Justify your leftist tendency to Working Class

[Anderson]

Why do you think the working class should accept your adopted leftist tendency above all other tendencies - to organize and capture power? Any successes so for?

In case you are not interested in working class take over then also you can write your opinion on social change as some funny concepts are good for mind when we do serious work.:thumbup1:

[Anderson]

For example what do trotskyists tell a new working class recruit ...

[Ele'ill]

I think this has a slight chance of being productive if we aim for the simplest one on one talking points used to talk to other workers about our tendency. Keep sectarian rebuttals out and keep trollish one liners out of this thread.

[Zav]

Ehh, I don't have the best track record with promoting Anarchism, but I'll give it a go.
Anarchy allows a just and free society where all people's needs are taken care of and the endless journey toward utopia is uninhibited.

[Caj]

The working class won't adopt any specific tendency.

[MotherCossack]

Why do you think the working class should accept your adopted leftist tendency above all other tendencies - to organize and capture power? Any successes so for?

:thumbup1:

because.... excuse me....
them super rich fucks have been sharing out all the best stuff between themselves and keeping the likes of us in ignorant misery, by various dubious means of prole control.
their lives are all super sweet good times and ours are total shite by comparison.
they never share.
are not playing fair,
and really dont care

the state is their machine
it sucks us in
chews us up
and spits what is left out.

we comply
we support
we turn a blind eye
work for a while
and then we die

there are lots more of us

sitting in rows wagging our tails
like well trained dogs

in an instant we could break this world
their world
and make a new one, a better one, and share it all.

[honest john's firing squad]

The working class won't adopt any specific tendency.
To add to this, the working class probably won't even think of itself as 'communist'. If it does, then we've probably done something very very wrong.

[00001]

If it does, then we've probably done something very very wrong.

why? :confused:

[honest john's firing squad]

why? :confused:
Because the only way I see this happening is if an official Communist Party initiates a campaign of proselytizing to the working class.

Besides, ideas don't make revolutions anyway. Converting workers to communism should not be any sort of goal.

[00001]

Because the only way I see this happening is if an official Communist Party initiates a campaign of proselytizing to the working class.

why? do you think working class people are too dense to ever be able to grasp, on a conscious level, what it is that they are actually fighting for?

[honest john's firing squad]

why? do you think working class people are too dense to ever be able to grasp, on a conscious level, what it is that they are actually fighting for?
The working class would obviously grasp that they would be fighting for production for use not profit, etc. and to have a system of governance under their control which thus solely acts in accordance with their own interests (I could probably articulate myself better here but I don't think it's a major concern), but I have extreme doubts they will use terms like 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', &c. or adopt Marx's method as their own or even consider that they would be in the same tradition as M&E. As a result, I don't think that many of those individuals would apply the label 'communist' to themselves.

[Rooster]

why? do you think working class people are too dense to ever be able to grasp, on a conscious level, what it is that they are actually fighting for?

It's because people don't need to. And they're smart enough not to need to.

[00001]

It's because people don't need to. And they're smart enough not to need to.

wat

[Rooster]

wat

Marxism isn't a program. It's not a set of guidelines on what to do and what not to do. It's just an analytical method that describes general processes. The proletariat doesn't need marxism or any tendency to become class concious.

[00001]

er... I never said anything about 'marxism'. but I think part of becoming 'class conscious', at a certain point, is the advanced sections of the working class becoming consciously communist, and the whole notion that all of this will happen unconsciously or by accident, or the idea that the working class actually cant become communist or whatever or else SOMETHING IS WRONG, is IMO actually just an expression of some middle class student prejudices toward working class people.

[Blake's Baby]

Why do you think 'don't need to' is the same as 'can't'?

[Anarpest]

I assume that the working class would at least become 'communist' as they progress in having to implement socialism, even if they won't at the beginning of a revolution? I agree that all of the reasons which have been given to persuade the working class probably have been already, and as such it's unlikely that the working class is suddenly going to take notice of them and convert to a tendency before beginning an uprising.

[roy]

er... I never said anything about 'marxism'. but I think part of becoming 'class conscious', at a certain point, is the advanced sections of the working class becoming consciously communist, and the whole notion that all of this will happen unconsciously or by accident, or the idea that the working class actually cant become communist or whatever or else SOMETHING IS WRONG, is IMO actually just an expression of some middle class student prejudices toward working class people.

No one has stated that workers can't become communists. Many on this website are working class and most outside of OI are communists. I don't see how thinking that the proletariat can liberate itself indepedently is an expression of anti-worker prejudice whatsoever; quite the opposite, in fact.

[Omsk]

How would i?That is the job of the party,not one individual.

[MotherCossack]

why? do you think working class people are too dense to ever be able to grasp, on a conscious level, what it is that they are actually fighting for?


my 44 years tells me....
the majority...
will never see...
how it could be.

they need to see a telling show
about the way to overthrow
and there's more they need to know
before we can all have a go.


someone should explain
there is a world we could gain
we should all share.... it is that plain...
no one will get none ever again.

see that fancy rich stage coach,
watch it as it does approach
that stuff belongs to us
lets unload their bloody bus

at last we have made a start
this is only the first part
their mean world we'll take apart
leave them with a little cart
and make them humbly depart

then the work will begin...
to build a better world to live in...

[Tim Cornelis]

If the working class does not consciously adopts a communist programme, aiming at a classless, stateless, moneyless society, any working class revolution will end up like 'Argentine' 2002: the workers will here and there expropriate some factories and organise some workers' councils as well as popular assemblies, but in the end capitalism will come out on top.

[Ocean Seal]

If the working class does not consciously adopts a communist programme, aiming at a classless, stateless, moneyless society, any working class revolution will end up like 'Argentine' 2002: the workers will here and there expropriate some factories and organise some workers' councils as well as popular assemblies, but in the end capitalism will come out on top.
What? I don't think so.

Anyway I think that this thread is a good idea. If I were to speak to someone on the street and try to get them to join whatever little group I was part of I'd just try to be honest. Obama's bombs in Libya are keeping you from having better education and public services. Then of course, explain to him/her what I think, and hopefully after enough education maybe I can learn something from this new comrade.

[tachosomoza]

A sizeable percentage of the working class still has a stereotypical, McCarthyist, Red Dawn view of communism. For fucks sake, don't bring out loaded words like "bourgeois", "fascist", or the like. And don't mention the USSR.

[Anderson]

I find it relatively easy to convince a working class for revolution, compared to petty bourgeois / middle class
It is even better is the person talking for revolution belongs to working class and talks from the strength of personal experiences

[Luís Henrique]

We do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties and tendencies.

We have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

We do not set up any sectarian principles of our own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

We are distinguished from the other working-class parties and tendencies by this only:
1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, we try to point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, we always and everywhere seek to represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

Any "justification" beyond this, extracted from the Communist Manifesto, is in our opinion sectarian and divisionist.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Cornelis]

What? I don't think so.

Sure it will. If the working class does not consciously aim at a stateless, classless, moneyless society they will not strive to create a stateless, classles, moneyless society. At best, they will expropriate some factories and workplaces, organise workers' and popular assembly, but without directly challenging exchange, markets, and competition, a working class revolution without explicit communist programme will not achieve communism.

Communism cannot be organised without the workers knowing what it entails.

[Ocean Seal]

Sure it will. If the working class does not consciously aim at a stateless, classless, moneyless society they will not strive to create a stateless, classles, moneyless society. At best, they will expropriate some factories and workplaces, organise workers' and popular assembly, but without directly challenging exchange, markets, and competition, a working class revolution without explicit communist programme will not achieve communism.

Communism cannot be organised without the workers knowing what it entails.
I disagree, the workers do not need to know what they are doing during the overthrow of capital, if anything they will need to become aware of the socialist alternative after the means of production are in their hands, and such a progression will flow naturally, as there will be no other choice than to self-manage once they have expropriated all of the managers. I don't think that they need to understand the crises of capital, or why the revolution happened, or even what it means to be socialist (something that I think most leftists including myself barely understand).

[Tim Cornelis]

I disagree, the workers do not need to know what they are doing during the overthrow of capital, if anything they will need to become aware of the socialist alternative after the means of production are in their hands, and such a progression will flow naturally, as there will be no other choice than to self-manage once they have expropriated all of the managers. I don't think that they need to understand the crises of capital, or why the revolution happened, or even what it means to be socialist (something that I think most leftists including myself barely understand).

Correct. Maybe 'Argentine' was a little too pessimistic. But even when the workers expropriate all workplaces, then you still end up with market socialism. The workers will fire their bosses and manage their own factories and workplaces, but they need to have more than just a superficial understanding of "socialism," they need to consciously aim at abolishing money.

Do you believe, then, that the workers, who not even identify as socialist, will abolish money for no apparent reason? What will motivate the workers to abolish money if they do not follow a communist programme?

[ACAB]

justify shit

Justify your shite pointless thread Brah:rolleyes:

[daft punk]

I think this has a slight chance of being productive if we aim for the simplest one on one talking points used to talk to other workers about our tendency. Keep sectarian rebuttals out and keep trollish one liners out of this thread.

oh come on, where's the fun in that?

[daft punk]

For example what do trotskyists tell a new working class recruit ...

I Anderson. There are different Trotskyists, so I can only speak unofficially for the CWI.

We don't tell new people anything about Trotsky to start with. We talk about the cuts, capitalism, global warming, the need for socialism.

Sooner or later the new interested worker will say 'what about Russia? It was a pile of shit wasnt it?'

We will say it actually had a very fast growing economy, thanks to the planned economy, but ultimately it was doomed, thanks to the dictatorship. It was not socialist. It started degenerating in the mid 1920s because of it's isolation in a backward country.

The worker will then say 'right, I see, cool, where do I sign?'

Job's a good 'un.

[daft punk]

A sizeable percentage of the working class still has a stereotypical, McCarthyist, Red Dawn view of communism. For fucks sake, don't bring out loaded words like "bourgeois", "fascist", or the like. And don't mention the USSR.

And what do you say when they say 'what about the USSR?'

[daft punk]

If the working class does not consciously adopts a communist programme, aiming at a classless, stateless, moneyless society, any working class revolution will end up like 'Argentine' 2002: the workers will here and there expropriate some factories and organise some workers' councils as well as popular assemblies, but in the end capitalism will come out on top.

You are supposed to be explaining how you put it to the worker on the street.

So in your case is it something like...

'We should all give up money tomorrow and get rid of all money. Get rid of the police and army. Get rid of the government. Get rid of the rich. Then we can all live happily ever after'.

Does it sound credible?

[daft punk]

the workers do not need to know what they are doing

I dont quote the bible very often but this does remind me of the blind leading the blind.

[Tim Cornelis]

You are supposed to be explaining how you put it to the worker on the street.

So in your case is it something like...

'We should all give up money tomorrow and get rid of all money. Get rid of the police and army. Get rid of the government. Get rid of the rich. Then we can all live happily ever after'.

Does it sound credible?

Use different words I'd say, but still explicitly explain that communism is necessary.

For example,

<state problems with capitalism here>

Therefore we need production carried out for needs, or at the very least use labour-points.

More democracy is better than less democracy, so we should have workplace democracy. And while we're at it, why not have popular assemblies in your neighbourhood?

Then you very briefly touch upon the classless, stateless, moneyless nature of communism, without saying:

"Abolish prisons, police, the state, and money!"

[daft punk]

So what about your next discussion? You believe communism will happen how exactly?

[Martin Blank]

Normally, we don't have to justify ourselves. About 99 percent of the people who are members of the Workers Party in America came to us; we didn't go to them. (There is only one person we actively sought to recruit, and that was Ed Clark [aka RedStar2000], who was a Party member until his passing.) We let our media and the activity of our members speak for us. And since we are all workers, we don't have to put on a dog-and-pony show. We just do our work at our workplaces and in our neighborhoods, and the rest falls into place.

[x359594]

I approach fellow workers with the notion that labor is entitled to all it produces and move on to the idea that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. I talk about direct action and solidarity. These propositions generate discussion and if nothing else get people thinking.

It's the petty bourgeoisie that's hard to reach in my experience. They seem to identify with the rich and imagine that if only they work hard enough and save their money, with a little luck they'll enter the ranks of the capitalist class. These are the people who fall for "get rich quick" schemes like no money down real estate seminars, courses in how to play the stock market, AmWay and "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" classes.

[Angry Young Man]

By applying Marxism to today's current affairs and explaining our standpoint in the simplest terms.

Gotta love the Transitional Programme.

[The Idler]

We say the working class are capable of emancipating themselves and act to hasten the end of capitalism. We're more open and democratic than any other organisation. We are accused of impossibilism but have lasted longer than all other tendencies.

[Anderson]

I disagree, the workers do not need to know what they are doing during the overthrow of capital, if anything they will need to become aware of the socialist alternative after the means of production are in their hands, and such a progression will flow naturally, as there will be no other choice than to self-manage once they have expropriated all of the managers. I don't think that they need to understand the crises of capital, or why the revolution happened, or even what it means to be socialist (something that I think most leftists including myself barely understand).:thumbdown:

Working class is not dependent on any brand of leftists to gift them revolution. If at all revolution will happen it will be planned, executed and led by working class.

[Fawkes]

This is an outline of what I say to my co-workers when the topic is brought up, however, it can pretty easily be applied to people that I don't work with. I doubt I would actually say all of this at once, think of it more as a collection of specific talking points depending on the situation

For the sake of anonymity, I'll refer to my bosses as Jack and Bob

oh yeah, I work in a restaurant


"If Jack and Bob didn't come to work for a week, what would happen? Nothing, everything would go on as normal. But if we didn't come to work for a week, everything would stop. Jack and Bob wouldn't make any money because nobody would be buying food cause there would be no one to make it for them.

All of the money that Jack and Bob make is money they've literally stolen from us. If people are willing to pay $10 for a [blank], that means people are willing to pay $10 for something that we produced collectively. But that $10 isn't split up evenly among us, we only get a fraction of it. The rest goes to Jack and Bob who claim it as "profit". They can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that it's money they stole from us.

They can try to justify profit as a reward for the risk they took by investing a lot of money into the company, but what happens if the company does collapse? Maybe Jack and Bob would lose a lot of money. We wouldn't lose a lot of money though because we never had a lot of money in the first place because it was being stolen from us the entire time we worked here. What's riskier, investing a lot of money with the potential of making even more money, or working for a wage that doesn't even give you enough money to buy health insurance if you get sick or a home in a neighborhood where you don't have to worry about getting beat up or killed?

Jack and Bob claim that this restaurant and everything we make in it is "theirs". How is it theirs when we're the ones who make the food using ingredients grown by farm workers, packaged by distribution workers, and delivered by truck drivers? We make the food in a restaurant built by architects, construction workers, and interior designers. We make the food using equipment designed, manufactured, and transported by workers. And all of this, from the restaurant to the stoves to the rice is the result of thousands of years worth of development by workers just like us.

We don't need Jack and Bob. We're the ones who actually make the food, schedule deliveries, interact with customers on a daily basis, in other words, we're the ones who know how to run this restaurant. We can do it better without their bullshit meddling anyway."

[Revolution starts with U]

I can easily justify my tendency. It goes like this: "because the evidence has lead me to this conclusion... for now."

[Geiseric]

to defend my "tendency," means to defend Marxism against reformists and opportunists who've ruined its good name. Well not "good," but respectable with most of the working class, which equates Stalinism with Communism.