Hello!

[Pessimist]

Greetings Revleft,

I am a long time lurker who finally decided to sign up as I seen many threads where I feel like I would like to throw in my two cents...or two one-hundredths of a labour-voucher unit :)

About me: I'm a 25 year old Canadian guy. I really thought I would have more to say than that...but unless there are any questions people have I am apparently incredibly boring.

As my name username suggests, I am not optimistic about the prospects of socialism. I am a socialist, but I am pretty much at the point where I don't believe it will *ever happen. I don't really have a tendency and I'm not very well read, even with Marx I have only read a bit. I have been struggling with Capital. On the question of reform vs. revolution (which I know is an OI vs. not-OI issue for Revleft), I am agnostic. I would support whatever seems likeliest to happen, although I don't think either is likely at all. I would love to be wrong!

*When I say "ever" I mean in what I would consider a reasonable span given how long feudalism lasted.

I'm quite ashamed of my previous political views. I used to be a right-libertarian/lolbertarian. A gradual accumulation of issues that this ideology couldn't solve (starting with the environment and education) moved me away from it. I became a liberal for a while, and moved leftward ever since.

I'm not sure how frequent a poster I will be, but I hope to get to know you all better.

[Quail]

Hello, welcome to revleft :)

[Pessimist]

Thank you!

[Prometeo liberado]

Welcome Comrade!

[Manic Impressive]

I am a socialist, but I am pretty much at the point where I don't believe it will *ever happen. I don't really have a tendency and I'm not very well read, even with Marx I have only read a bit. I have been struggling with Capital.
I made the mistake of reading capital too early in my development. I really consider it a mistake as my knowledge about everything else wasn't good enough. That means I didn't get as clear an understanding of it as I would if i read it for the first time now. It also means that I've had to go back over a lot of it. Essentially having to do twice the work.


On the question of reform vs. revolution (which I know is an OI vs. not-OI issue for Revleft), I am agnostic. I would support whatever seems likeliest to happen, although I don't think either is likely at all. I would love to be wrong!
Don't worry reformism is not contained within OI. I would say that it's a majority view on Revleft that reforms must be worked for before revolution becomes possible. They're wrong as any reforms won will need a sizeable backing in order to win them. As the backing has been for winning the reform and not for socialism support drops off once it's achieved. People get a sense of we won what we were fighting for and are contented by the results. Once the support has died down, maybe the generation who won the reform have passed the ruling class will have either adapted the reform to suit their interests or will revoke the reform as the support of workers is no longer able to maintain it. That's been the result of every labour movement reformist struggle. Failure or unsustainable short term success. In the end the only way to tackle the problems we face as workers is to tackle the source rather than trying to plug the leaks.


*When I say "ever" I mean in what I would consider a reasonable span given how long feudalism lasted
I don't think this is an unreasonable view and I think it is shared by most, I'd worry more if nobody had doubts. The thing to consider when comparing capitalism to past modes of production is what made the change in production possible. Changes become possible when the growth of technology permits it. The growth of technology speeds up due to the accumulation of all previous knowledge. So looking at hunter gatherer societies they lasted almost 200,000 years as we were starting from scratch. Slave societies lasted 3,500 years a considerably shorter amount of time when compared with the last. Feudalism lasted about 1,100 years and capitalism has existed a few of hundred but in that comparatively short time has advanced the means by which we produce to make it possible to progress to something else. This will only be possible when socialism is the goal of the revolutionary class and that will only happen when the vast majority of the working class realizes that this change is in their interests and not reforms or any other ideas caused by false consciousness. That's certainly a daunting task and the cause of most of the pessimism. Although to make a comparison in how opinions can change over a relatively short period of time we can take a look at the last hundred years and how the attitudes towards race, gender and sexuality have changed dramatically, where, in most advanced urban cities these antiquated prejudices no longer have the same importance as they used to. Imagine a "mixed marriage" 50 years ago or a same sex relationship 75 years ago or women going out to work or having the right to vote 100 years ago. I would say the vast majority of people would no longer have a problem with any of these things. The majority opinion can completely reverse within a generation.

The question which faces socialists (and what we all argue about) is can we help to speed up this process and if so how?

p.s. welcome to Revleft

[Pessimist]

Thank you both for the welcome.

Ratty Monster, you make a good point about reformism. But if you take it further (and I'm not saying we should), doesn't it also suggest a strategy of "the worse, the better"? After all, it seems (at least to me) like false consciousness has been more rampant since the development of the welfare state and the partial acceptance of unions. There is a narrative accepted by a large chunk of the population that the problems faced by society are a result of being too far left rather than too far right (let alone the existence of capitalism).

With regard to changing attitudes - yes, you're right, but on the economy I have only lived through a period of moving backwards. I may be taking too short-sighted a view of it though.

(I hope that having this discussion in the intro forum is not a problem)

[Manic Impressive]

Ratty Monster, you make a good point about reformism. But if you take it further (and I'm not saying we should), doesn't it also suggest a strategy of "the worse, the better"? After all, it seems (at least to me) like false consciousness has been more rampant since the development of the welfare state and the partial acceptance of unions. There is a narrative accepted by a large chunk of the population that the problems faced by society are a result of being too far left rather than too far right (let alone the existence of capitalism).
Of course no one wants things to get worse, but things will get worse, then they might get a little better, then probably worse again. When examining reforms we should look at what the interest is for the capitalist, since after all they are the only one's with the power to enact the reforms. So whether reforms are beneficial to workers makes very little difference to the capitalist. Nationalization is often argued to be in the working classes interest and to the detriment of the capitalist. However, when nationalizations have occurred they've been in the interests of capital. Either breaking up monopolies which have too much power over rival capitalists or to take on the role of the capitalist when they do not have sufficient strength or capital to develop those industries. There are of course benefits for workers from these reforms but also detriments. Reforms being tailored to the benefit of the capitalist really makes the left/right narrative defunct as a reform that is too left wing is really code for this reform no longer serves the interest of capital. Until we workers are in control of our own productive forces we do not have the power to implement ideas that benefit us. The only way we get the power to serve our own interests is by taking control of the productive forces and the state that enforces a class dictatorship upon us.

When looking at reform vs revolution or even fighting against the effects of capitalism you should take a look at value price and profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm)particularly the last couple of chapters. Here Marx explains that while labour unions are effective at fighting against the negative effects of capitalism they fail at ever challenging the cause of the problem.


At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"




With regard to changing attitudes - yes, you're right, but on the economy I have only lived through a period of moving backwards. I may be taking too short-sighted a view of it though.

(I hope that having this discussion in the intro forum is not a problem)
I think we should learn from history, learn from the defeats of past movements and attempts of workers fighting against capitalism and it's encroachments and always remember what Einstein said.

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

also you might find these articles interesting for their analysis of certain reforms

nationalization (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1882/06/socnat.htm)

welfare state (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/beveridge-re-organises-poverty)

[Pessimist]

Of course no one wants things to get worse, but things will get worse, then they might get a little better, then probably worse again. When examining reforms we should look at what the interest is for the capitalist, since after all they are the only one's with the power to enact the reforms. So whether reforms are beneficial to workers makes very little difference to the capitalist.

I agree but would ad that there is one other consideration, and it is a great source of my pessimism: reforms -whether beneficial or damaging to workers- are also designed, I think, with a consideration to how it will impact worker political leanings and class consciousness. If the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie then isn't it safe to assume a high level of class consciousness among them, or at least among those that bother with state policy? If so, and considering that they do possess the power to give and to take through reform and that they also control how these events will be framed in the media, the whole thing seems impossible. Through a gradual process over decades they can create and destroy reforms over and over again, never letting the conflict burn to hot but never giving enough room for workers (en masse) to realize this is a dead end.

I read the articles and they were very interesting. The Beveridge article particularly, because I was unaware of that viewpoint of it existing at the time. Yes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but how do we break this cycle? Even if capitalists were not in power they would have a much simpler task than we do because it's much less difficult to organize a minority than a majority that doesn't even see itself as one thing.

[LeonJWilliams]

Welcome!