believe that they tend to be more revolutionary than professional crooks.I think crime can be either reactionary or revolutionary. Fanon had some idea that the lumpen should be a part of the revolution or otherwise they will be used by the reactionaries. But yeah I guess this also depends how you define the lumpen, if you consider them just the professional criminals, or the entire unemployable section of society like how the Black Panthers viewed the black community as being mostly lumpen.

Sectarianism: Screw sectarianism, I am with you 100%! I said in a different thread, and I have consistently pointed out to people that I am in touch with, "the revolution is going to change us profoundly". The act of killing people and the process of gaining power always changes people in ways that are unpredictable.
This should not stop us from fighting for what is right, but it should be a warning for us not to be know-it-alls, because what is thought to be "right" changes with new evidence and analysis. I mean this as argument against sectarianism and a rationale for joining people who do not belive precisely what you believe at this exact moment. Agreed :lol:

Also, perhaps this should be moved to the Practice And Propaganda section?

Eat the Rich

7th September 2009, 19:59

In the intrests of trying to prevent you from derailing the topic, I'm not going to sit here and type upthe 101 ways to poke holes in your post, merely to have you respond in kind. Nethertheless, I think you're wrong.

What I am going to ask though, is what's your alternative? We all become Trots/Stalinists/Anarchists (unlikely), or we continue as we are currently in our Somme-like march to the trenches? Unless of course, you have a better idea than uniting, converting, or carrying on as normal.

Why will you responding to my post will derail the thread? I think it is relevant to talk about our differences.

I will repeat again, a unity of the left will have to be a principled unity. If you think that Stalinists, Trotskyists and Anarchists will unite and everything is going to be allright, you clearly have never been active in real life. If heterogeneous groups "unite" the first day, the second day they will split to more groups than they started off with. This is what the history of the revolutionary left tells us.

Anyways, as an IMTer debates like that don't really concern me. As we are "united" with the mass organizations of the working class, of course preserving our organizational and ideological independence at the same time.

7th September 2009, 20:01

Why will you responding to my post will derail the thread? I think it is relevant to talk about our differences.

I will repeat again, a unity of the left will have to be a principled unity. If you think that Stalinists, Trotskyists and Anarchists will unite and everything is going to be allright, you clearly have never been active in real life. If heterogeneous groups "unite" the first day, the second day they will split to more groups than they started off with. This is what the history of the revolutionary left tells us.

Anyways, as an IMTer debates like that don't really concern me. As we are "united" with the mass organizations of the working class, of course preserving our organizational and ideological independence at the same time.
So, what are your principles then? On what grounds would you be willing to unite? Please, tell us.

And the whole "we're above you" attitude is really quite hilarious, coming from a sect just over 4000 members big worldwide. Which mass organisations have you effectively influenced thusfar? How is the Labour project to rebuilt Militant going? It has been almost 20 years since the split, there surely are some results, yes?

Eat the Rich

7th September 2009, 20:17

So, what are your principles then? On what grounds would you be willing to unite? Please, tell us.

And the whole "we're above you" attitude is really quite hilarious, coming from a sect just over 4000 members big worldwide.

I never said "we're above you..." . Why do you put words in my mouth? Also it is a lot more than that:lol:.

Anyways, a principled unity would be a unity on the basis of an agreement on common tactics(unity with left-communists and anarchists? Too hard.), common organizational structures and internal democracy (imagine uniting with the Stalinists that are used to organizational authoritarianism, it would not work), common attitude towards the state, common attitude towards under-developed capitalism (progressive or not, ie Stage theory vs permanent revolution) ETC ETC.

You need a basic agreement of everyone in these and more questions in order to unite and be productive as a party. Anyways even if the left (anarchists, trotskyists, stalinists etc) unites, it would take too much time in discusssions that we can't afford right now, given that the subjective factor lags far behind the objective factor.

But let's say that we reach agreement. Then I am sure that competing factions(or organizations) will eventualy destroy the "unity" and create more sects that we began with. Examples for that you will find in almost all "unifications" in history. Look at the crisis at SYRIZA (which is going to disband), look at Solidarity, look at Respect.

Anyways I am also not sure about the usefulness of such a unity. In Canada, there are about 120-150 Trotskyists (most of them IMTers), about 50-100 active Stalinists in the CPC , about 30-40 active people in the CPQ, about 100 people in the Maoist RCP and then about 50-100 on the CPC-ML. Also NEFAC has about 30-50 people. If you take the time, effort etc and unite a portion of these people (because to unite all it is utopian), what difference will a party of 300-500 active heterogeneous people make (with constant disagreements), compared to a party of 100 homogeneous activists, working in a mass organization, with another 5 000 people?

Eat the Rich

7th September 2009, 20:24

Which mass organisations have you effectively influenced thusfar?

Well we have many gains from the RC in Italy, influencing its trade-union work and also helping to kick out the right wing who wanted to dissolve Riffondazzione Communista. If we were not part of RC we would have been in the very margins of the communist and workers movement.

Another example will be France and the CPF. We got 15% of the vote last congress, even though we are a young faction and we have managed to build through defending the ideas of Marxism inside the CPF, which we urge to return to its original programme. There are many other cases that I will not name for the sake of time and space.

How is the Labour project to rebuilt Militant going? It has been almost 20 years since the split, there surely are some results, yes?

Yes there are results and there will be more once Labour is kicked out of office. For now, I can reccomend that you buy the new Socialist Appeal in a Tabloid version! A newspaper is the public image of the organization and to get a 16 page full colour tabloid, means that SA is rising in readership, support and influence within the labour movement.

7th September 2009, 20:36

I never said "we're above you..." . Why do you put words in my mouth? Also it is a lot more than that:lol:.
Maybe I'm off by a few hundred, but that's not a "lot".

Anyways, a principled unity would be a unity on the basis of an agreement on common tactics(unity with left-communists and anarchists? Too hard.), common organizational structures and internal democracy (imagine uniting with the Stalinists that are used to organizational authoritarianism, it would not work), common attitude towards the state, common attitude towards under-developed capitalism (progressive or not, ie Stage theory vs permanent revolution) ETC ETC.
So basically, "principled unity" is not at all about principles (= core ideas), but more or less an ultimatum to the other party to agree on everything? I'm sure you have a lot of success posing that kind of unity.

You need a basic agreement of everyone in these and more questions in order to unite and be productive as a party. Anyways even if the left (anarchists, trotskyists, stalinists etc) unites, it would take too much time in discusssions that we can't afford right now, given that the subjective factor lags far behind the objective factor.
Why do discussions hold up work? I don't see how both can't be done and more to the point: unity is a process of doing as much as it is of discussing.

But let's say that we reach agreement. Then I am sure that competing factions(or organizations) will eventualy destroy the "unity" and create more sects that we began with. Examples for that you will find in almost all "unifications" in history. Look at the crisis at SYRIZA (which is going to disband), look at Solidarity, look at Respect.
Look at the pre-1914 SPD, look at the Bolsheviks. The central point why my examples worked and your examples don't is because of the organisational structure. "Plural unity", open disagreements, a rich tradition in tendencies and platform - as was common in the Bolsheviks was the fundament of why it was able to become a mass party.

Anyways I am also not sure about the usefulness of such a unity. In Canada, there are about 120-150 Trotskyists (most of them IMTers), about 50-100 active Stalinists in the CPC , about 30-40 active people in the CPQ, about 100 people in the Maoist RCP and then about 50-100 on the CPC-ML. Also NEFAC has about 30-50 people. If you take the time, effort etc and unite a portion of these people (because to unite all it is utopian), what difference will a party of 300-500 active heterogeneous people make (with constant disagreements), compared to a party of 100 homogeneous activists, working in a mass organization, with another 5 000 people?
This sectlike mentality has already been refuted by me in the first post I made in this thread. There is no such thing as a "homogeneous" group. People are coming from different life experiences, different viewpoints, etc. We are not clones. I think that also goes for the IMT, even if you simply deny it or don't see it.

Lyev

7th September 2009, 20:51

I think something that is absolutely key is that the revolutionary left (a minority) and the working-class proletariat (a majority) are totally separate from each other. The majority proletariat need to be addressed. Some of Luxemburgs last words were- '...the leadership can and must be recreated from the masses and out of the masses. The masses are the decisive element, they are the rock on which the final victory of the revolution will be built.' So, yeah, I agree with those that say propaganda needs to be put into place. We need to put our differences aside and realise we're all united by our hate for capitalism, inequality, imperialism, corruption and the bourgeoisie. We need to organise. I guess it boils down to 'workers of the world, unite!'

Edit: by the way, should this thread be stickied?

Bitter Ashes

7th September 2009, 21:03

*puts her head in her hands*
THIS is why I didnt start unwraveling the obvious flaws in Eattherich's sectarianism. It was a nice thread while it lasted, but from this point it's going to be 90% "My group's better than your group!". Thanks Eattherich. Thanks a bunch...:glare:
Seriously, can we not go more than a dozen posts without somebody kicking off like this? What part of any group or ideoligy has in thier consitituion that they must absolutly tear open sectarian divides at any given opportunity, especially at the cost of any possible debate about mending that damage from past secatarianism and closed mindedness.
edit: That's not an opportunity for you to tell us how the party/group/ideoligy you oppose most apparantly has just such a clause in thier constitition. None of them does. End of.

Lyev

7th September 2009, 21:08

I wasn't 'kicking off' was I? Sorry, I'm just passionate about leftist politics...

scarletghoul

7th September 2009, 21:41

She wasn't talking about you, AGW, don't worry

I think something that is absolutely key is that the revolutionary left (a minority) and the working-class proletariat (a majority) are totally separate from each other. The majority proletariat need to be addressed. Some of Luxemburgs last words were- '...the leadership can and must be recreated from the masses and out of the masses. The masses are the decisive element, they are the rock on which the final victory of the revolution will be built.' So, yeah, I agree with those that say propaganda needs to be put into place. We need to put our differences aside and realise we're all united by our hate for capitalism, inequality, imperialism, corruption and the bourgeoisie. We need to organise. I guess it boils down to 'workers of the world, unite!'Exactly. The Luxemburg quote reminds me of the Mao quote "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history."

*puts her head in her hands*
THIS is why I didnt start unwraveling the obvious flaws in Eattherich's sectarianism. It was a nice thread while it lasted, but from this point it's going to be 90% "My group's better than your group!". Thanks Eattherich. Thanks a bunch...http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/glare.gif
Seriously, can we not go more than a dozen posts without somebody kicking off like this? What part of any group or ideoligy has in thier consitituion that they must absolutly tear open sectarian divides at any given opportunity, especially at the cost of any possible debate about mending that damage from past secatarianism and closed mindedness.
edit: That's not an opportunity for you to tell us how the party/group/ideoligy you oppose most apparantly has just such a clause in thier constitition. None of them does. End of.

Urgh yeah. ETR's posts have caused facepalms of apocalyptic proportions.

But this thread is still salvageable I think..

Lyev

8th September 2009, 19:23

Bitter Ashes

8th September 2009, 19:39

I was talking to a friend of mine about the prospect of revolution in the UK and a few questions came up. One of them being do people, on a whole, in Britain want revolution? Do they want change? Many people in the UK get along fine under capitalism.
- Stockholm Syndrome
- Lack of knowledge of an alternative
Are the two main culprits for that imo. Why else would they sit and happily scramble for the crumbs the bourgeois cast from their table, without even looking at the main meal above?

Think about how most people in the UK live thier lives. Monday to Friday they will get up, have breakfast and drive to work in a daze, maybe drop the kids off at school on the way. They sit in work, forbidden to talk and kept working at a pace where they cannot think about anything other than performing thier job. They only entitled to a single 20 minute break, which they use to get food into themselves as quickly as possible because they know that if they take even a second too long, they are going to be punished. After work, they're tired and frustrated and sit down in front of the TV where they're told about how important it is that everyone lives like they do. The only escape the capitalists offer is to become management, so they try even harder at work, think even less, try to impress thier management even more by turning away from unions, pushing sales that others would not, stabbing thier co-workers in the back whenever they can, licking thier bosses' boots, working hours that others would not and then they become one of them. They've get thier reward, they've been rewarded for bieng a disgusting member of society and then they go out and proclaim how great it is to be a bastard. Meanwhile more and more advertising is bieng pushed in thier faces and more and more things they want. They want shorter hours and higher pay so they go for more, they fight to be the best bastard of them all.

How do you prevent this cycle? Well, the only way I know of is to prove that instead of bieng a bastard, bieng a responsible individual holds the key for not only a better life from them and an escape from the rat-race, but an escape for everyone! Easier said than done of course, you've got that rat-race's suppression of thier free thought to deal with and the constant propaganda that there is no other way than capitalism.

Lyev

8th September 2009, 20:21

- Stockholm Syndrome
- Lack of knowledge of an alternative
Are the two main culprits for that imo. Why else would they sit and happily scramble for the crumbs the bourgeois cast from their table, without even looking at the main meal above?

Think about how most people in the UK live thier lives. Monday to Friday they will get up, have breakfast and drive to work in a daze, maybe drop the kids off at school on the way. They sit in work, forbidden to talk and kept working at a pace where they cannot think about anything other than performing thier job. They only entitled to a single 20 minute break, which they use to get food into themselves as quickly as possible because they know that if they take even a second too long, they are going to be punished. After work, they're tired and frustrated and sit down in front of the TV where they're told about how important it is that everyone lives like they do. The only escape the capitalists offer is to become management, so they try even harder at work, think even less, try to impress thier management even more by turning away from unions, pushing sales that others would not, stabbing thier co-workers in the back whenever they can, licking thier bosses' boots, working hours that others would not and then they become one of them. They've get thier reward, they've been rewarded for bieng a disgusting member of society and then they go out and proclaim how great it is to be a bastard. Meanwhile more and more advertising is bieng pushed in thier faces and more and more things they want. They want shorter hours and higher pay so they go for more, they fight to be the best bastard of them all.

How do you prevent this cycle? Well, the only way I know of is to prove that instead of bieng a bastard, bieng a responsible individual holds the key for not only a better life from them and an escape from the rat-race, but an escape for everyone! Easier said than done of course, you've got that rat-race's suppression of thier free thought to deal with and the constant propaganda that there is no other way than capitalism.

How can you prove any of this? Although I understand where you're coming from. I agree with you that people are just constantly bludgeoned by the mass media and spoon fed what to think. For example, in the UK, there seems to a blind faithfulness to the 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan just because The Daily Mail says stuff about supporting the brave boys in Afghanistan. There's nothing about the amount of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; over 700,000 put together.

However, where's proof that people have 20 minute breaks? That people are forbidden to talk? Where's the proof that 'most people in the UK' work in offices like the one you describe?

Bitter Ashes

8th September 2009, 20:29

How can you prove any of this? Although I understand where you're coming from. I agree with you that people are just constantly bludgeoned by the mass media and spoon fed what to think. For example, in the UK, there seems to a blind faithfulness to the 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan just because The Daily Mail says stuff about supporting the brave boys in Afghanistan. There's nothing about the amount of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; over 700,000 put together.

However, where's proof that people have 20 minute breaks? That people are forbidden to talk? Where's the proof that 'most people in the UK' work in offices like the one you describe?
The 20 minute break is the legal minimum and you only even get that after six hours, unless you're under 18, in which case there's slightly different rules.

If you're at work, I wouldnt suggest opening your mouth about anything other than how to perform your job, especially if you know management are around. Unless you're a highly valued employee (i.e. highly qualified, or management) then chances are you'll be told to cut the chatter and find something to do. Quite a few places are not too bothered about you chatting about Big Brother, or your last night out or something, but start talking about how much you dislike your work (even outside of work on Facebook!) then expect them to come down on you VERY hard. That one is both first hand experiance and a little refference there to the girl who was sacked with a Facebook message for saying she disliked her work on Facebook.

For where workers work. Check the CIA factfile. Off the top of my head, only 0.6% of the population work in farming, close to 20% for manufacturing and distribution and the rest bieng either public services, construction, or financial services such as sales, insurance, banking, etc.

Lyev

8th September 2009, 20:41

Thanks a lot Ranma :). I fail to see any freedom in this- 'That one is both first hand experiance and a little refference there to the girl who was sacked with a Facebook message for saying she disliked her work on Facebook.' That sure is fucked up.

Dimentio

8th September 2009, 20:56

The left is not failing. Politics as a whole is failing today, and that is good for the right, as the right is for the status quo. It seems a lot of people, even in working class environments, are more concerned about their appearance than progressive change. Any successful political movement of today must be more about appearance and charisma than content. :(

bailey_187

8th September 2009, 21:12

The Labour Aristocracy doesnt want socialism. why would they?

The Thinker

8th September 2009, 21:30

Let me just throw an idea out there.
Is it in any way a crazy thought to also reach out to people who in their own right are able to reach large amounts of people in an instant f.e. Musicians?
If I remember correctly there was a bit of a discussion about the Beatles in another thread and the way I see it at this moment ( I'm liable to have a change of mind if I read some more ) they have been able to influence an extremely large movement of people. Naturally The Beatles weren't the only ones to have an influence on this ''Hippie" movement but non the less I think it is one worth mentioning.
I feel there are numerous artists out there especially within the underground scenes of almost any type of musical genre that would agree with most of what is being said here. In any case they most certainly disagree with capitalist views.

Also much of this I find is very coherent with the views of Jaque Fresco whom I've mentioned in one of my previous posts.
A quote from his thesis,

''Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage." ( end quote )

Although I do feel there are plenty ideas for other options being thought of, essentially we still need to figure out the best way to reach the masses and educate them on these options i.m.o.

*Red*Alert

8th September 2009, 21:49

I've another two cents (Euro) to share as well:

I think the failure of the Revolutionary Left may also be related to the fact that most of us RevLefters' probably spend more time in front of a computer than we do actually communicating with the ordinary working class.

The BNP are not failing, they are organising and expanding. Every gain they make, including their two new EU seats, must rest directly on the conscience of all those Leftist groups who are failing to organise and offer an alternative to Working Class communities.

Some here say the Right have it easier because they "aren't fighting to change things, they're fighting to keep it the same". While this is through of mainstream parties like Labour, Lib Dems, or Tories, it cannot be said for the BNP: they advocate nationalisation and the replacement of trade unions with what they term "worker's councils" albeit a la Nazi Germany.

What am I doing will be the next inevitable question, asked by someone to detract from this reality. I am organising, I am reaching out to ordinary people and converting them to Leftist ideas whether it be through campaigning and leafeting against the Lisbon Treaty, the current NAMA debacle, or even something as simple as to discussing politics with people on the bus.

Bitter Ashes

10th September 2009, 06:32

To further enchance upon my "workers' life" description. Lets go a little further. Monday to Friday are accounted for. What about Saturday? Well, we reward ourselves by staying in bed until noon, then watching more TV and then in the evening it's heavy drinking to try make the world seem enjoyable. Wake up Sunday in the noon again, although this time it comes with a hangover too, so we curl up in bed some more and watch some more TV and before we know it, it's Monday again.
There's not much room in there for revolutionary thinking.

spiltteeth

10th September 2009, 06:48

10th September 2009, 07:20

Well, it would be nice if there was a kind of 'ecumenical counsel' for all the different leftist groups to get together. It could be based on a simple very basic 5 point agreement such as 1) the overthrow of capitalism 2) workers rights etc etc

Really though, all leftist space to dissent has been neutralized. Lenin nor Mao had to deal with the huge capitalists propaganda machine.

In america, the left can't complain because the left has been painted as being in control!
Zizek has written about this. In Slovenia no one could dissent, so he utilized a process of over-identification to rebel, taking the regime at their word and innocently exposing their hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, no one on the left wants to hear this, they want to use old tactics and old ways, and explain the revolution into existence.
We do not have a societal place to rebel in 1st world countries.

Kinda to summarize Zizek he posits some reasons we "know" we should do something but remain passive, because of (1) misunderstandings of what constitutes rational thought that devises construct limitations on what new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of reality at any given time; (2) the construction of self as the reality perceiving subject that relies on the big Other to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the apperception of reality that splits thinking from acting. That is, the self is allowed to perceive itself as possessing a certain attribute if it ‘thinks’ in a certain way. How the self acts either doesn’t enter in to affect such thinking or is relegated to immateriality in the assessment of one’s self-disclosure (e.g. one’s self perception of ‘Christian’ religiosity is over-determined by what one self referentially thinks of one’s Christian-ness versus how one objectively acts to exhibit Christian virtues in one’s everyday behavior, like 'I'm a good Christian is a conservative or republican or supports torture vs how you actually interact and relate to people on a day to day basis etc). For these above reasons, neither the secular materialist nor the good Christian is able to process the new data.

I'm not sure what any of this means and I don't really see how its relevant. While naturally, I'm sure the latter is a product of the former, I think nonetheless it brings about a basic, however unintentional, point about some of the left's problem.
There is a huge tendency on the left to "over-intellectualize" everything. This tends to make it incredibly difficult for many working people, I think, to relate to the messages the left attempts to espouse because the messages are so obscured by pretentious rhetoric. Another thing that strikes me as being in dire need of "modernization" is the language used by the left. Language like "bourgeois/bourgeoisie", "proletarian/proletariat", etc. etc. Don't get me wrong about this, it isn't that there's some underlying problem with the words themselves - I use them all the time in conversation with comrades, and in that context, I find them very appropriate. However, when I am talking with other workers who have not been properly exposed to revolutionary politics, I don't use any of these terms. This is because, on the occasions when I have used them in this context, I've found whoever I'm speaking to becomes immediately either suspicious or just confused. Much of this also has to do with the effects of Cold War propaganda. So my concern ultimately comes down to the effectiveness of such words and with the way that they are now perceived. I think we need to speak to our fellow workers in a language they are familiar with - a language they understand. And for this reason alone, I think it might be wise to replace "proletariat and bourgeoisie" (and all their derivatives), etc. with modern language. This is all just off the cuff, but I do think it might be a useful idea. I think it would definitely be helpful to our cause to take a bunch of the key points of our ideology/ies and clarify them, simplify them, strip out the over-intellectual rhetoric, and just ensure that they are very down-to-earth and straightforward, in common language.

Another problem that exists in the US (perhaps equally in the UK, though I do not know firsthand) is the confusion with regard to one's self-identified class. Almost no one amongst the working class in the US, with the exception of revolutionary leftists, believes that they are part of the working class. Almost the entirety of US workers identify as "middle class". As a result, I suspect when many encounter communist propaganda and literature, instead of identifying with the proletariat/working class, they feel threatened because they likely see "class war" as a war against them, since they do not consider themselves to be members of the working class. This is a huge problem, but unfortunately I presently cannot think of any working solutions to address it, which is why I've been hesitant to bring it up in the first place. So if anyone else can think of any possible solution/way to address this problem, by all means, share it.

I have several other suggestions/criticisms with the left, though scarletghoul touched on most of them (excellent thread, by the way - a conversation desperately needed within all corners of the revolutionary left). I will probably come back and elaborate on some of these points within the next couple days.