What does the people want?

[Dimentio]

What does the people want?

Do they want to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist system?

Or do they rather want to survive within the system, treating it as some kind of non-dynamic system where only parameters could be adjusted?

From what I could view in the world, it seems like most people - even in poor countries - are voting on reformist parties, probably due to the fact that most people do not imagine some kind of non-capitalist society, but rather a capitalist society without the bad and evil things, where people are more nice.

That is not to say that people are stupid. They are not. On the contrary, it is very rational if we assume that most people do not spend their spare time thinking on how society should be re-arranged, but rather thinking on where they themselves want to be in a few years and how they would want their own lives to look like.

If we look at the 20th century revolutions, the only major revolution which was followed by a referendum produced an Islamic Republic, not a Socialist Republic.

This is not to say that revolutions are impossible (they evidently are), but to say that we are deluding ourselves if we think that most people are against capitalism itself (rather than the excesses of capitalism).

[thesadmafioso]

The people as a whole are nothing but an alterable implement of the intelligentsia, any stance or view which they take as a whole has been provided to them by someone else and is based in the most simplistic of emotional desires. To be brief, it is a matter of who wields the people, and not the people themselves. What is needed is a class which is capable of supplying the people with the necessary modes of thought to act in a politically proper and socialistic manner.

Though I make these remarks with current and historical context in mind, this could very well change if the people were given the educational opportunities to advance beyond the simplistic thought models which are prevalent under current circumstances.

[4 Leaf Clover]

People tend to support changes that don't treats their existence. However "some parts of Bourgeoisie wants to remove social evils as well , to secure existence of Bourgeoisie itself"

[Savior]

People cant handle a sudden upheavel of everthing they know, it must come gradually.

[scarletghoul]

People want freedom.

All the rest is based on how they think they can get that freedom (or approach it). Working, drinking, voting, crime, revolutionary activity, counter-revolutionary activity, art, etc, is all done with freedom in mind. This is the fundamental drive of any self-respecting human. The role of the revolutionary left is to inform and educate people, to show them the correct methods for freeing themselves.

[Zanthorus]

I think that when people try to speculate about what 'the people' want in such broad terms, it probably ends up reflecting more on their own mindset than on the hopes and dreams of a fairly large mass of flesh and blood human beings.

[ed miliband]

There is no "People", only a humanity divided into classes. For the vast majority of people, the working class, to have a roof, food, health, comfort, etc. is of the most importance, but none of these things are guaranteed by capitalism, quite the opposite.

[28350]

This is a tough question, mainly because of the vagueness of "people".
On an individual level, people generally want what makes them the most comfortable. For workers, their interests are divided between those of the working class and their own (this is why there are scabs during strikes - not because certain workers are reactionary or stupid, but because they can't afford not to work).

It's also important to note that people don't always want what is best for them.

[thriller]

I believe most people do want revolution. However, revolution doesn't HAVE to be bloody and violent. I forgot who coined/said it but "if the working class all put their hands in their pockets, the bourgeoisie would have nothing." I think on here, myself included, tend to believe revolution will be violent, but it doesn't mean it WILL BE. I think MOST people are socialist, just don't know it (at least the people I know). They care about each other and are tolerant of differences, they want to work, they want freedom. I think the reason reformist parties are winning is because people have been taught that capitalism is the only system that works, and we just have to fiddle with it to make it perfect. It's our job as revolutionaries to teach others that capitalism does not work. It's up to us, here on RevLeft, and those like us. We can not just sit around and hope that someday everyone will get it. If we don't educate the people, who will?

[malthusela]

This is not to say that revolutions are impossible (they evidently are), but to say that we are deluding ourselves if we think that most people are against capitalism itself (rather than the excesses of capitalism).

'Most people' do not particularly care about the system in which they are under. Rather, they will adapt to the situation they are in. It is the duty of more educated peoples to show these 'most people' why they are being unwittingly forced to accept lower pay, longer hours, etc. If people are given a valid enough illusion of freedom, they will accept it. The situation is not helped by the fact that mainstream education tends to promote the idea that economic freedom equates to individual freedom, and more importantly, that this is right.

[black magick hustla]

you are tackling tthe question as a statesman

ask yourself, better

what do you want?

[Palingenisis]

People want freedom.



I want order.

[ZeroNowhere]

Some people want higher profits. Other people want higher wages. Quite a few want jobs.

[28350]

I want order.

Why then are you a Maoist?

[Palingenisis]

Why then are you a Maoist?

Because Maoism offers me order....The chaos of interviews and putting up with my boss's sexual inuedno because I want a job and I know that they dont grow on trees, lumpen scum running mad, the police being assholes for either no reason or even worse political ones...All gone away. Order.

[Dimentio]

you are tackling tthe question as a statesman

ask yourself, better

what do you want?

I want nothing for myself.

Apart from a one-room apartment, a somewhat secure income and an internet connection.

[Amphictyonis]

People want their material needs met. Do you think capitalism can go on indefinitely providing material needs for a certian lower and middle working class population in the west? If so then revolution is indeed impossible. Luckily capitalism, as Marx said, sews it's own seeds of destruction.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why hasn't a debate on Maslow's hierarchy of needs started yet?

[RED DAVE]

Why hasn't a debate on Maslow's hierarchy of needs started yet?Because it's bullshit.

RED DAVE

[Rafiq]

Because Maoism offers me order....The chaos of interviews and putting up with my boss's sexual inuedno because I want a job and I know that they dont grow on trees, lumpen scum running mad, the police being assholes for either no reason or even worse political ones...All gone away. Order.

Conservatism also offers order.

Fascism does too.

[gorillafuck]

I want order.
I think that order and freedom aren't mutually exclusive concepts.....

I'd prefer a free society over authoritarian and capitalist ideas of order.

[Palingenisis]

Conservatism also offers order.

Fascism does too.


No they dont.

You cant have order under capitalism which feeds on chaos and fascism with its recidivist longing for war does not really offer order as such.

[Palingenisis]

I think that order and freedom aren't mutually exclusive concepts.....

I'd prefer a free society over authoritarian and capitalist ideas of order.

I agree...Infact I dont think you can have freedom without order.

Also authoritarianism presumes weakness.

[costello1977]

I agree...Infact I dont think you can have freedom without order.

Also authoritarianism presumes weakness.

Its an absolute essential ingredient to freedom. The order has to be rules which protect the greater good, without these rules to protect the freedoms of all people, there can be no freedom.

[gorillafuck]

I agree...Infact I dont think you can have freedom without order.
Yeah, and there's a difference between order that comes through freedom and order through an iron fist.


Also authoritarianism presumes weakness.
I don't get what you mean?

[Rafiq]

No they dont.

You cant have order under capitalism which feeds on chaos and fascism with its recidivist longing for war does not really offer order as such.

Say, excuse me, if that's the case.

I thought you were referring to order only in a society.

(Secret Police and Gulags come to mind)

[Palingenisis]

I don't get what you mean?

I have an aggressive and violent part of me....but I realize that its connected to my feelings of powerlessness and weakness. What is truelly strong doesnt have to resort to authoritarianism.

[milk]

The people as a whole are nothing but an alterable implement of the intelligentsia, any stance or view which they take as a whole has been provided to them by someone else and is based in the most simplistic of emotional desires. To be brief, it is a matter of who wields the people, and not the people themselves. What is needed is a class which is capable of supplying the people with the necessary modes of thought to act in a politically proper and socialistic manner.

Though I make these remarks with current and historical context in mind, this could very well change if the people were given the educational opportunities to advance beyond the simplistic thought models which are prevalent under current circumstances.

You seem a bit thick. A thick parrot. Unable to think for yourself. I guess you also think you're a member of the nebulously-termed intelligentsia.

[electro_fan]

lumpen scum

nice

[apawllo]

I think that when people try to speculate about what 'the people' want in such broad terms, it probably ends up reflecting more on their own mindset than on the hopes and dreams of a fairly large mass of flesh and blood human beings.

When people speak on anything it reflects on their own mindset. I doubt the OP was requesting facts, but probably just hoping to start a dialogue on what comrades thought on the subject.

[RED DAVE]

The people as a whole are nothing but an alterable implement of the intelligentsia, any stance or view which they take as a whole has been provided to them by someone else and is based in the most simplistic of emotional desires. To be brief, it is a matter of who wields the people, and not the people themselves. What is needed is a class which is capable of supplying the people with the necessary modes of thought to act in a politically proper and socialistic manner.Stalinism/Maoism at its finest.


Though I make these remarks with current and historical context in mind, this could very well change if the people were given the educational opportunities to advance beyond the simplistic thought models which are prevalent under current circumstances.Big of you, Comrade.

RED DAVE

[Targaryen]

I believe most people do want revolution. However, revolution doesn't HAVE to be bloody and violent. I forgot who coined/said it but "if the working class all put their hands in their pockets, the bourgeoisie would have nothing." I think on here, myself included, tend to believe revolution will be violent, but it doesn't mean it WILL BE. I think MOST people are socialist, just don't know it (at least the people I know). They care about each other and are tolerant of differences, they want to work, they want freedom. I think the reason reformist parties are winning is because people have been taught that capitalism is the only system that works, and we just have to fiddle with it to make it perfect. It's our job as revolutionaries to teach others that capitalism does not work. It's up to us, here on RevLeft, and those like us. We can not just sit around and hope that someday everyone will get it. If we don't educate the people, who will?
He's mostly right. I asked some people with no political convictions and no idea of what socialism is what they think of various political issues and they answers where for the most part similar with what a socialist would say. The issue is that people just don't know that what they define as "good" is the same thing we call "socialism". Our mission as leftist should be to educate people in to understanding this simple fact.
Of course I'm not saying that there aren't people with reactionary views, but most working class people are much closer to the left that they think.

[malthusela]

Conservatism also offers order.

Fascism does too.

Someone doesn't know the difference between order and Authority.

[Hit The North]

You seem a bit thick. A thick parrot. Unable to think for yourself. I guess you also think you're a member of the nebulously-termed intelligentsia.

Please don't wander into threads and begin throwing insults around.

THIS IS A VERBAL WARNING.

[electro_fan]

so hang on someone calls someone thick and they get a warning , but someone else is allowed to say stuff like "lumpen scum" and nobody picks it up

[Kléber]

thesadmafioso insulted working people by saying we need a ruling class to manage us because of our "simplistic thought models."

[Hit The North]

so hang on someone calls someone thick and they get a warning , but someone else is allowed to say stuff like "lumpen scum" and nobody picks it up

Yes. The verbal warning is for flaming - that is, hurling insult without attempting to take on the argument.

The fact that Palingenisis calls unnamed individuals in her community "lumpen scum" is not a transgression of Rev Left's rules of conduct.

If you have a problem with her designation of these people, take her to task for it.

[costello1977]

Someone doesn't know the difference between order and Authority.

Ah now, I think your mistaking ignorance for connivence there.

It seems to me that a lot of people seem to twist the facts on here to suit their agenda, but as you say, order can exist without authority, but authority can not exist with order.

You cannot give the people authority without order because without order it will be open to be abused by greedy elements.

Order, as within conservatism (with its limited authority) and Fascism (with no authority) can exist without the people having authority. The former depends on the lethargy and torpor of the people not to challenge the status quo, whereas the latter thrives on the fears of its subjects.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

People want their material needs met. Do you think capitalism can go on indefinitely providing material needs for a certian lower and middle working class population in the west? If so then revolution is indeed impossible. Luckily capitalism, as Marx said, sews it's own seeds of destruction.

If capitalism could provide for the material and emotional needs of ALL people, we wouldn't be here now, would we?

[thesadmafioso]

thesadmafioso insulted working people by saying we need a ruling class to manage us because of our "simplistic thought models."

And? Yes I "insulted" working people, they are a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not. Have you tried talking to your average working man? They care for little more than their own self interest, of course they need the proper guidance if they are to be molded into an implement of revolution.

Of course I must stress that this is more or less due to the conditions imposed upon them due to capitalism, so what I said is not so much an insult towards working class individuals directly but rather an insult directed towards capitalism and what it makes of such people. Actually analyzing what I said would of been difficult work though, so I understand where you were coming from.

[milk]

And? Yes I "insulted" working people, they are a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not. Have you tried talking to your average working man? They care for little more than their own self interest, of course they need the proper guidance if they are to be molded into an implement of revolution.

Of course I must stress that this is more or less due to the conditions imposed upon them due to capitalism, so what I said is not so much an insult towards working class individuals directly but rather an insult directed towards capitalism and what it makes of such people. Actually analyzing what I said would of been difficult work though, so I understand where you were coming from.

Well, I'm talking to you now.

Please, less of the try-had Jacobin schtick. It is incredibly insulting, and when it comes to your own unqualified self-regard, it is, at the same time glaringly simplistic, with a massive generalisation involving a narrow view of what the working class is, and the capacities of those who belong to that class. Of course I'm full of self-interest. Socialism is self interest; developing politics to further your own point of view is self interest; a poor neighbourhood going on a rent strike in order to impose demands on rich landlords is self-interest; forming a union to defend and improve your pay and conditions in the workplace is self interest. If such class warfare becomes a broader movement to actually replace the current society, it has to grow inexorably out of the inherent structural contradictions in that society. It can't be imported from without. You also seem to be ignorant of such contradictions. As in the change and constant flux of nature, economically-generated social classes are constantly fighting it out over matters of self-interest. Societies aren't hermetically sealed from it. And that a lot of it isn't defined by its relationship to an 'official' political organisation, is neither here nor there.

You are full of self-interest too. You want to lead me, guide me, tell me off when I am naughty. That is not in my interest, as a working man, at all. And the arrogance of your last sentence ... What is there to analyse? Except an old as the hills elitist tendency, but where this particular shepherd doesn't have a flock. And your intellectual rigour has failed to grasp a circular logic, whereby you complain that the "average working man" is malleable and easily led, and that this is preventing the possibility of a socialist revolution, but yet you want him to be in that condition, so you can then mold him as a blunt instrument for our your purposes. Capitalism should be making your job easier, no? Where have you gone wrong, oh wise and clear-sighted one.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What does the people want?

Do they want to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist system?For the most part, no. Revolutionary ideas are always the minority ideas in society until society is on the verge of a revolution. Or as Marx put it, the ruling ideas of any society are those of the ruling class.

For one thing, one of the fundamental things all ruling classes do is to use all means at their disposal to make their rule, their order over society, seem like the only real option and the most "normal" way to have society. So in feudalism the order of society was said to be part of a divine plan, a chain of being with God, then church/kings, nobles, serfs, and then animals and plants. The capitalists need a bit more science and reason to make profits, so their argument is usually not based on God but on "nature" or "human nature" as well as "reason": capitalism is either the most natural way to have things or it is presented as the most reasonable and logical way to run things.

When this kind of ideological superstructure fails, ruling classes have brute force and repressive institutions to break people from radical ideas.

To illusrate both the ideological hegemony aspect of the ruling class enforcing its order as well as repressive techniques: in the US in the early 70s, huge percentages of young people identified as revolutionary and groups like the Black Panther Party had wide support from African Americans. The parts of the various movements that couldn't be brought "into the system" and "bought-off" were smashed - panthers were assassinated or arrested, other radicals were set up and arrested for drugs and so on. This has had a lasting effect on urban black political organizing to this day and helps re-enforce pessimism and a sense of helplessness. For the ideological response, business organizations set up right-wing think-tanks like the Cato instate, promoted right-wing radio, tied corporate interests to a social base of moral mostly petty-bourgeois concerns like the evangelical christian movement, gun rights, and so on. This was all done consciously and through things like the Chamber of Commerce to counter the rising influence of left-wing and radical poltics and promote a more aggressive grass-roots/AstroTurf support for pro-business policies as the ruling class went on an offensive, reducing working class living standards, social programs, and union power.

But despite all this, working class people (or any people for that matter) can't be simply brainwashed. Arguments about class-struggle being something from the past only work as long as people are not seeing class struggle and working-class fight-back happening - just like people will most likely believe the government and press when it says that Iraqis are welcoming a US occupation until images of protesting Iraqis and dead US soldiers start appearing on TV.

Even with the French Revolution, people mostly wanted to keep the King alive and have him stay in power as long as the popular assemblies got to keep their voice. It was only after a lot of real class struggle experience that both the urban poor, petty-bourgeois, and bourgeois-proper saw that the King and aristocrats were more willing to let Prussia rule than the French merchants and lawyers.

[thesadmafioso]

Well, I'm talking to you now.

Please, less of the try-had Jacobin schtick. It is incredibly insulting, and when it comes to your own unqualified self-regard, it is, at the same time glaringly simplistic, with a massive generalisation involving a narrow view of what the working class is, and the capacities of those who belong to that class. Of course I'm full of self-interest. Socialism is self interest; developing politics to further your own point of view is self interest; a poor neighbourhood going on a rent strike in order to impose demands on rich landlords is self-interest; forming a union to defend and improve your pay and conditions in the workplace is self interest. If such class warfare becomes a broader movement to actually replace the current society, it has to grow inexorably out of the inherent structural contradictions in that society. It can't be imported from without. You also seem to be ignorant of such contradictions. As in the change and constant flux of nature, economically-generated social classes are constantly fighting it out over matters of self-interest. Societies aren't hermetically sealed from it. And that a lot of it isn't defined by its relationship to an 'official' political organisation, is neither here nor there.

You are full of self-interest too. You want to lead me, guide me, tell me off when I am naughty. That is not in my interest, as a working man, at all. And the arrogance of your last sentence ... What is there to analyse? Except an old as the hills elitist tendency, but where this particular shepherd doesn't have a flock. And your intellectual rigour has failed to grasp a circular logic, whereby you complain that the "average working man" is malleable and easily led, and that this is preventing the possibility of a socialist revolution, but yet you want him to be in that condition, so you can then mold him as a blunt instrument for our your purposes. Capitalism should be making your job easier, no? Where have you gone wrong, oh wise and clear-sighted one.

Baseless insults have no place here, you are accomplishing nothing by falsely accusing me of a lack of qualification without any evidence to support such an inflammatory remark. Why this comment is allowed to remain unmodified by this boards moderation team is beyond me, but I digress. What exactly is wrong with a generalization when viewing the issue at hand in such a broad context? Without generalizations nothing would be achieved by this discussion, they are a necessity for the sake of effectiveness. I never said anything to imply that I believed the entirety of the proletariat exists in such a manner, but rather that the class as a whole does. You cannot call something a generalization and have that exist as a point in itself, as you are saying nothing at all. You are merely explicitly stating what I presumed would be implied by any knowledgeable individual. Call it simplistic or what have you, but broad analysis is demanded by the nature of this question if we are to make any progress in providing answers to it.

On to the class conflict bit, where in you state the obvious fact that interest is involved in its perpetuation. I don't believe that anyone was denying that or that it even needed to be stated as it is more or less common knowledge, but the issue with using this as an example to prove your point is relevance. The true makeup of a conflict doesn't matter if people are unaware of its existence, and the political reality of the current state of affairs in developed capitalist society is that many do not trace their issues to such. I never said anything to the extent of society being separated from this, but rather that most do not make the conscious recognition of such being the case. And the remedy for this is not going to be in educating the masses and exposing them to the wonders of socialism in this stage of their development, but rather in taking their narrow minded interests and using them to forward a movement which is representative of their long term interest.

I actually stated that the current state of the proletariat is undesirable in my previous remarks, a bit of careful analysis would of possibly of led you to that bit. Such analysis would of also of lead you to the actual substance of my argument as well, which was that the left needs to work around current social constructs if it is to make any real progress. For someone so quick to hurl insults of ignorance, you seem to be open to more than a few yourself in this regard. Only a fool would view my stance on this matter as being based in 'circular logic', as what I stated was more of a recognition of the current situation. I did not say anything which would lead the trained mind to the conclusion that I believe the proletariat should exist in such a state, thus putting you in a position where you are basing an argument off of an inherently flawed interpretation of my writing.

But good luck with your proletariat revolution made entirely by the workers, tell me how that works out for you.

[Rooster]

I dunno, mang. I'm a person and I want to live in a world where I don't have to spend eight hours a day in a job I don't like. I want to know that I'll always have a full belly, a roof over my head, cigarettes, beer and books. The difference between me and taxi drivers is that I think we can do this through a revolution instead of a regime change in parliament.

[milk]

Baseless insults have no place here, you are accomplishing nothing by falsely accusing me of a lack of qualification without any evidence to support such an inflammatory remark. Why this comment is allowed to remain unmodified by this boards moderation team is beyond me, but I digress. What exactly is wrong with a generalization when viewing the issue at hand in such a broad context? Without generalizations nothing would be achieved by this discussion, they are a necessity for the sake of effectiveness. I never said anything to imply that I believed the entirety of the proletariat exists in such a manner, but rather that the class as a whole does. You cannot call something a generalization and have that exist as a point in itself, as you are saying nothing at all. You are merely explicitly stating what I presumed would be implied by any knowledgeable individual. Call it simplistic or what have you, but broad analysis is demanded by the nature of this question if we are to make any progress in providing answers to it.

On to the class conflict bit, where in you state the obvious fact that interest is involved in its perpetuation. I don't believe that anyone was denying that or that it even needed to be stated as it is more or less common knowledge, but the issue with using this as an example to prove your point is relevance. The true makeup of a conflict doesn't matter if people are unaware of its existence, and the political reality of the current state of affairs in developed capitalist society is that many do not trace their issues to such. I never said anything to the extent of society being separated from this, but rather that most do not make the conscious recognition of such being the case. And the remedy for this is not going to be in educating the masses and exposing them to the wonders of socialism in this stage of their development, but rather in taking their narrow minded interests and using them to forward a movement which is representative of their long term interest.

I actually stated that the current state of the proletariat is undesirable in my previous remarks, a bit of careful analysis would of possibly of led you to that bit. Such analysis would of also of lead you to the actual substance of my argument as well, which was that the left needs to work around current social constructs if it is to make any real progress. For someone so quick to hurl insults of ignorance, you seem to be open to more than a few yourself in this regard. Only a fool would view my stance on this matter as being based in 'circular logic', as what I stated was more of a recognition of the current situation. I did not say anything which would lead the trained mind to the conclusion that I believe the proletariat should exist in such a state, thus putting you in a position where you are basing an argument off of an inherently flawed interpretation of my writing.

But good luck with your proletariat revolution made entirely by the workers, tell me how that works out for you.

It is you who started with the ad hominem attacks, but against a whole class. A class I am a part of, and you have quite openly declared a lack of qualification regarding the capacities of many people. And of course it's a generalisation! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/autodidacts-inside-communist-t147588/index.html) And false too. You're merely projecting your unquestioned middle class social prejudices (dressed up as common knowledge), using the device of the "average working man" onto all working class people and calling it analysis. My own example singularly destroys it. And stop back-tracking, it is you who has insulted people with your remarks. People become 'aware' of their interests through their participation in struggle, not brought to them from without by you, who has decided what their interests are. You leave only one place in your logic in which this can happen. An as yet undefined, self-regarding elite who will dispense consciousness to the dumb masses which misunderstands how consciousness is created and how people's interests potentially and confidently grow wider with it. A primed culture, taught to people by way of a minority does not prefigure the creation of a new (socialist) society, it is formed through the struggle to create that society, by the collective power of self-interested members of the working class. And in the above, you now say that the remedy is not about educating people like me when you've been saying that all along. I'm ahead of you. I don't need you and your 'trained' mind. It's Little Lenin stuff, and solipsist. If this is how you view the working class, then I wouldn't want to be part of your revolution. Good luck with it.

[thesadmafioso]

It is you who started with the ad hominem attacks, but against a whole class. A class I am a part of, and you have quite openly declared a lack of qualification regarding the capacities of many people. And of course it's a generalisation! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/autodidacts-inside-communist-t147588/index.html) And false too. You're merely projecting your unquestioned middle class social prejudices (dressed up as common knowledge), using the device of the "average working man" onto all working class people and calling it analysis. My own example singularly destroys it. And stop back-tracking, it is you who has insulted people with your remarks. People become 'aware' of their interests through their participation in struggle, not brought to them from without by you, who has decided what their interests are. You leave only one place in your logic in which this can happen. An as yet undefined, self-regarding elite who will dispense consciousness to the dumb masses which misunderstands how consciousness is created and how people's interests potentially and confidently grow wider with it. A primed culture, taught to people by way of a minority does not prefigure the creation of a new (socialist) society, it is formed through the struggle to create that society, by the collective power of self-interested members of the working class. And in the above, you now say that the remedy is not about educating people like me when you've been saying that all along. I'm ahead of you. I don't need you and your 'trained' mind. It's Little Lenin stuff, and solipsist. If this is how you view the working class, then I wouldn't want to be part of your revolution. Good luck with it.
The mere existence of examples which contradict a generalization does not make such unjustified in its use. I did not say that the generalization was applicable to the entire working class, and I was operating under the apparently generous assumption that you would be capable of making that simple connection. Pardon me for overestimating your aptitude for comprehension though, in the future I will be sure to take that into account on a more conscious level. I digress back to my primary point though, which is that the existence of contradiction to my point means nothing due to scale. The working class is composed of a great deal of individuals, many of which are devoid of the necessary implements of critical thinking and the like. Yes, many examples are bound to contradict this as the generalization was designed to encompass a large quantity of people. That is not to say that the primary trend is not relevant though. This is a common enough fallacy in argumentation, and I would suggest that you attempt to avoid it in the future so as to forgo having to endure this lecture on the basics of proper debate.

I can assure you that the working class is not made up of individuals which share your same thoughts. Say what you will about the tremendous ability of the proletariat and its capacity to operate without intelligentsia guidance, it will not change political reality. It matters not that you believe my remarks to be fictitious, as merely saying such does not change the actual state of such affairs. I hardly consider you to be in a position to really argue any point, and thus I find refutation to be somewhat unnecessary. It seems impossible to argue that the working class is capable of reaching a conscious state of its own accord, as history seems to argue that the occurrence of such is unlikely at best. Their is always a leader behind any meaningful popular movement and their will always be a class forming the masses into an organizing implement, to refute such is to refute the very nature of history. I do not even need to bother with stating examples as they are so numerous, and as it would be far to rudimentary of an act to justify.

And perhaps you need to look into the exact definition of an ad hominem attack, as you are certainly mistaken in your accusation that I am guilty of such. You cannot go about throwing about false accusations on the sole premise of taking personal insult to my objective writing.

[milk]

I am not the only one who has noted your insulting behaviour. Your last post is full of digs, inaccurate to boot. You can say other classes are composed of people quite distinct in their lack of 'critical' thinking. You're just naturalising negative attributes to working class people.

Who are the intelligentsia (I'm not including you in that by the way), how do they form, in which context, which society, which class do they belong to? There are no 'organic' working class intellectuals? What if, as has happened in history, working class intellectuals refuse to be a mere blunt instrument for others?

You are in no way 'objective' by the way. That's the point.

[Kléber]

Anybody who has read What Is To Be Done?: Burning Questions of our Movement knows which side Comrade Lenin would be on in this debate, and it isn't the side of the puffed-up, would-be "intellectual" bullshitter. There are a lot of other things I want to say, but this is an English forum and Russian is the only language in which my opinion of this character could find its full expression.

[milk]

There are a lot of other things I want to say, but this is an English forum and Russian is the only language in which my opinion of this character could find its full expression.

Durak? ;)

[thesadmafioso]

I am not the only one who has noted your insulting behaviour. Your last post is full of digs, inaccurate to boot. You can say other classes are composed of people quite distinct in their lack of 'critical' thinking. You're just naturalising negative attributes to working class people.

Who are the intelligentsia (I'm not including you in that by the way), how do they form, in which context, which society, which class do they belong to? There are no 'organic' working class intellectuals? What if, as has happened in history, working class intellectuals refuse to be a mere blunt instrument for others?

You are in no way 'objective' by the way. That's the point.

The working class people are perfectly deserving of such 'insults' as they are true. I am sorry that it is so and I wish that it was not, but it is. If my point is inaccurate than what exactly is keeping down the proletariat? Any answer you may have to this question will invariably miss the heart of the question here, and that is it is a lack of structure and organization. And such structure does not come about as organically as you would like to believe I am afraid.

And who here is throwing around the ad hominem? I can't help but feel that your misjudgments of my character would qualify more rightly as such, due to their lack of relevance to the topic at hand and overall fictional nature.

But on to your ill formed and rather rudimentary question of the formation of the intelligentsia. It is not so much a class in itself and it can be composed of individuals from any imaginable background, I never refuted this basic fact and I once more presumed it to be common knowledge which did not require any sort of review. Once more we find another misinterpretation of my comments, as I clearly recognized the existence of intellectuals in the working class, though I rightly made a note of their relative rarity when placed in the backdrop of the entire proletarian. I am beginning to suspect that you have ceased reading my actual comments at this point, or that you have a severe discrepancy in your basic reading and language skills. And please do not make some pitiful attempt at writing that off as ad hominem, as it is perfectly relevant to this discussion. How can I be expected to carry out civilized debate when you constantly show your inability to make sense and derive clear intent from my remarks? Your inadequacies in the field of language are making it necessary for the reiteration of my points, and they are slowing the overall progression and direction of this discussion.

Lastly, you do not have the power nor the authority to make something so by a short, undeveloped statement. Evidence needs to be provided if you are to boldly refute a remark in such an inflammatory fashion as you have in questioning my objectivity.

[milk]

Pseuds Corner.

The question of an 'intelligentsia' is not about some uniform phenomenon occurring regardless of historic and social context, time and place, national culture etc.

You didn't 'recognise' intellectuals among the working class until you got pulled up on your big-broad-brush-stroke generalising and middle class waffling. It's part of the back-tracking you've done since. Now you have to find a place for the working class that doesn't involve people being a mere mailable instrument, but only a little bit.

I'm with Kleber.

Durak, nyet, v ponimayete tak nemnogo.

[thesadmafioso]

Anybody who has read What Is To Be Done?: Burning Questions of our Movement knows which side Comrade Lenin would be on in this debate, and it isn't the side of the puffed-up, would-be "intellectual" bullshitter. There are a lot of other things I want to say, but this is an English forum and Russian is the only language in which my opinion of this character could find its full expression.

Bit of history for you on Comrade Lenin, he was raised by a middle class family who sent him off to private school to receive a classical education. He later went on to college where he received a law degree. In the years leading up to the revolution he moved throughout Europe while relying heavily upon his family for capital.

So your example here seems somewhat out of place.

And just for kicks, a quotation from What is to be Done

"We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without... The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia."

[thesadmafioso]

Pseuds Corner.

The question of an 'intelligentsia' is not about some uniform phenomenon occurring regardless of historic and social context, time and place, national culture etc.

You didn't 'recognise' intellectuals among the working class until you got pulled up on your big-broad-brush-stroke generalising and middle class waffling. It's part of the back-tracking you've done since.

I'm with Kleber.

Durak, nyet, v ponimayete tak nemnogo.

You cannot simply accuse someone of not knowing something on the basis of them not saying it. That is nothing short of a major logical fallacy. I explained it after it became readily apparent that it needed to be expanded upon, as some individuals could not make sense of my 'generalization'.

[milk]

Bit of history for you on Comrade Lenin, he was raised by a middle class family who sent him off to private school to receive a classical education. He later went on to college where he received a law degree. In the years leading up to the revolution he moved throughout Europe while relying heavily upon his family for capital.

So your example here seems somewhat out of place.

A bit of history for you. A middle class, as might be understood in a western context, has never existed in Russia. The old Russian intelligentsia (and then the new Soviet intelligentsia partially completed under Stalin) is a very different phenomenon, originating in the Dvorianstvo nobility. I suggest that you stop transposing your western middle class preconceptions and prejudices onto vastly different social terrain. And although I am not a Leninist, I recognise that Lenin didn't relegate working class participation to mere instrumental purposes, indeed it was central to revolution. Revolutionaries born of organic working class struggle were as much a part of the Bolsheviks as were those who had conferred advantage and privilege passed on by those of another class. I disagree with the assessment made of the limits created by a so-callled "trade union consciousness," (but you don't even get that far, for in your unqualified opinion working class people are erroneously incapable or organising anything). I also disagree with similar criticism of the early twentieth century Russian version of western European workerism (called economism), both of which were influenced by such working class tendencies as French syndicalism. The vanguard concept of the Bolshevik 'party of a new type,' however, stressed leading involvement of workers.

[milk]

You cannot simply accuse someone of not knowing something on the basis of them not saying it. That is nothing short of a major logical fallacy.

Quite.


Any answer you may have to this question will invariably miss the heart of the question here

[thesadmafioso]

A bit of history for you. A middle class, as might be understood in a western context, has never existed in Russia. The old Russian intelligentsia (and then the new Soviet intelligentsia partially completed under Stalin) is a very different phenomenon, originating in the Dvorianstvo nobility. I suggest that you stop transposing your western middle class preconceptions and prejudices onto vastly different social terrain. And although I am not a Leninist, I recognise that Lenin didn't relegate working class participation to mere instrumental purposes, indeed it was central to revolution. Revolutionaries born of organic working class struggle were as much a part of the Bolsheviks as were those who had conferred advantage and privilege passed on by those of another class. I disagree with the assessment made of the limits created by a so-callled "trade union consciousness," (but you don't even get that far, for in your unqualified opinion working class people are erroneously incapable or organising anything). I also disagree with similar criticism of the early twentieth century Russian version of western European workerism (called economism), both of which were influenced by such working class tendencies as French syndicalism. The vanguard concept of the Bolshevik 'party of a new type' stressed leading involvement of workers.

How long did it take you to actually write that? I edited that post a good while ago, and i see you seem to have excluded it in your quotation. I would direct you to that quote though, as it deals directly with the subject matter.

Anyway, Lenin still lived a life of luxury compared to many working class individuals of the time, I don't think that my supposed 'middle class western perspective' is getting in the way on that basic historical reality. I never said they were not an important instrument, just for the most part that they require the necessary ideological guidance for their use to be effectual.

[thesadmafioso]

Quite.

Most clever, taking my remarks out of context. Bravo, your comedic wit knows no bounds.

[milk]

How long did it take you to actually write that? I edited that post a good while ago, and i see you seem to have excluded it in your quotation. I would direct you to that quote though, as it deals directly with the subject matter.

Anyway, Lenin still lived a life of luxury compared to many working class individuals of the time, I don't think that my supposed 'middle class western perspective' is getting in the way on that basic historical reality. I never said they were not an important instrument, just for the most part that they require the necessary ideological guidance for their use to be effectual.

Nope, you've misunderstood Lenin, while trying be like him. Or something. You are also ignorant of Russian society, how it was created, the class structure of it. The quote doesn't mention Marx's opinion of Joseph Dietzgen either, but hey.

[milk]

Most clever, taking my remarks out of context. Bravo, your comedic wit knows no bounds.

You need guidance, from a revolutionary intelligentsia. You need to be sufficiently instilled with the 'correct' consciousness, so as to break out of logical fallacies, and recognise that you think in such a way while at the same time accusing others of the same thing.

[thesadmafioso]

Nope, you've misunderstood Lenin, while trying be like him. Or something. You are also ignorant of Russian society, how it was created, the class structure of it. The quote doesn't mention Marx's opinion of Joseph Dietzgen either, but hey.

Oh, ok then. So this is the point in the debate where you run out of things to say and just start saying that I am wrong? Quite the lofty level of discussion which we have reached, it would appear. Ignoring relevant outside sources and simply accusing them and being misunderstood without providing and analysis of how they 'should' be viewed, most effectual that approach is.

Well, in keeping with established precedent and current trends, you are wrong.

[thesadmafioso]

You need guidance, from a revolutionary intelligentsia. You need to be sufficiently instilled with the 'correct' consciousness, so as to break out of logical fallacies, and recognise that you think in such a way while at the same time accusing others of the same thing.

I think we have reached the limits of reason here, as there is no coherency to any of this. How a mod has not cleaned this up yet is certainly beyond me.

[milk]

Oh, ok then. So this is the point in the debate where you run out of things to say and just start saying that I am wrong? Quite the lofty level of discussion which we have reached, it would appear. Ignoring relevant outside sources and simply accusing them and being misunderstood without providing and analysis of how they 'should' be viewed, most effectual that approach is.

Well, in keeping with established precedent and current trends, you are wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. In your attempt to be snotty with Kleber, you got it so wrong on Russian society, and the classes that exist in that society. And what sources? One quote. I could cherry pick them from the millions of words written by Marx and Lenin. Great isn't it?

[milk]

I think we have reached the limits of reason here, as there is no coherency to any of this. How a mod has not cleaned this up yet is certainly beyond me.

Of course we have, because I caught you out. Not the first time, I might add.

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, you are wrong. In your attempt to be snotty with Kleber, you got it so wrong on Russian society, and the classes that exist in that society. And what sources? One quote. I could cherry pick them from the millions of words written by Marx and Lenin. Great isn't it?

My one quote happened to be quite relevant to the current topic at hand and you have not provided any valid interpretation of said quote to refute its contents. I see no sources being applied on your behalf, I see no defense of your baseless claims, I only see blind and unsupported accusations which appear more to be pitiful attempts at insult than relevant comments.

Please explain to me how I am wrong in regards to the selected quote which was from the work which Kleber was claiming as a piece that supported his stance on the matter. You are doing nothing at this point to actually further this discussion. As I have stated previously, you do not have the authority to say something and then treat it as fact.

[thesadmafioso]

Of course we have, because I caught you out. Not the first time, I might add.

You are just repeating comments like that continually, you did no such thing.

You are the one refusing to elaborate on your inflammatory remarks and to provide any defense of your comments.

[milk]

My one quote happened to be quite relevant to the current topic at hand and you have not provided any valid interpretation of said quote to refute its contents. I see no sources being applied on your behalf, I see no defense of your baseless claims, I only see blind and unsupported accusations which appear more to be pitiful attempts at insult than relevant comments.

Please explain to me how I am wrong in regards to the selected quote which was from the work which Kleber was claiming as a piece that supported his stance on the matter. You are doing nothing at this point to actually further this discussion. As I have stated previously, you do not have the authority to say something and then treat it as fact.

In which context was the quote originally placed, and then which you took it and then placed into one of your liking?

[thesadmafioso]

In which context was the quote originally placed, and then which you took it and then placed into one of your liking?

The quote was under the chapter title of "The Spontaneity of the Masses and Class Consciousness of Social Democracy", and under the heading of "The Beginning of the Spontaneous Revival". I took an entire paragraph minus an irrelevant sentence, to give the quote added effect and to shorten it a bit. You have your context now, and I even made it so you could avoid doing any actual research yourself.

And now it would appear that you have been 'caught out' yourself, as you so tastefully chose to put it earlier.

[milk]

The quote was under the chapter title of "The Spontaneity of the Masses and Class Consciousness of Social Democracy", and under the heading of "The Beginning of the Spontaneous Revival". I took an entire paragraph minus an irrelevant sentence, to give the quote added effect and to shorten it a bit. You have your context now, and I even made it so you could avoid doing any actual research yourself.

And now it would appear that you have been 'caught out' yourself, as you so tastefully chose to put it earlier.

You were talking about a middle class (which you seem to designate as the intelligentsia despite contradicting yourself on that very point earlier), quoted Lenin to back yourself up, and then I pointed out to you, that not only has a middle class never existed in Russia, and an intelligentsia as a social phenomenon is different there than in western Europe or the United States, but that his whole work stresed the leading involvement of workers. There is no context, in a chapter title. The context in which that text was written, the social and political conditions of the time, which were, again, very different to western Europe and the US, indeed history has shown that Bolshevist revolutions have not occurred in the heartlands of capitalism but at its peripheries. I also said that I disagreed with Lenin on such questions as working class organisation (criticisms of economism) and revolution.

The Bolsheviks ended up substituting themselves for the working class, while arguing that they were the organised vanguard of that class, but they weren't at all, as the 'vanguard' of the working class at that time (erroneously seen as spontaneous and unorganised) were seeking to expand the structures they'd created through struggle and deepen workers' control. The Bolsheviks were essentially an allied party of both intelligentsia and working class professionals forced into a particular form of revolutionary politics by the intransigience of the Tsarist autocracy. They saw the Party as equallying the class, or the best tendency from it, and so became substitutionist whether or not they desired it to be different. To them, the working class were an objective inert mass (like you do) to be directed, as they are incapable of raising above "trade union consciousness." This is an approach, in placing Marxism into a realisable political programme, that I disagree with. Something you have decided to elevate to a Truth.

Do you think Marx would have agreed with Lenin on matters of consciousness?

[thesadmafioso]

You were talking about a middle class (which you seem to designate as the intelligentsia despite contradicting yourself on that very point earlier), quoted Lenin to back yourself up, and then I pointed out to you, that not only has a middle class never existed in Russia, and an intelligentsia as a social phenomenon is different there than in western Europe or the United States, but that his whole work stresed the leading involvement of workers. There is no context, in a chapter title. The context in which that text was written, the social and political conditions of the time, which were, again, very different to western Europe and the US, indeed history has shown that Bolshevist revolutions have not occurred in the heartlands of capitalism but at its peripheries. I also said that I disagreed with Lenin on such questions as working class organisation (criticisms of economism) and revolution.

The Bolsheviks ended up substituting themselves for the working class, while arguing that they were the organised vanguard of that class, but they weren't at all, as the 'vanguard' of the working class at that time (erroneously seen as spontaneous and unorganised) were seeking to expand the structures they'd created through struggle and deepen workers' control. The Bolsheviks were essentially an allied party of both intelligentsia and working class professionals forced into a particular form of revolutionary politics by the intransigience of the Tsarist autocracy. They saw the Party as equallying the class, or the best tendency from it, and so became substitutionist whether or not they desired it to be different. To them, the working class were an objective inert mass (like you do) to be directed, as they are incapable of raising above "trade union consciousness." This is an approach, in placing Marxism into a realisable political programme, that I disagree with. Something you have decided to elevate to a Truth.

Do you think Marx would have agreed with Lenin on matters of consciousness?

I don't seem to designate the middle class as the intelligentsia, your fictitious imagination designates your nonsensical view of my argument in such a fashion.

Russia had a class of individuals which were not quite the ruling elite of the wealthy, but which were still relatively well off professionals. Lenin's father was a teacher, a role generally associated with the middle class. And the context is clearly implied in the bloody title, as titles generally prelude to the contents which are to follow them. You are just going against basic reason at this point and it is most tiring. Your arguments have no valid premise to them, and they are based entirely upon the most illogical of assumptions.

As for your last paragraph, I don't very well care what you believe in. Please spare me the lecture in your personal ideology in the future, as it does not make your argument make any more sense and it is largely irrelevant here. It does not change the fact that such tactics are riddled with fault, and that they are quite ineffectual. I would direct you back to my previous writing on the subject if you still take issue with that comment, as you still have yet to provide substantial refutation to my claims. Rather you choose to merely state your shallow and shortsighted opinions on the matters, opinions which have no place in this discussion as they are just that.

And yes, later in his life Marx realized the ineffectual nature of the proletariat in its more organic forms, and I am fairly confident that he would adapt to the changing circumstances under which these events occurred.

[Kléber]

Bit of history for you on Comrade Lenin, he was raised by a middle class family who sent him off to private school to receive a classical education. He later went on to college where he received a law degree. In the years leading up to the revolution he moved throughout Europe while relying heavily upon his family for capital.
Reminds me of the time some "real revolutionary" at the local community college coffee shop smugly informed me that "Lenin was a middle-class *****," while sipping on an extravagant "frapped" drink that had to cost at least $5. The fact that Lenin came from a privileged family but devoted his life to the proletarian revolution only deepens my respect for the man.


"We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without... The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia."And Lenin was entirely correct. Never, however, did he say what you crudely suggested: that workers, college graduates, and professional revolutionaries are mutually exclusive categories of people. Nor did he argue as you do that a ruling class is necessary to deal with the stupidity of the masses. If you actually read the book your own presumptions would be demolished by quotes such as these:

"the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough 'for workers' to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known." http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm

"On the other hand, the masses will never learn to conduct the political struggle until we help to train leaders for this struggle, both from among the enlightened workers and from among the intellectuals." www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm)

[thesadmafioso]

Reminds me of the time some "real revolutionary" at the coffee shop at the local community college informed me that, "Lenin was a middle-class *****," as he smugly sipped on an extravagant "frapped" drink that had to cost at least $5.


And Lenin was entirely correct. Never, however, did he say what you are saying: that workers, college graduates, and professional revolutionaries are mutually exclusive categories of people. Nor did he argue as you do that a ruling class is necessary to deal with the stupidity of the masses. If you actually read the book you would find quotes such as these which demolish your attempt at distortion.

"On the other hand, the masses will never learn to conduct the political struggle until we help to train leaders for this struggle, both from among the enlightened workers and from among the intellectuals."

"the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough 'for workers' to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known."

I never equated his class origin to the validity of his work or his value as an individual, that is quite the erroneousness false equivocation which you have engaged in.

And I have read the entirely of the work in question, so I think we can forgo insultingly false comments like such, in the name of both correctness and civility.

But on to the additional quotes which you have provided, which upon a proper analysis of my comments you would find to be perfectly in line with my stance on the matter. I did not speak ill of the proletariat themselves, but rather of their current state and what is required to move them out of such. If you go back to my first comment, you will notice a clear distinction between the nature of my two remarks. One deals in the current and the other deals with what could be done under a different political context.

[milk]

I don't seem to designate the middle class as the intelligentsia, your fictitious imagination designates your nonsensical view of my argument in such a fashion.

Russia had a class of individuals which were not quite the ruling elite of the wealthy, but which were still relatively well off professionals. Lenin's father was a teacher, a role generally associated with the middle class. And the context is clearly implied in the bloody title, as titles generally prelude to the contents which are to follow them. You are just going against basic reason at this point and it is most tiring. Your arguments have no valid premise to them, and they are based entirely upon the most illogical of assumptions.

As for your last paragraph, I don't very well care what you believe in. Please spare me the lecture in your personal ideology in the future, as it does not make your argument make any more sense and it is largely irrelevant here. It does not change the fact that such tactics are riddled with fault, and that they are quite ineffectual. I would direct you back to my previous writing on the subject if you still take issue with that comment, as you still have yet to provide substantial refutation to my claims. Rather you choose to merely state your shallow and shortsighted opinions on the matters, opinions which have no place in this discussion as they are just that.

The Dvoriantsvo ("house servants" according to the Russian monarchy) formed out of different conditions to the middle class created in western Europe. This is ABC stuff. Whether or not a teacher is generally assumed to be middle class in a western context, doesn't make a Russian teacher middle class as you might view it here.

As for your last paragraph, you've been pushing your unsubstantiated personal prejudices on this thread (which basically amounts to a middle class and elitist assumption that working class people are dumb), and all you've mustered so far is one quote from Lenin. I might not share the same politics as Kleber, but I don't have a vulgar interpretation of what Lenin wrote or thought, as you seem to do.

[thesadmafioso]

The Dvoriantsvo ("house servants" according to the Russian monarchy) formed out of different conditions to the middle class created in western Europe. This is ABC stuff. Whether or not a teacher is generally assumed to be middle class in a western context, doesn't make a Russian teacher middle class as you might view it here.

As for your last paragraph, you've been pushing your unsubstantiated personal prejudices on this thread (which basically amounts to a middle class and elitist assumption that working class people are dumb), and all you've mustered so far is one quote from Lenin. I might not share the same politics as Kleber, but I don't have a vulgar interpretation of what Lenin wrote or thought, as you seem to do.

Your argument has no base to it, it is as simple as that really. I don't care what the Russian terminology for it was, the reality was that he was not a clear member of the proletariat or the ruling class. Any way you phrase it, he is still not a worker and he is still a member of a separate social construct. Your right, this is ABC stuff, ABC stuff which you are having an awful lot of trouble with.

I am not going to hold your hand and guide you through ever single word which Lenin has written.

And on a note not directly related to the debate itself, could you possibly work on your ability to respond in a timely fashion? The time you take to fill out a couple lines of text is just completely uncalled for, and if you are going to waste my time with your ignorance I would at least like for it to go along in a productive manner.

[milk]

You said he was middle class. A class which has never existed in Russia.

[thesadmafioso]

You said he was middle class. A class which has never existed in Russia.

And you have interpreted my use of the term middle class in a manner far too literally, the issue here lies not in my choice of terminology but rather your inability to draw basic connotations.

[milk]

I never equated his class origin to the validity of his work or his value as an individual, that is quite the erroneousness false equivocation which you have engaged in.

You have, by naturalising only negative attributes to the working class. Something Lenin never did.

[thesadmafioso]

You have, by naturalising only negative attributes to the working class. Something Lenin never did.

You are the only one at fault here once more, as it would appear that we can directly trace your lack of understanding to your incapacity for a proper and correct reading of my statements. Your tendency to attach negative sentiments to objective comments is not a matter which is relevant to this, and something which is your own responsibility. I do not very well care if you cannot read something 'negative' about the working class, all which is displayed by such sensitivity is a great deal of inadequacy on your behalf in regards to your ability to comprehend what you read.

[milk]

And you have interpreted my use of the term middle class in a manner far too literally, the issue here lies not in my choice of terminology but rather your inability to draw basic connotations.

I was pointing out your transposing, incorrectly rearranging something so as to fit it into your own preconceptions, in matters of class terminology in a place where it does not fit. It's not a question of basic connotation on my part but lack of subtlety on yours.

[thesadmafioso]

I was pointing out your transposing, incorrectly rearranging something so as to fit it into your own preconceptions, in matters of class terminology in a place where it does not fit. It's not a question of basic connotation on my part but lack of subtlety on yours.

Do you know that you can respond to a single post in a single post of your own? I would strongly recommend doing such, it makes this sort of thing flow far better.

You were pointing out your own narrow and inflexible interpretation on an inherently flexible term. You were also incapable of picking up on the comments intent, when it was clearly displayed using common connotations, meaning that this discrepancy can easily be traced to your own failings.

[synthesis]

Yes I "insulted" working people, they are a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not.

I'd have to say that this forum is in a bad way of things if milk gets a warning for politely telling this guy to go fuck himself.

[milk]

You are the only one at fault here once more, as it would appear that we can directly trace your lack of understanding to your incapacity for a proper and correct reading of my statements. Your tendency to attach negative sentiments to objective comments is not a matter which is relevant to this, and something which is your own responsibility. I do not very well care if you cannot read something 'negative' about the working class, all which is displayed by such sensitivity is a great deal of inadequacy on your behalf in regards to your ability to comprehend what you read.

Your earlier comment on the "average working man" and others had no objective value whatsoever. Oh, wait, sorry, actually they did. In a wider context, it's definitely about class and this cultural difference linked in with it. A man with a big beard once argued that your material conditions play a large part in forming your consciousness. And so, with this, a people's culture is developed on the basis of that material foundation; that these material differences will then lead to cultural differences, and not only as an outward signifier of one's class but also in peoples concrete motivations. That culture then feeds back into the material world. It's not your fault. It's your middle class attempt to separate and distinguish. As for the comments themselves, what you said earlier was not objective, it was merely the subjective repeating of unquestioned social prejudice. I do hope you'll get some help for that eventually.

[thesadmafioso]

I'd have to say that this forum is in a bad way of things if milk got a warning for politely telling this guy to go fuck himself.

You do not have the proper context in mind in making this remark, I can assure you. The selected quote here was more of a jab at some of the false language directed at my comments, I was not literally insulting the members of the working class. Perhaps reading the actual makeup of the comments in question would help in this sort of situation?

[milk]

You've been 'politely' insulting people all over this thread.

[thesadmafioso]

Your earlier comment on the "average working man" and others had no objective value whatsoever. Oh, wait, sorry, actually they did. In a wider context, it's definitely about class and this cultural difference linked in with it. A man with a big beard once argued that your material conditions play a large part in forming your consciousness. And so, with this, a people's culture is developed on the basis of that material foundation; that these material differences will then lead to cultural differences, and not only as an outward signifier of one's class but also in peoples concrete motivations. That culture then feeds back into the material world. It's not your fault. It's your middle class attempt to separate and distinguish. As for the comments themselves, what you said earlier was not objective, it was merely the subjective repeating of unquestioned social prejudice. I do hope you'll get some help for that eventually.

People are certainly infallible, and the fact that public consensus was not entirely in support of my comments means they must of been wrong, right?

It was a factual and spot on analysis of the current state of affairs which the working class finds itself faced with, you are not the decider of what is and it not objective. You simply cannot argue with the factual evidence of history itself, you are making an absolute fool of yourself and a mockery of logic. This is pure irony, as what you say is nothing but ad hominem. You seem to think that my 'middle class' background has some effect on my objectivity, and that is your only major line of reasoning against my point.

[thesadmafioso]

You've been 'politely' insulting people all over this thread.

Could you please remind me why I care if people are insulted by civil and proper argumentation?

[milk]

It was a factual and spot on analysis of the current state of affairs which the working class finds itself faced with, you are not the decider of what is and it not objective.

lol.

[thesadmafioso]

lol.

Oh, I am arguing with a 13 year old girl. Well that certainly explains things a great deal. I mean, what else could possibly explain the use of 'lol' as a counter point?

Perhaps I should restructure my argument for your mind though, "lol rofl u is stupd".

Did you understand that? Should I tone it down another few grade levels perhaps?

[milk]

Oh, I am arguing with a 13 year old girl. Well that certainly explains things a great deal. I mean, what else could possibly explain the use of 'lol' as a counter point?

Please, where has the civil and proper argumentation has gone? I associate pseudo-intellectualism as a phase which teenage girls and boys go through. Perhaps it's time to grow out of it?

When MySpace was popular did you have a list of books on your page, that you've never actually read?

[thesadmafioso]

Please, where has the civil and proper argumentation has gone? I associate pseudo-intellectualism as a phase which teenage girls and boys go through. Perhaps it's time to grow out of it?

And the tirade of baseless ad hominem continues onward, the irony here is beyond description really.

[synthesis]

You do not have the proper context in mind in making this remark, I can assure you. The selected quote here was more of a jab at some of the false language directed at my comments, I was not literally insulting the members of the working class. Perhaps reading the actual makeup of the comments in question would help in this sort of situation?

Oh, OK. Let me go do that.


The working class people are perfectly deserving of such 'insults' as they are true.


good luck with your proletariat revolution made entirely by the workers, tell me how that works out for you.


Say what you will about the tremendous ability of the proletariat and its capacity to operate without intelligentsia guidance, it will not change political reality.


To be brief, it is a matter of who wields the people, and not the people themselves.

Of course, I've clipped out a veritable mountain of evasion and sophistry. Your argument is the definition of reactionary. Honestly, I'm not embarrassed for you as much as I am for Bob the Builder here.

[milk]

And the tirade of baseless ad hominem continues onward, the irony here is beyond description really.

Now now, Clever Trevor.

[thesadmafioso]

Oh, OK. Let me go do that.









Of course, I've clipped out a veritable mountain of evasion and sophistry. Your argument is the definition of reactionary. Honestly, I'm not embarrassed for you as much as I am for Bob the Builder here.

So it is blasphemy to provide a factual analysis of a situation? Nothing there was literally insulting, it was more a realistic driven approach to the issue at hand.

[synthesis]

So it is blasphemy to provide a factual analysis of a situation? Nothing there was literally insulting, it was more a realistic driven approach to the issue at hand.

I don't care if it was "insulting" - we're big boys and girls here. My objection is that it is reactionary as fuck.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't care if it was "insulting" - we're big boys and girls here. My objection is that it is reactionary as fuck.

I apologize for the demands of political reality being a bit too 'reactionary' for your tastes.

[milk]

Of course, I've clipped out a veritable mountain of evasion and sophistry. Your argument is the definition of reactionary.

They're unpleasant, those quotes, aren't they. Which would be worse if the mistaking sophistry for logic, and the try-hard pseudo-intellectual bluster didn't make it all a bit silly, also.

[thesadmafioso]

They're unpleasant, those quotes, aren't they. Which would be worse if the mistaking sophistry for logic, and the try-hard pseudo-intellectual bluster didn't make it all a bit silly, also.

Coherent sentences generally help to make coherent and intelligible points. It is hard to properly refute something that makes no sense in the first place.

[synthesis]

I apologize for the demands of political reality being a bit too 'reactionary' for your tastes.

You wouldn't know "political reality" if it took a shit on your Subaru. You have absolutely no conception of what it means to be a Marxist, and more importantly I doubt you ever will. Your line is nothing original and, with a few key alterations, will likely land you a tenured position in the political science department of a major liberal arts college - best of luck.

[milk]

You need to replace coherent with sophistry, and intelligible with bollocks (as we say here in England).

[thesadmafioso]

You wouldn't know "political reality" if it took a shit on your Subaru. You have absolutely no conception of what it means to be a Marxist, and more importantly I doubt you ever will. Your line is nothing original and, with a few key alterations, will likely land you a tenured position in the political science department of a major liberal arts college - best of luck.

I don't drive a Subaru, but I get where that little bit was going. Most clever indeed. But yeah, what does any of this ad hominem really have to do with the discussion which was at one point upon us? Oh, I don't believe their is really much relevance.

But I guess I should play along with the current trend. "No you aren't a Marxist! I am more Marxist!"

That line of reasoning sure makes a lot of sense.

[thesadmafioso]

You need to replace coherent with sophistry, and intelligible with bollocks (as we say here in England).

Yes, I get the idea, you think I am wrong and you ran out of actual 'points' to levy against my stance on this matter. Why don't we just go ahead and pretend that you are making baseless insults every post without you actually going ahead and doing it, it would surely save us all some time. You and I both know the direction of your intended posts, it is not as if anything is really coming out of this.

[milk]

Oh well, never mind, shepherd without a flock.

[synthesis]

I don't drive a Subaru, but I get where that little bit was going. Most clever indeed. But yeah, what does any of this ad hominem really have to do with the discussion which was at one point upon us? Oh, I don't believe their is really much relevance.

But I guess I should play along with the current trend. "No you aren't a Marxist! I am more Marxist!"

That line of reasoning sure makes a lot of sense.

First, understand that "argument from fallacy" is a fallacy in itself, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) perhaps the most pervasive on the Internet, where anyone can look up a list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia and find one that seemingly applies to the other person's argument.

And I'm not saying you're not a Marxist. I said that you have no conception of what it means to be a Marxist. I could settle for the former; the appalling ratio of words to substance in your posts is just unconscionable, however, and is another trait that will hopefully get you tenure someday should you develop it enough.

Finally, I'd like to note that I have nothing against Subarus or (most of) the people who drive them. I hear they get pretty good gas mileage.

[thesadmafioso]

Oh well, never mind, shepherd without a flock.

And that means you are any less wrong? Let us disregard for a moment the basic fact that just two people have stumbled into this discussion and agreed with you, and overlook the fact that you are trying to pass off two people as a broad base of support for your fallacy riddled position.

Does having someone agree with you makes your right? Of course not, and I don't think for a moment that you are saying that. And if we can make this reasonable assumption, how does this comment make any real sense or have any real relevance to the substance of this discussion? You do not win a debate simply by having people say you are right, that is not how the objective force of logic works.

[thesadmafioso]

First, understand that "argument from fallacy" is a fallacy in itself, perhaps the most pervasive on the Internet, where anyone can look up a list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia and find one that seemingly applies to the other person's argument.

And I'm not saying you're not a Marxist. I said that you have no conception of what it means to be a Marxist. I could settle for the former; the appalling ratio of words to substance in your posts is just unconscionable, however, and is another trait that will hopefully get you tenure someday should you develop it enough.

Finally, I'd like to note that I have nothing against Subarus or (most of) the people who drive them. I hear they get pretty good gas mileage.

I was only making use of that particular fallacy as it was directed at my comments earlier, and as it had a certain tinge of irony to it.

I never interpreted your comments in such a fashion either, I was just making a show of how out of place and nonsensical such reasoning is. But lets move away from that point for a moment and focus a bit more on the supposed issue of substance to words ratio. We are not in grade school here, I do not think we need to worry about anything like a page limit or any other comparable limitation upon our language. I will choose to use as many words as I find necessary to make a point, as I presume most of the users here are indeed literate and in possession of some basic comprehension skills.

[milk]

By all means, keep pissing in the wind. What the majority thinks isn't your cup of tea any way.

[thesadmafioso]

By all means, keep pissing in the wind. What the majority thinks isn't your cup of tea any way.

You didn't actually deal with anything that I just said. So much is flawed with your approach here that I don't really know where to begin though, so lets go to the majority bit. The majority holds no solidified thoughts and it has no forceful mental holdings in its current state. Please feel free to have another go at my earlier work if you would like elaboration, as you have made it quite clear through your reluctance to deal with my stance that you obviously missed some aspects of what I was saying.

[synthesis]

I will choose to use as many words as I find necessary to make a point

No, that's exactly the problem. You have exactly one point - that working class people are infantile, impotent, imbecilic, in other words, incapable of revolution without "higher guidance" - and you made that point very clear in your first post. Everything since then has either been a repetition of that point or a denial that that point was made.

And we do have "basic comprehension skills" - it didn't take anyone (well, most of us) very long to comprehend that your position is reactionary.

[thesadmafioso]

No, that's exactly the problem. You have exactly one point - that working class people are infantile, impotent, imbecilic, in other words, incapable of revolution without "higher guidance" - and you made that point very clear in your first post. Everything since then has either been a repetition of that point or a denial that that point was made.

And we do have "basic comprehension skills" - it didn't take anyone (well, most of us) very long to comprehend that your position is reactionary.

My point was a bit more nuanced than that, actually. It was more directed to show the necessity of the proper ideology to guide them into a workable implement of socialistic change, in a temporary sense of course. I also noted how in the long term that education could be applied to bring the proletariat out of its current state.

And apparently I needed to repeat a few things, as some still seem to be having issues with understanding that. I don't even want to think of the time I would have to spend to collect all of the examples which display a failure to comprehend my position, as they are so numerous.

[synthesis]

My point was a bit more nuanced than that, actually. It was more directed to show the necessity of the proper ideology to guide them into a workable implement of socialistic change, in a temporary sense of course. I also noted how in the long term that education could be applied to bring the proletariat out of its current state.


You have exactly one point - that working class people are infantile, impotent, imbecilic, in other words, incapable of revolution without "higher guidance" - and you made that point very clear in your first post. Everything since then has either been a repetition of that point or a denial that that point was made.

Please explain, as though your life depended on it, how these two quotations are mutually exclusive.

[thesadmafioso]

Please explain, as though your life depended on it, how these two quotations are mutually exclusive.

The temporary aspect, and the broader scope and context which is displayed in the later portion of my choice in wording. That which I am referring to being the educational aspect in the long term. Both of these were left out of your analysis, and both are significant factors to understand if one looks to actually comprehend the meaning of my position.

[synthesis]

The temporary aspect, and the broader scope and context which is displayed in the later portion of my choice in wording. That which I am referring to being the educational aspect in the long term. Both of these were left out of your analysis, and both are significant factors to understand if one looks to actually comprehend the meaning of my position.

:lol: I'm pretty sure milk, Kleber and I "comprehend the meaning of your position" better than you do.

[milk]

The working class is not through its own struggle to become a class for itself (it is indeed utterly incapable of it), but merely an implement, tool, a moulded coarse material for another class to use for its own ends. How is that not reactionary?

[thesadmafioso]

Arguing that facts are reactionary doesn't exactly work. You haven't really stated how my position is in any way 'reactionary'. This is not how you go about having proper debate, by just repeating your own point continually while hoping that the other person will stop talking. Honestly, I think we are all over the age of 5 here, and we are capable of realizing that the loudest person is not always right.

I'll play into your cheap little plot for a bit though, the whole 'no you tell me why you are right, i refuse to tell you why you are wrong' routine. The position which I have adapted is perfectly in line with developed, modern Marxist though. There is nothing reactionary with making a realistic judgement of the challenges faced by the modern leftist movement, if anything it is more helpful than not. The thought which you expose does nothing but delude individuals into a false state of consciousness, where in fictitious analysis of the working class becomes 'factual'. If anything such a line of reasoning is so blatantly ineffectual that you could almost classify it as being reactionary, as in essence you are only denying some of the basic political constructs on the modern era.

And to return back to the 'sheep without a flock' comment, if we are really to gauge the validity or support either of our points has based upon the amount of users which has shown support for them in this topic, it would appear that we are literally tied in that regard. My original post has just as much support as your original post, I just haven't had an entire cheerleader squad here to watch the debate and shout my name the whole time. I am not by any means saying this makes your point any less wrong, but rather that even by your own terribly flawed standards of measuring support you still have no advantage.

[Thirsty Crow]

The starting point of this thread is hopelessly flawed.
There is no "people" unless by "people" in the question form of "What does the people want" you mean in fact what do all humans, as humans, want. And that's a point biology takes care of.

But considering that the course of the debate has shifted somewhat...


And? Yes I "insulted" working people, they are a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not. Have you tried talking to your average working man?Yes, in fact, you did.
From my experiences, indeed, "working people" (implying wage labourers with no extensive higher education) are, in certain cases, ignorant and malleable, and in other cases they prove themselves to be quite intelligent, much more than myself, and courageous.
But the point is the following: there is just too much of a divergence when it comes to different factors influencing the character and the capacity for comprehension of individual workers. Most importantly, this supposed ignorance will effectively depend on the range of social situations in which a worker may find himself/herself. Not to talk about specific historical and geographical differences which complicate matters further.
This is way I don't think that your generalization holds. It is premature (for instance, you just suppose there is a universal which you call "an average worker" without bothering to assess concrete differences cultural and national variations), it cannot be supported by solid evidence, and most of all, it presupposes a specific activity of the intellectual, who basically feeds the working class with ideas (thus denying even the most elementary capacity for critical thought - which certainly cannot be supported by evidence), and sets himself/herself outside the class, as its arbiter and the one in control of the effective decision making.
I don't think that your argument is totally invalid. Historical reality supports it to a certain extent. But if we were to stretch every aspect of it to its logical conclusion, I'm afraid that the political praxis we would end up with would be hopelessly flawed with respect to representing any kind of a potent challenge to the capitalist status quo.
In other words, this argument of yours is not Maoist/Stalinist in itself (as Red Dave claims), but it could easily be appropriated (since some of its points are purely ideological, and cannot be supported by eivdence) by all sorts of reactionary politics.


Of course I must stress that this is more or less due to the conditions imposed upon them due to capitalism, so what I said is not so much an insult towards working class individuals directly but rather an insult directed towards capitalism and what it makes of such people.
I don't think you should evade the real content of your argument by means of such a terribly conceived trick. No, you did in fact insult workers, evident in the following:

They care for little more than their own self interest, of course they need the proper guidance if they are to be molded into an implement of revolution.
For all its rhetorical and metaphorical edge, it is pretty insulting when someone compares you to a lump of clay that will be "molded" by, presumingly, the hands of a certain groups of masters of this process, who alone know what they are doing and how should they do it. You can evade the point all you like, but as a matter of fact, you compared workers with clay. This is insulting.

Furthermore, I find your reference to "their caring for little more than self interest" a bit too vague. I would say about myself the very same thing - I only care about my self interest as well. I suppose that you really wanted to say something like "they only care for their immediate self interest, i.e., to be materially better off than their fellow workers" etc. etc.

[thesadmafioso]

The starting point of this thread is hopelessly flawed.
There is no "people" unless by "people" in the question form of "What does the people want" you mean in fact what do all humans, as humans, want. And that's a point biology takes care of.

But considering that the course of the debate has shifted somewhat...

Yes, in fact, you did.
From my experiences, indeed, "working people" (implying wage labourers with no extensive higher education) are, in certain cases, ignorant and malleable, and in other cases they prove themselves to be quite intelligent, much more than myself, and courageous.
But the point is the following: there is just too much of a divergence when it comes to different factors influencing the character and the capacity for comprehension of individual workers. Most importantly, this supposed ignorance will effectively depend on the range of social situations in which a worker may find himself/herself. Not to talk about specific historical and geographical differences which complicate matters further.
This is way I don't think that your generalization holds. It is premature (for instance, you just suppose there is a universal which you call "an average worker" without bothering to assess concrete differences cultural and national variations), it cannot be supported by solid evidence, and most of all, it presupposes a specific activity of the intellectual, who basically feeds the working class with ideas (thus denying even the most elementary capacity for critical thought - which certainly cannot be supported by evidence), and sets himself/herself outside the class, as its arbiter and the one in control of the effective decision making.
I don't think that your argument is totally invalid. Historical reality supports it to a certain extent. But if we were to stretch every aspect of it to its logical conclusion, I'm afraid that the political praxis we would end up with would be hopelessly flawed with respect to representing any kind of a potent challenge to the capitalist status quo.
In other words, this argument of yours is not Maoist/Stalinist in itself (as Red Dave claims), but it could easily be appropriated (since some of its points are purely ideological, and cannot be supported by eivdence) by all sorts of reactionary politics.


I don't think you should evade the real content of your argument by means of such a terribly conceived trick. No, you did in fact insult workers, evident in the following:

For all its rhetorical and metaphorical edge, it is pretty insulting when someone compares you to a lump of clay that will be "molded" by, presumingly, the hands of a certain groups of masters of this process, who alone know what they are doing and how should they do it. You can evade the point all you like, but as a matter of fact, you compared workers with clay. This is insulting.

Furthermore, I find your reference to "their caring for little more than self interest" a bit too vague. I would say about myself the very same thing - I only care about my self interest as well. I suppose that you really wanted to say something like "they only care for their immediate self interest, i.e., to be materially better off than their fellow workers" etc. etc.

Perhaps if you had looked over my comments a bit more carefully you would of caught the concession I made, where in I recognized that a great many workers do not fall under my generalization. Of course I also went on to mention how this number is quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but the point here is that you are misrepresenting my statements. And yes, I do in fact realize that many factors are at play here, and I am sorry that I did not literally spell out how each and every one impacts my conclusion, but I can assure you that I did take such into account when originally formulating my statements. The nature of this question was designed to generate an imperfect answer, of course my point is not absolute, but that says nothing of its overall legitimacy and validity.

As for what you think of my stance, as I have said before I don't very well care what you think, I care if it can be effectively proved as incorrect. Thus far, such has not been the case. I really don't care to get into a basic lesson of political science here, but I suppose it is necessary as it is quite clear that my thought process and any conclusions which stem from it are reliant upon information unavailable to those which are trying to make sense of my work. Let us take the current state of American politics as an example, as much of the conclusions from such would be relevant in many other western nations and as it can provide a very clear example. Electoral turnout hovers around 50% for presidential races, and even lower for mid terms. I don't need to explain how distorted American politics are I assume, and out of the 50% that votes I think it is fair enough to presume a great many of those individuals do not have the fullest idea of what they are voting for. The real deciding factor in these elections is generally how independents swing, and about 40% of the American electorate identifies themselves as such. Of course this varies in particular congressional districts, but that is an entirely different issue and for the sake of this point the national trend will do. The largest deciding factor of how most of these individuals vote is that of self interest, where voters decide which way they will vote based upon the party or candidate which they believe to be the most fit to better their life. Not exactly a very noble principle to vote upon. Then you have other factions of the American political system like the ideologues who vote a certain way because their parents always did, and who do not even think about mainstream politics let alone Marxist theory. This is all very rudimentary and basic fact, so please do not try and tell me that I am basing my conclusions solely upon ideology or any other nonsense of the sort. And that is the more politically active aspect of the population too. Which brings us to the disillusioned, apathetic, and ignorant bunch that makes up the other 50% of the voting age population. What you see in this aspect of American society is a group which has not the slightest of an interest towards the political, let alone leftist politics. Generally the non voting population tends to be poorer and less educated in the basics of mainstream politics, and once again they are not even close to being Marxist intellectuals. The point is that people generally have lives which do not focus on political affairs, and that people more often than not do not make the connection that their lives are directly impacted by politics and the like. It is generally accepted fact, and most history is more than enough to show this point. But since you seem to be blind even to that, could you perhaps explain to me why most every stable and lasting revolution has been led and crafted by a strong centralized party structure? Can you explain how the people are suppose to learn of Socialist ideology, if not from the intelligentsia? You know what, I will go right ahead and answer that for you, they can't. History is not on your side because you have said it to be.

And if you are incapable of basic research and you believe that I have pulled these statistics and facts from thin air, I can provide citation if you would like to waste my time a bit more.

Lastly, as I have said before, I don't care if you think that my realistic and objective analysis insults the working class, because it is simple fact.

[synthesis]

The starting point of this thread is hopelessly flawed.
There is no "people" unless by "people" in the question form of "What does the people want" you mean in fact what do all humans, as humans, want. And that's a point biology takes care of.

Actually, I had a similar objection when I first saw the thread title but in the opposite direction. Asking "what does the people want" is grammatically incorrect; much more importantly the mistake reveals a certain mentality which holds that "the people" is a singular, homogeneous entity. You could ask "what do the people want," but that would produce any number of definitions depending on how one defines "the people."

The real question here is: "What do people want?" Not as in all humans - as in working class people, as the sum of their individual parts, inasmuch as such a thing can even be conceived adequately.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course I also went on to mention how this number is quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but the point here is that you are misrepresenting my statements.
And yes, I do in fact realize that many factors are at play here, and I am sorry that I did not literally spell out how each and every one impacts my conclusion, but I can assure you that I did take such into account when originally formulating my statements.
So, I am misrepresenting your statements even though you did not "literally spell out" how each and every one of the factors I mention "impacts your conclusion", combined with the fact that nowhere does your argument demonstrate the consciousness of these factors, which bears a crucial impact on your conclusion?
I think you are misrepresenting your statements since you did not mention that you are provoding an analysis of the situation in the US, and nowhere else, proven by your only supportive argument concerning American electoral process.
It's quite telling, indeed, when your overt arrogance is taken into account. Obviously, exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in the consciousness of even the most prominent pro-socialist American intelligentsia.
I'd advise you to clearly state the extent of your argument.
Oh, and this:

As for what you think of my stance, as I have said before I don't very well care what you think, I care if it can be effectively proved as incorrect. I fail to see what proof did you come up with.
You only ascertained the fact that half the American electorate does not vote. That's for sure, and no one can disprove that.
However, you should also prove how does that translate into "an average worker is ignorant and malleable". In other words, prove the ignorance. If you can't (and you didn't point to any sociological research dealing with the subject matter), well, that only means that yours is just one of the interpretations of empirical data.
And maybe you should discuss these matters with American comrades, instead of pursuing a false universal perspective. In any case, I don't give a shit.

[thesadmafioso]

So, I am misrepresenting your statements even though you did not "literally spell out" how each and every one of the factors I mention "impacts your conclusion", combined with the fact that nowhere does your argument demonstrate the consciousness of these factors, which bears a crucial impact on your conclusion?
I think you are misrepresenting your statements since you did not mention that you are provoding an analysis of the situation in the US, and nowhere else, proven by your only supportive argument concerning American electoral process.
It's quite telling, indeed, when your overt arrogance is taken into account. Obviously, exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in the consciousness of even the most prominent pro-socialist American intelligentsia.
I'd advise you to clearly state the extent of your argument.
Oh, and this:
I fail to see what proof did you come up with.
You only ascertained the fact that half the American electorate does not vote. That's for sure, and no one can disprove that.
However, you should also prove how does that translate into "an average worker is ignorant and malleable". In other words, prove the ignorance. If you can't (and you didn't point to any sociological research dealing with the subject matter), well, that only means that yours is just one of the interpretations of empirical data.
And maybe you should discuss these matters with American comrades, instead of pursuing a false universal perspective. In any case, I don't give a shit.

Had you been a bit more careful in your reading of my analysis, you would of realized that I was only using America as an example as it provides a very coherent and clear conclusion. The fact that the US wields a tremendous amount of power on the world stage also makes analysis of it more reasonable, and it implies any trends found here can be in some way or another indicative of others around the globe. The results of my analysis were meant to be applicable to most any major western population, as much of it is still relevant.

And every single statistic which I used was factual, it is a bit of an understatement to say that I only proved one basic fact through such. I literally was copying stats out of a basic entry level text of American political science. I honestly do not know how thick you would have to be to not clearly see my point from that data, as it is obvious enough. I do not need to provide some grayish sociological analysis, if anything that would only serve to add unnecessary and largely irrelevant factors to this question. I have already given you a basic lesson in political science, I will not continue on with this foolishness and lecture you on the finer points of basic data interpretation. If you can be faced with an argument as factually supported as this and simply write it off as being a bunch of empirical data that proves nothing only because you cannot make sense of it, then I honestly do not think it to be possible for you to understand much of any counter point I could provide you with. If we are to get into the 'subject' of sociology, we will get absolutely no where and will likely end up trying to make sense out of some study or another with any definitive results.

In short, the data has been presented to you and I don't care if you can't understand. Your failure to draw basic conclusions from such clear data is not my problem, and it is something which leaves you at fault. I don't give a shit if you fail to see what proof I came up with, as your failure to see it does not make it nonexistent.

[Thirsty Crow]

I honestly do not know how thick you would have to be to not clearly see my point from that data, as it is obvious enough.
You do know what the scientific method entails, don't you?
Hint: it does not entail any kind of reliance on common reason and "obvious" interpretation of facts.
For insance, let's say that I'm an American...you would basically, in your analysis, claim that I am "ignorant and malleable" or a part of that ignorant bunch...because I don't vote (I really do not). And that would mean your entire method has some rather serious explanatory problems (since, quite frankly, I don't consider myself ignorant nor maleable, and yes, I am working class).
If you wish that the political science you refer to retains any kind of credibility with respect to its status as a science - do not, by no means, rely on "obvious facts". It is obvious that half of the electorate does not vote, and further research is needed. What you're engaging in is intellectual laziness, and not a basic lesson in political science.

[thesadmafioso]

You do know what the scientific method entails, don't you?
Hint: it does not entail any kind of reliance on common reason and "obvious" interpretation of facts.
For insance, let's say that I'm an American...you would basically, in your analysis, claim that I am "ignorant and malleable" or a part of that ignorant bunch...because I don't vote (I really do not). And that would mean your entire method has some rather serious explanatory problems (since, quite frankly, I don't consider myself ignorant nor maleable, and yes, I am working class).
If you wish that the political science you refer to retains any kind of credibility with respect to its status as a science - do not, by no means, rely on "obvious facts". It is obvious that half of the electorate does not vote, and further research is needed. What you're engaging in is intellectual laziness, and not a basic lesson in political science.

Ironic, as you seem to be the one intent on interpreting my work in the most literal manner imaginable. Sure, you can levy your poorly articulated and ill supported point of my intellectual laziness from your faulty interpretation of my writing, but the fact still remains that your hollow insult is based on a flawed premises.

Do not try to act as if their is fault in my work simply because you are incapable of properly comprehending it. What you are engaging in is incomprehensible, as your argument has no structure to it and as it is devoid of any real counterpoint to my argument. If you had perhaps taken the time to read my previous comments and to actually understand their contents, we would not be in this position. So spare me the undue attitude of superiority here, it is simply pathetic given the actual content of your counter point. You have time and time again proven yourself incapable of understand my point, and yet you try to paint me as some sort of intellectual inferior to yourself. The irony here is just overwhelming.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do you constantly shy away from real arguments?
Let's try again:

I don't vote. Going by your analysis, and correct me if I'm wrong, that would mean I am part of the apathetic half of the electorate who are ignorant and malleable.
Except that I'm not, generally speaking, ignorant of politics (meaning: I pay attention to them), nor am I apathetic.

Your method does not and cannot account for such occurrences. Which effectively means it lacks the explanatory power.
Why is it so?
Because you wish to steer clear of "unnecessary complications" which would an investigation of other factors include? Sure, it would complicate matters further, but you are not content with that, but you'd rather wish your argument to hold as it is. But it cannot.

Where do I go wrong?

[Hit The North]

Your argument is the definition of reactionary. Honestly, I'm not embarrassed for you as much as I am for Bob the Builder here.

Eh :confused:

[thesadmafioso]

Why do you constantly shy away from real arguments?
Let's try again:

I don't vote. Going by your analysis, and correct me if I'm wrong, that would mean I am part of the apathetic half of the electorate who are ignorant and malleable.
Except that I'm not, generally speaking, ignorant of politics (meaning: I pay attention to them), nor am I apathetic.

Your method does not and cannot account for such occurrences. Which effectively means it lacks the explanatory power.
Why is it so?
Because you wish to steer clear of "unnecessary complications" which would an investigation of other factors include? Sure, it would complicate matters further, but you are not content with that, but you'd rather wish your argument to hold as it is. But it cannot.

Where do I go wrong?

The issue here is that you are not actually going by my analysis, and rather by your skewered and faulty interpretation of my analysis. It goes without saying that my analysis is designed to encompass as many people as possible so as to make it as broadly applicable as possible. I have explained this basic concept before, and it would appear that like those before you in this topic, you are having some difficulty in grasping the variable and flexible nature of my writing. My model has plenty of explanatory power, you simply choose not to use it. Or perhaps you are incapable of using it.

To sum it up into as few words as possible, I don't give a shit about you or if you do not fit perfectly into my model, I am talking about the majority of people and their actions as a part of the political. It is not exact, politics by its very nature is an inexact science.

[Hit The North]

It goes without saying that my analysis is designed to encompass as many people as possible so as to make it as broadly applicable as possible.

Goes without saying? Very convenient that your assertion about your own method is self-evident and doesn't require explanation or justification.


I have explained this basic concept before, and it would appear that like those before you in this topic, you are having some difficulty in grasping the variable and flexible nature of my writing.It's laughable that you walk into this thread making crass and insulting generalisations about the working class, based on no discernible or specific evidence (or any you are willing to specify) and then you describe your writing as "variable and flexible"! By "variable" do you mean that "The people as a whole are nothing but an alterable implement of the intelligentsia", except when they are not? How insightful :lol:.


My model has plenty of explanatory power, you simply choose not to use it. Or perhaps you are incapable of using it. Anyone would be unable to use it, given that your model has absolutely no explanatory power at all. At best it is an uncritical observation based on bourgeois prejudices. Even if your observation that workers are "a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not" was accurate, it would still explain nothing. You have more work to do, I'm afraid.


It is not exact, politics by its very nature is an inexact science.
Maybe so, but in order to be a science it has first to justify its assumptions on the basis of compelling evidence. So far, you've failed to do so in this thread.

Btw, I've just read your blog and it is pure idealism.

[thesadmafioso]

Goes without saying? Very convenient that your assertion about your own method is self-evident and doesn't require explanation or justification.

It's laughable that you walk into this thread making crass and insulting generalisations about the working class, based on no discernible or specific evidence (or any you are willing to specify) and then you describe your writing as "variable and flexible"! By "variable" do you mean that "The people as a whole are nothing but an alterable implement of the intelligentsia", except when they are not? How insightful :lol:.

Anyone would be unable to use it, given that your model has absolutely no explanatory power at all. At best it is an uncritical observation based on bourgeois prejudices. Even if your observation that workers are "a malleable and ignorant bunch more often than not" was accurate, it would still explain nothing. You have more work to do, I'm afraid.

Maybe so, but in order to be a science it has first to justify its assumptions on the basis of compelling evidence. So far, you've failed to do so in this thread.

Btw, I've just read your blog and it is pure idealism.

I really don't feel like walking you through the meaning of my writing sentence by sentence as I have touched on most of your criticism already, but I suppose I could spare you a moment and go over the basics.

In regards to the objective of my own statements, I think that I am fit to discern their intent. How do you expect me to justify the basic concept of making a generalization as fitting and applicable as possible? Is that not how you logically go about doing such? Pardon me for making the dangerous assumption that people may be able to conclude my generalization to of been designed in a broad manner with the basic objective of having it be as usable as possible.

And once more, I was taking statistics directly from a basic college text on political science, and said statistics clearly show a trend of apathy and ignorance in the American populace. Do not make blatantly false accusations like such, it only makes you look foolish. The evidence is there if you chose to view it, do not pretend as if it is not so that you can throw around some baseless claim. And on the matter of the flexibility of said data, what do you expect of an answer to this question exactly? It was designed to clearly have an answer which would have such traits. Don't walk into this threat and act as if I have more work to do when I am the only one here to of provided factual data clearly indicative of a trend which supports my thesis.

You are engaging in the same nonsensical tactics of debate as others have before you, and I honestly grow weary of dealing with them. You accuse me of not providing factual data and say that my stance has no explanatory power behind it in its support, yet all the while such inflammatory comments go unsupported themselves. Am I the only one to see the crushing irony to this whole miserable affair?

You have no authority to just state that I have failed to show compelling evidence to support my claim, especially when you do so without any evidence yourself and regardless of the lengthy and substantial defense which I have made of my point. This discussion has just devolved into a shouting match of who is right and who is wrong, where in I happen to be the only one actually trying to provide a reasonable case for my position. Of course you all drone on about demanding compelling and factual evidence, but even when you are faced with it you still find a pathetic and insultingly blunt way to just ignore it.

Btw, in case you did not already pick up on this trend, as you have proved you have trouble doing so, I will make it painfully clear that I do not care what you think of my blog. Of course it would be skewered by someone with such diluted comprehension skills, is your inability to understand it suppose to come as a shock?

You're a mod though, right? Do you think you could go ahead and ban me? It would make things a lot easier for you, I am sure. Instead of having to read through this dreadful mess of a 'debate' you could just get back to blindly worshiping the might of the proletariat and other important matters. You would be rid of one more voice which is not your own, and your delusional interpretation of this world would be driven another step into its fictitious state of being. Instead of having your unrealistic notions of the working class and its potential threatened by logic you would find your dreams solidified further in a mess of stubborn ignorance.

[milk]

Right, so let's take a look at what we've got shall we? Aside from as yet unsubstantiated claims to objectivity in the expression of well-worn middle class social prejudice, calls to common sense over the condition of the "average working man," we've got one quote from Lenin, and the brief mention of an undergraduate text book (with no mention of title, author/s, methodology) to work on.

You intellectual Titan, you.

[milk]

You do know what the scientific method entails, don't you?

Hint: it does not entail any kind of reliance on common reason and "obvious" interpretation of facts.

His hypothesis has been tested here on RevLeft. You see, all the problems started when malleable members of the working class, who're nothing more than an alterable implement of the intelligentsia, and who in merely and vulgarly expressing the ideas given to them by that intelligentsia, answered him back.

[thesadmafioso]

Right, so let's take a look at what we've got shall we? Aside from as yet unsubstantiated claims to objectivity in the expression of well-worn middle class social prejudice, calls to common sense over the condition of the "average working man," we've got one quote from Lenin, and the brief mention of an undergraduate text book (with no mention of title, author/s, methodology) to work on.

You intellectual Titan, you.

Check the information yourself, I have spent far too much time as it is trying to help you understand this basic concept. I really don't think you are in much of a position to start demanding specific citation when you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your own claims. Of course you don't have to actually argue your position though, because you are right. I am wrong, so I need to go into detail with factual evidence to back up my claims, and even upon doing such I am still wrong because I do not think what you think. You are simply acting out of stubborn ignorance, you have run entirely out of anything which could even remotely be considered to resemble an point to your position, and now you are desperately making pitiful attacks at the legitimacy of my sources. Of course, lets not look at how you have not actually refuted the content of any of my presented sources and that you have only made some pathetic attempt to question there validity. And let us forget how my lengthy responses are generally completely overlooked and brushed off with a few sentences. No, my sources are not applicable here, that must be it, as it is the one argument that isn't an argument which you have at your current disposal. It is just one other option you have for dragging out this discussion and for prolonging your inevitable departure from it in defeat.

You sarcastically praising title, you.

[thesadmafioso]

His hypothesis has been tested here on RevLeft. You see, all the problems started when malleable members of the working class, who're nothing more than an alterable implement of the intelligentsia, and who in merely and vulgarly expressing the ideas given to them by that intelligentsia, answered him back.

Rev left is certainly representative of the working class as a whole, making any conclusion from such a 'test' entirely valid.

[milk]

You haven't provided any sources.

[thesadmafioso]

You haven't provided any sources.

Yes I have, unlike yourself. And it would appear that once more you declined to comment on the substance of my last post, but I suppose that is to be expected from someone such as yourself.

[milk]

Where?

[thesadmafioso]

Where?

Well we have the handful of quotations from Lenin, but of course those are taken out of context despite the fact that they were direct and full quotations which express clear intent. There is also the factor here of unnecessary citation, as a great deal of what I say is more or less composed of common sense and a basic understanding of the impact which capitalism has on the individuals mentality. An obsession with citation when applied to such a context is nothing more than an attempt to drag on an argument through whatever measures possible.

But I will cite the direct factual basis for my analysis, though it is not as if you will really be satisfied by this. It is not so much your issue with citation on display here but rather your issue with being wrong, and this is simply the conduit through which you express your stubborn grip on your ignorance.

Voter turnout rates in US Presidential elections: US Bureau of the Census

Party identification in the US: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, http://people-press.org/party-identification-trend/

Various information on the voting population: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
(Note the significance which educational level has on a voters likelihood to vote)

So there you have it, some very rudimentary sources on the fundamental aspects of modern political science. The information here does not in most any relevant or meaningful way support your position. If you are still having difficult seeing the blatantly obvious trends which are present within this data, then this is more a problem in regards to your own mental capacity. Do not confuse a lack of intellectual ability on your behalf as an argument, it is most pathetic and more importantly it is a waste of my time.

[synthesis]

Eh :confused:

You gave milk a verbal warning for calling TSM a "parrot" whereas your reaction should have been to restrict this guy immediately. I said I was embarrassed for you because it seemed like you hadn't really read TSM's posts but rather just assumed that milk's post was just "flaming" without considering the substance of it. Honestly, on a communist forum people like TSM deserve all the "flaming" that can be mustered.

[Tomhet]

I find it rather ridiculous that 'the people' is a term used so often, as if it is some abstract term that doesn't have relevance to reality..
Behind 'the people' are individuals with individual hopes and dreams AKA real human beings, individual life style is very important. That being said, the people all build and create society, and are all oppressed, unity is absolutely nessesary..

[milk]

Well we have the handful of quotations from Lenin, but of course those are taken out of context despite the fact that they were direct and full quotations which express clear intent. There is also the factor here of unnecessary citation, as a great deal of what I say is more or less composed of common sense and a basic understanding of the impact which capitalism has on the individuals mentality. An obsession with citation when applied to such a context is nothing more than an attempt to drag on an argument through whatever measures possible.

But I will cite the direct factual basis for my analysis, though it is not as if you will really be satisfied by this. It is not so much your issue with citation on display here but rather your issue with being wrong, and this is simply the conduit through which you express your stubborn grip on your ignorance.

Voter turnout rates in US Presidential elections: US Bureau of the Census

Party identification in the US: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, http://people-press.org/party-identification-trend/

Various information on the voting population: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
(Note the significance which educational level has on a voters likelihood to vote)

So there you have it, some very rudimentary sources on the fundamental aspects of modern political science. The information here does not in most any relevant or meaningful way support your position. If you are still having difficult seeing the blatantly obvious trends which are present within this data, then this is more a problem in regards to your own mental capacity. Do not confuse a lack of intellectual ability on your behalf as an argument, it is most pathetic and more importantly it is a waste of my time.

The multi-factorial reasons, briefly summarised in the report as to why people didn't register or vote if registered automatically means working class people are a malleable, inalterable implement of the intelligentsia? So, this can be called a "fundamental aspect of political science." Then why haven't the liberal intelligentsia guided the dumb masses into voting for them, and why is it that the middle class voters see more of personal stake in upholding the mainstream political system and capitalism? With their college educations aside, are they even more dumber than the "average working man" who has, within that data, and with good reason perhaps cynically rejected any participation in it? What were the conclusions of those that did the research?

[milk]

You gave milk a verbal warning for calling TSM a "parrot" whereas your reaction should have been to restrict this guy immediately. I said I was embarrassed for you because it seemed like you hadn't really read TSM's posts but rather just assumed that milk's post was just "flaming" without considering the substance of it. Honestly, on a communist forum people like TSM deserve all the "flaming" that can be mustered.

It's Pseuds Corner. The lack of self-awareness is embarrassing.

[Hit The North]

You gave milk a verbal warning for calling TSM a "parrot" whereas your reaction should have been to restrict this guy immediately. I said I was embarrassed for you because it seemed like you hadn't really read TSM's posts but rather just assumed that milk's post was just "flaming" without considering the substance of it. Honestly, on a communist forum people like TSM deserve all the "flaming" that can be mustered.

Firstly, as a global moderator, I don't have the power to restrict anyone. If you think TSM should be restricted be my guest and raise the issue in the CU forum.

Secondly, milk's initial post was a flame, although I believe he has subsequently wiped the floor with TSM's arguments.

Thirdly, this is a forum in which we can develop our ideas. TSM has raised some very common prejudices about the desire and ability of workers to take control of society and I think that anyone reading this thread will now have some good counter arguments, courtesy of your's, milk's and other's engagement with TSM's posts.

Finally, if you want to raise any other issues about my moderation of this thread, please pm me.

[thesadmafioso]

Firstly, as a global moderator, I don't have the power to restrict anyone. If you think TSM should be restricted be my guest and raise the issue in the CU forum.

Secondly, milk's initial post was a flame, although I believe he has subsequently wiped the floor with TSM's arguments.

Thirdly, this is a forum in which we can develop our ideas. TSM has raised some very common prejudices about the desire and ability of workers to take control of society and I think that anyone reading this thread will now have some good counter arguments, courtesy of your's, milk's and other's engagement with TSM's posts.

Finally, if you want to raise any other issues about my moderation of this thread, please pm me.

Incessant and unrelenting badgering is now equal to wiping the floor with someones argument, makes sense.

The only counter arguments towards my 'common' prejudices are that of dragging on an argument by throwing around irrelevant and poorly formated questions in regards to citation. And how exactly is a realistic political outlook mixed with Marxism common? Liberals have enough trouble being elected in most western nations, let alone Marxists. I think common may be just a bit out of place in its use there.

[thesadmafioso]

The multi-factorial reasons, briefly summarised in the report as to why people didn't register or vote if registered automatically means working class people are a malleable, inalterable implement of the intelligentsia? So, this can be called a "fundamental aspect of political science." Then why haven't the liberal intelligentsia guided the dumb masses into voting for them, and why is it that the middle class voters see more of personal stake in upholding the mainstream political system and capitalism? With their college educations aside, are they even more dumber than the "average working man" who has, within that data, and with good reason perhaps cynically rejected any participation in it? What were the conclusions of those that did the research?

I cited 20 pages of data combined with objective analysis, as well as all other statistics which were used. Most anything else in that post can be deducted from the contents of such data easily enough with a bit of reasoning

What exactly do you think happens in an average election? You have all relevant political parties battling over public opinion, and since it is such a shallow and fickle political variable it is quite common to see dramatic shifts in political direction. Additional education factors into this mix in a way which allows individuals in the 'middle' class more intellectual flexibility in deciding who would best represent their self interest. A lack of college education may in some select instances lead to an outright rejection of the current system by some workers, but it will be weak and unfounded. What you are claiming is just sheer nonsense. We are back to the point where you are falsely rejecting the legitimacy of my sources and where you are taking issue with even the most basic of facts in the name of theatrics. This is just a nice little show you are putting on, it matters not if any of what you say makes sense, but rather that you are saying it in the first place and that you are carrying on the illusion of debate for some of the less knowledgeable individuals of this board.

Perhaps the workers should grab some AK's and go running about shooting anyone wearing glasses next, now that would be revolutionary progress. Down with the intelligentsia, they are worthless and the glorious proletariat will be the shining beacon of revolutionary hope without them. Education and knowledge be dammed, those are tools of the bourgeois. Basic political science, why I have no idea what you are talking about for I am too busy posting on internet forums dreaming of a bunch of revolutionary nonsense.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by thesadmafioso
And how exactly is a realistic political outlook mixed with Marxism common? Liberals have enough trouble being elected in most western nations, let alone Marxists. I think common may be just a bit out of place in its use there. Well, sonny, despite your puffed-up opinion of your own intellectual brilliance, so far your entire argument boils down to the observation that declining political participation in bourgeois elections proves that the working masses are passive, manipulated and ignorant. Now, apart from this reasoning being stupendously simplistic, circular, and devoid of any explanatory power, this is an extremely common bourgeois prejudice perpetrated by the type of academically privileged ignoramuses who populate Anglo-American academia and to whose ranks you obviously hope to join. But it is not a Marxist analysis in any shape or form.

For that you would need to stand with the workers, and not above them.

[milk]

As a member of the Socialist Intelligentsia, what do you make of this study (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Lecture%208.1.pdf) on class and the best part of half a century of voting behaviour in the United States? There doesn't seem to be much of an an impact as far as education is concerned.

Here (http://www.ihs.issaquah.wednet.edu/teachers/ritzerj/ap%20government/ap%20government%202007-2008/previous%20years/ap%20government%202005-2006/chapter%208%20(political%20participation)/piven%20pdf.pdf) is an excerpt from Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward's book, Why Americans Still Don't Vote, which argues, unlike our own self-appointed member of the Socialist Intelligentsia, that the exclusion of the working class (particularly the poorer) from elections is something liked by elite politicians, and who make sure that they are structurally discouraged from participating. It is not down to individual traits (the erroneous conclusion on this thread made by the correlation between education level and voter turn out).

So, then, why do the poor not participate in politics (that is defined as voting and participation in mainstream political activity).

They can be separated into two schools of thought. The first school argues that there is something at fault with the poor themselves, because of their social circumstances, which accounts for their failure to engage.

There are some explanations.

Within this school, there is the contention that a lack of material resources, such as decent income, education, or occupational status, hinder political participation among the poor. And within that people also argue that the poor do not possess the cultural resources, mainly developed through civic participation, that it takes to participate in political activity, and also that the poor do not develop social attitudes such as meaningful self-interest or efficacy.

The second school of thought contends that it is the political system itself which is at fault for the low participation of poor people. Within this, there is the belief that political elites do not seek and indeed desire non-participation in political activity, and make sure that it is possible to structurally discourage them from doing so. There are also serious matters of distrust through experience cultivated among poor people which in turn sees their abstention from voting for others not of their class or circumstances.

Guess which one thesadmafioso belongs too?

[milk]

Well, sonny, despite your puffed-up opinion of your own intellectual brilliance, so far your entire argument boils down to the observation that declining political participation in bourgeois elections proves that the working masses are passive, manipulated and ignorant. Now, apart from this reasoning being stupendously simplistic, circular, and devoid of any explanatory power, this is an extremely common bourgeois prejudice perpetrated by the type of academically privileged ignoramuses who populate Anglo-American academia and to whose ranks you obviously hope to join. But it is not a Marxist analysis in any shape or form.

For that you would need to stand with the workers, and not above them.

Like I said in my first post on this thread, he's merely parroting well-worn and unquestioned middle class social prejudice. It isn't objective and it isn't Marxist.

[thesadmafioso]

As a member of the Socialist Intelligentsia, what do you make of this study (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Lecture%208.1.pdf) on class and the best part of half a century of voting behaviour in the United States? There doesn't seem to be much of an an impact as far as education is concerned.

Here (http://www.ihs.issaquah.wednet.edu/teachers/ritzerj/ap%20government/ap%20government%202007-2008/previous%20years/ap%20government%202005-2006/chapter%208%20(political%20participation)/piven%20pdf.pdf) is an excerpt from Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward's book, Why Americans Still Don't Vote, which argues, unlike our own self-appointed member of the Socialist Intelligentsia, that the exclusion of the working class (particularly the poorer) from elections is something liked by elite politicians, and who make sure that they are structurally discouraged from participating. It is not down to individual traits (the erroneous conclusion on this thread made by the correlation between education level and voter turn out).

So, then, why do the poor not participate in politics (that is defined as voting and participation in mainstream political activity).

They can be separated into two schools of thought. The first school argues that there is something at fault with the poor themselves, because of their social circumstances, which accounts for their failure to engage.

There are some explanations.

Within this school, there is the contention that a lack of material resources, such as decent income, education, or occupational status, hinder political participation among the poor. And within that people also argue that the poor do not possess the cultural resources, mainly developed through civic participation, that it takes to participate in political activity, and also that the poor do not develop social attitudes such as meaningful self-interest or efficacy.

The second school of thought contends that it is the political system itself which is at fault for the low participation of poor people. Within this, there is the belief that political elites do not seek and indeed desire non-participation in political activity, and make sure that it is possible to structurally discourage them from doing so. There are also serious matters of distrust through experience cultivated among poor people which in turn sees their abstention from voting for others not of their class or circumstances.

Guess which one thesadmafioso belongs too?

Once more your counter point fails to account for a multitude of relevant and influential factors present in this equation, thus giving your a terribly faulty conclusion. Various different connections need to be made between these conditions that it would appear you are still forsaking. Education is something of a commodity to most, and as with most any other commodity of a capitalistic society it requires capital to acquire. The current economic structure obviously imposes restriction upon the poor, but to say that 'political elites' do not want these people to vote is just sheer nonsense. This is nothing beyond a gross mischaracterization of the individuals which you are discussion, and it is backed by no logical force. You could reasonably argue that some of the more conservative aspects of the current status quo would have a direct interest in disenfranchising those with less financial means as they generally vote against their immediate interests, but to say that an entire class of political elites holds such an objective is contrary not only to reality but to common sense. No rational actor in the Democratic party would want the poor to be disenfranchised. To argue that something like educational affluence is not a prevailing factor in determining if an individual is likely to vote is simply not true. You are attempting to dispute a solidified reality of the modern political climate, and I really don't know what, if anything could counter your drivel at this point. As I have said before, you are arguing for the sake of argument and it is simply obnoxious.

[milk]

Once more your counter point fails to account for a multitude of relevant and influential factors present in this equation, thus giving your a terribly faulty conclusion. Various different connections need to be made between these conditions that it would appear you are still forsaking. Education is something of a commodity to most, and as with most any other commodity of a capitalistic society it requires capital to acquire. The current economic structure obviously imposes restriction upon the poor, but to say that 'political elites' do not want these people to vote is just sheer nonsense. This is nothing beyond a gross mischaracterization of the individuals which you are discussion, and it is backed by no logical force. You could reasonably argue that some of the more conservative aspects of the current status quo would have a direct interest in disenfranchising those with less financial means as they generally vote against their immediate interests, but to say that an entire class of political elites holds such an objective is contrary not only to reality but to common sense. No rational actor in the Democratic party would want the poor to be disenfranchised. To argue that something like educational affluence is not a prevailing factor in determining if an individual is likely to vote is simply not true. You are attempting to dispute a solidified reality of the modern political climate, and I really don't know what, if anything could counter your drivel at this point. As I have said before, you are arguing for the sake of argument and it is simply obnoxious.

I haven't said an entire political class. Have you actually read the studies? Why is it sheer nonsense? I believe the research has been much more thorough than your own. And it is you who has talked of just one factor, education. I haven't denied that access to formal education is a factor in mainstream political activity. The correlation, I point out, is not at all what you make it appear. That is, because poor people don't go to college and don't vote, automatically means they are intellectually subnormal. What methodology have you been using specifically? Aside from "common sense." What do you disagree with, about the ones used in the above studies?

"This is nothing beyond a gross mischaracterization of the individuals which you are discussion."

You mean when you talk of the "average working man."

[thesadmafioso]

I haven't said an entire political class. Have you actually read the studies? Why is it sheer nonsense? I believe the research has been much more thorough than your own. And it is you who has talked of just one factor, education. I haven't denied that access to formal education is a factor in mainstream political activity. The correlation, I point out, is not at all what you make it appear. That is, because poor people don't go to college and don't vote, automatically means they are intellectually subnormal. What methodology have you been using specifically? Aside from "common sense." What do you disagree with, about the ones used in the above studies?

"This is nothing beyond a gross mischaracterization of the individuals which you are discussion."

You mean when you talk of the "average working man."

"that political elites..." quite clearly implies that you were referring to a broad and relatively large class of political elites. Perhaps it would be wise for you to learn some of the more basic conventions of written language so you can properly convey you intent. And I was focusing on education as that in particular seems to be a controversial topic here, I was not by any measure denying the relevance of other factors in determining if an individual is likely to vote or not. I also never said that the analysis I provided was absolute, presuming you to be literate you already know this too. So why must I constantly remind you of such. The basic fact of a statement not being applicable in every situation is one that was to be assumed from the start. As was the logic of this fundamental fact not being used as a counter point against my analysis, because the existence of something counter to a point does not disprove it. To assume such is to show a reckless disregard for reason in a blind pursuit of argumentation.

I also did happen to look through the study, and the results seem rather inconclusive. I am not questioning the relevance to class in regards to politics, so it really doesn't help your point much.

[synthesis]

Firstly, as a global moderator, I don't have the power to restrict anyone. If you think TSM should be restricted be my guest and raise the issue in the CU forum.

Secondly, milk's initial post was a flame, although I believe he has subsequently wiped the floor with TSM's arguments.

Thirdly, this is a forum in which we can develop our ideas. TSM has raised some very common prejudices about the desire and ability of workers to take control of society and I think that anyone reading this thread will now have some good counter arguments, courtesy of your's, milk's and other's engagement with TSM's posts.

Finally, if you want to raise any other issues about my moderation of this thread, please pm me.

No, no issues. Fair points all around. I didn't really mean that you should have directly restricted him, just that warning milk for "flaming" seemed out of place. I think if there are any viewpoints towards which one should automatically expect hostility on this forum, it would be those of TSM.

[synthesis]

The current economic structure obviously imposes restriction upon the poor, but to say that 'political elites' do not want these people to vote is just sheer nonsense.

I notice you seem to have much more positive things to say about "political elites" than you do about "the average working man."

[thesadmafioso]

I notice you seem to have much more positive things to say about "political elites" than you do about "the average working man."

I notice that you have a rather prominent tendency to notice nonexistent aspects of my stance on this matter. Simply recognizing something for what it is cannot be considered an endorsement of support, one would think basic logic like that would be assumed without direct reference.

[milk]

"that political elites..." quite clearly implies that you were referring to a broad and relatively large class of political elites. Perhaps it would be wise for you to learn some of the more basic conventions of written language so you can properly convey you intent. And I was focusing on education as that in particular seems to be a controversial topic here, I was not by any measure denying the relevance of other factors in determining if an individual is likely to vote or not. I also never said that the analysis I provided was absolute, presuming you to be literate you already know this too. So why must I constantly remind you of such. The basic fact of a statement not being applicable in every situation is one that was to be assumed from the start. As was the logic of this fundamental fact not being used as a counter point against my analysis, because the existence of something counter to a point does not disprove it. To assume such is to show a reckless disregard for reason in a blind pursuit of argumentation.

I also did happen to look through the study, and the results seem rather inconclusive. I am not questioning the relevance to class in regards to politics, so it really doesn't help your point much.

You see some significance of formal education and its correlation with participation in elections as somehow proof of the limited capacities of working class people.

Which results did you find inconclusive in the above study, specifically? What did you make of the multivariate analyses?

I wasn't talking of a class of political elites. There is no such thing. Rather political elites come from an economically-generated social class and reproduce their privilege and power.

You have no analysis. It's pure sophistry. Let's face it, all you've mustered so far is one quote from Lenin, and some statistical data provided by the US government to back up your subjectivity with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Do you seriously believe yourself to be an intellectual?

[thesadmafioso]

You see some significance of formal education and its correlation with participation in elections as somehow proof of the limited capacities of working class people.

Which results did you find inconclusive in the above study, specifically? What did you make of the multivariate analyses?

I wasn't talking of a class of political elites. There is no such thing. Rather political elites come from an economically-generated social class and reproduce their privilege and power.

You have no analysis. It's pure sophistry. Let's face it, all you've mustered so far is one quote from Lenin, and some statistical data provided by the US government to back up your subjectivity with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Do you seriously believe yourself to be an intellectual?

Your failure to comprehend the nature of my analysis is not equatable to a lack of analysis. And you never refuted any of my provided information, namely that except from Lenin's work What is to be Done. Why must you continue to persist with your unfounded claims in regards to citation? They are clearly of no relevance and they are nothing more than a pitiful attempt to draw the course of debate away from your arguments many failings.

Do you seriously believe yourself to be taken seriously when you use cheese based metaphors to defend yourself? Do you believe yourself to be in a position to be questioning most anyone of their intellectual capacity when you are prone to such pathetic attempts at insult?

[Hit The North]

Your failure to comprehend the nature of my analysis is not equatable to a lack of analysis.

It's like the Emperor's New Clothes: "Just because you all think I'm naked doesn't prove I'm not wearing the finest suit known to man."

So why don't you tell us what the "nature" of your analysis is?

[thesadmafioso]

It's like the Emperor's New Clothes: "Just because you all think I'm naked doesn't prove I'm not wearing the finest suit known to man."

So why don't you tell us what the "nature" of your analysis is?

Why bother? I tried just that a while ago, and that didn't exactly work out. This discussion has devolved to a point where any such attempt would be to engage in a futile endeavour.

[milk]

You're a pseud TSM. I pity your lack of self-awareness.