How to win workers for the cause?

[Pleb]

In my experience there are not enough workers invloved in left politics.

In 500 words, how would you win the people?

EDIT *In a language the people can understand.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In my experience there are not enough workers invloved in left politics.

In 500 words, how would you win the people?

EDIT *In a language the people can understand.

By making revolutionary politics relevant to people who are struggling along class lines or against oppression. Not only in the rhelm of ideas but in practical action - helping people organize themselves and fight for their interests as workers.

Radical politics, in my view, only become widely adopted when people are widely struggling. Marxism or revolutionary anarchism can't help people very much if they are only trying to survive as induviduals with the conditions thrown at them, it won't help people find a job or pay rent. But if people are struggling and want to fight the landloards in trying to raise rent or fight their bosses who are trying to make cuts, then revolutionary ideas do have a practical use and describe the sorts of issues that people in those situations are dealing with. It's not automatic because people can and often first turn to refomist attempts, but struggles can potentially create space for people to radicalize and this process can be helped when already radicalized workers are part of those efforts and trying to argue for ideas and strategies that can help people win the gains they are fighting for in the immediate sense but also helps people develop their own understanding of the system, how to organize themselves, how to be their own political leaders.

[Rurkel]

Relentlessly, tirelessly and consistently denounce liberal-bourgeois-humanist-social-democratic-cryptopacifist-pseudoleftist ideology when you find a worker expressing it. This will greatly improve the socialist consciousness.

[Tim Cornelis]

Workers don't come to socialism because it is ethically or morally superior, although on some superficial level they will understand social justice, so the sole agitation of "ending oppression and exploitation!" isn't really productive. We need to organise, educate, and agitate workers while most left sects merely agitate and hope that this will draw in supporters.

Through struggling for socially relevant concrete political demands and use this as catalyst for comprehensive communist politics. In much of the West this would consist of forming solidarity networks and committees that struggle for reachable immediate goals and use these as means of organisation, to educate workers.

We see that mass movements like the Zapatistas, Landless Workers Movement, and the Abahlali baseMjondolo fight for immediate and concrete goals namely land and housing respectively. We also see them building a much broader politics around these aims. It is through immediate interests that we can attract workers and educate them.

This text can be helpful: http://libcom.org/library/you-say-you-want-build-solidarity-network

Solidarity networks deploy direct action to achieve immediate aims against landlords and employers and therewith emphasise different class interests of those involved, which facilitates class consciousness. It also teaches we don't have to rely on the state, government, or bureaucratic unions to do the bidding for us, and thus fosters a mentality of self-organisation. Solidarity networks establish a positive image in working class communities and create some 'brand recognition' so that in times when socialism becomes relevant (that is, potentially revolutionary periods) we already have established a positive name for ourselves as well as infrastructure which allows us more easily to push workers' struggles in a more revolutionary direction.

[Taters]

Relentlessly, tirelessly and consistently denounce liberal-bourgeois-humanist-social-democratic-cryptopacifist-pseudoleftist ideology when you find a worker expressing it. This will greatly improve the socialist consciousness.

You're gonna need an acronym for that. It doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Also, I dunno how that'll help the whole class consciousness thing.

[slum]

You're gonna need an acronym for that. It doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Also, I dunno how that'll help the whole class consciousness thing.

After careful perusal of Rurkel's posts in other threads, I am 87.3% certain that he is being sarcastic.

[bcbm]

In my experience there are not enough workers invloved in left politics.

In 500 words, how would you win the people?


i wouldnt

[Taters]

After careful perusal of Rurkel's posts in other threads, I am 87.3% certain that he is being sarcastic.

I thought it might have been. In any case, it's not especially funny. Or maybe that's just my cryptopacificist liberalism showing.

[Drosophila]

There's no good reason to do this. "Left politics" is such a vague and general set of beliefs that have no practical value to anyone. Revolution is spontaneous and uncontrollable. It is neither the business nor ability of leftists to educate the masses.

"In a language the people can understand" is also a rather elitist and pedantic strategy. But, of course, that's a cornerstone of leftism.

[l'Enfermé]

There's no good reason to do this. "Left politics" is such a vague and general set of beliefs that have no practical value to anyone. Revolution is spontaneous and uncontrollable.
Sounds like a very convenient excuse to claim sympathy with socialism while doing nothing to show for it(besides playing video games and smoking weed all day long).

But yes I'm sure that some day, maybe even tomorrow, socialism will spontaneously prevail without any effort on the part of socialist workers. It's been what, 350 years since the bourgeoisie first prevailed in England, no? Maybe we'll wait for 350 more and socialism will just drop upon our heads. As if through witchcraft. Meanwhile, there is that new Fallout game coming out, that should keep us busy.

It is neither the business nor ability of leftists to educate the masses.I couldn't agree more comrade. It is not our business to spread socialist ideas to the lumpens, peasants, the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, who make up the majority of "the masses". These classes are not revolutionary and the vast majority of their defectors to our cause would only serve to dilute the movement, with very few exceptions(like Marx and Engels, obviously - but these are exceptions, and exceptions from a long-gone era, to seek comrades in the ranks of the non-revolutionary classes in this day and age would be, I think, without doubt, reactionary, and quite unnecessary too, when in the modern age our class(I say "our" but I don't actually know which class you belong to) is more educated and literate than ever before, in the modern age where the proletariat can furnish all the intellectual fighters it requires from within it's ranks without resorting to seeking aid from well-meaning petty-bourgeois intellectuals). But socialist workers educating their comrade-workers who have not yet caught up with their level of development, that is not only desirable but necessary also, more necessary than ever before.

Either that, or we wait for the benevolent bourgeoisie to hand knowledge of scientific socialism down to us. On second thought, that won't do. Why would they facilitate their own demise? Nope, the proletariat has no one to rely upon in this matter but itself, no magical powers or mystical forces, and no, not even "spontaneity"; we have to educate ourselves. There is no other way.

"In a language the people can understand" is also a rather elitist and pedantic strategy. But, of course, a cornerstone of leftism. The results of this will result in liberalism at best (CWI), worker opposition at worst (SWP).You will have to explain the pedantry and elitism of that to me, because if that is the case, I have missed it entirely. You see, the concepts and jargon of scientific socialism are quite complicated and are inaccessible to laymen with no prior study of the subject. Trying to make our ideas accessible and comprehensible for even the lowest common denominator is quite the opposite of elitism really; it's egalitarianism.

[bcbm]

Sounds like a very convenient excuse to claim sympathy with socialism while doing nothing to show for it(besides playing video games and smoking weed all day long).

because the 'do something' lot have so much to show for it


But yes I'm sure that some day, maybe even tomorrow, socialism will spontaneously prevail without any effort on the part of socialist workers.

who said without any effort?


It's been what, 350 years since the bourgeoisie first prevailed in England, no? Maybe we'll wait for 350 more and socialism will just drop upon our heads.

seems about as likely as 'the left' and its 'strategies' prevailing


As if through witchcraft.

determinism, or, more likely, chance actually.


Meanwhile, there is that new Fallout game coming out, that should keep us busy.

theres a new fallout?


On second hand, that won't do. Why would they facilitate their own demise?

they seem to be well on their way, albeit not quite like we would hope


Nope, the proletariat has no one to rely upon in this matter but itself, no magical powers or mystical forces, and no, not even "spontaneity"; we have to educate ourselves. There is no other way.

its not magical or mystical, it is the nature of capitalism


You will have to explain the pedantry and elitism of that to me, it that is the case, I have missed it entirely. You see, the concepts and jargon of scientific socialism are quite complicated and are inaccessible to laymen with no prior study of the subject.

you just did it right there

[Rusty Shackleford]

To be quite blunt.


Communsim and Anarchism and all the other leftisms are NOT popular. Partially because of the leftists and more importantly, because of the situation at hand.


sure the 'do something' crowd doesnt have much to show in some areas, but in others it is actually developing quite a bit.

Facilitating the development of anti-police brutality struggles is one bright spot id say. I mean, the union struggle is pretty much decrepit and the other 'traditional' stomping grounds of the left but at the risk of disillusioning people in the meantime with the long term aspect of struggle, experience is being had. and that counts for quite a bit.

[Crixus]

Knowledge gained and passed on. Painstaking research to understand both Marxism and capitalism so you or I can explain the world we live in (in ways that relate to peoples everyday experiences). Get a grasp of primitive accumulation/historical materialism. Understand commodities/money/profit. Get familiar with Marx's theory of crisis. Come to understand the conflict between labor and capital. Understand the base/superstructure etc and so on.

I'd recommend reading as much material as you can starting with, perhaps, "The Meaning Of Marxism". Then perhaps "The Invention of capitalism" then try to jump into Marx/Engels/Kautsky/Grossman/Luxemburg direct. The more you understand the better when out in the community taking part in struggle. Especially when situations where consensus/debate/democratic organizing pop up as was recently the case at OWS events. Try not to pay attention to sectarian stuff and focus on critiques of the capitalist system with the goal of learning as much as you can so you can explain things in an accessible manner which, as I've seen, helps people see socialism/communism as a viable system worth looking into for themselves in lieu of being happy just fighting for better wages/benefits under capitalism. Our number one goal should be to radicalize the working class as capitalism is in decay not in an elitist conception of a vanguard but side by side in daily struggle in the community first and foremost, online and or through any available media. Start with yourself.

[bcbm]

Communsim and Anarchism and all the other leftisms are NOT popular. Partially because of the leftists and more importantly, because of the situation at hand.

oh i dont think it is the leftists fault, most of them are trying their best


sure the 'do something' crowd doesnt have much to show in some areas, but in others it is actually developing quite a bit.

because of or in spite of them?


Facilitating the development of anti-police brutality struggles is one bright spot id say.

certainly no one is suggesting we shouldn't fight our enemies when the opportunity arises.


I mean, the union struggle is pretty much decrepit and the other 'traditional' stomping grounds of the left but at the risk of disillusioning people in the meantime with the long term aspect of struggle, experience is being had. and that counts for quite a bit.

we're at an interesting point. i don't think there is necessarily nothing to be done, but, experience being had, i think the left is more or less a waste of time and there is a lot to jettison before we can even have an idea of 'where to start,' not that anyone within the subculture will care to listen and so they'll be left tailing history as always. if there is to be communism it isn't going to come from the pro-revolutionaries

[Art Vandelay]

we're at an interesting point. i don't think there is necessarily nothing to be done, but, experience being had, i think the left is more or less a waste of time and there is a lot to jettison before we can even have an idea of 'where to start,' not that anyone within the subculture will care to listen and so they'll be left tailing history as always. if there is to be communism it isn't going to come from the pro-revolutionaries

I don't think anyone posits as such, however; the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class themselves. I'm a pro-revolutionary (CWI; although I would appreciate if I am not lumped in with the regular party patriot, since I'm not), but am also a former ultra-ultra left (big stirner fan) and have no issues with the conversation I am sure you wish to be having. That being said I am almost done my last beer and will be going to sleep soon, but have the day off tmro, so if you respond I will gladly put forth a proper response in the am.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

In my experience there are not enough workers involved in left politics.

In 500 words, how would you win the people?


Not enough Workers are involved in Worker Politics because "the Left" has let Worker Politics become "left" Politics, bourgeois-infested moralist identity politics instead of Class politics.
How to involve the working people into Politics for their objective material and social interests? Transform left politics into Class politics: unite the competing working class political currents into one Proletarian party, raise the social division between the Propertied and dispossessed Classes to their actual, brutal, constant and objective material division.

[Crixus]

if there is to be communism it isn't going to come from the pro-revolutionaries
We may as well burn all of our silly communist books and do nothing. I wish embryonic capitalists would have done that as they were fighting to set up condition's which allowed for them to create a dispossessed class of people who would have no other choice but to sell their labor in order to survive. Yep, capitalism came into existence by mere chance! The lazy people gave way to vice and the industrious worked hard and saved. Not really no. There was a certain group of people pushing for social change and they used any means necessary to facilitate that process. Now we can look at unsuccessful revolts as cases where slaves/peasants/farmers violently resisted oppression but without a plan it's almost useless. That spirit isnt going to come from communists capitalism itself will create the spirit of mass revolt- it's us who need to help turn revolt into revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

if there is to be communism it isn't going to come from the pro-revolutionariesHmm, well if it's the "self-emancipation of the working class" then I think it would have to be "pro-revolutionaries" who help in the subjective battle for communism... worker's won't stumble into communism and won't be "tricked" into it.

Since people develop ideas at different times and under different conditions, it's unlikely that everyone will become "pro-revolution" at once. In times of relative stability workers will still fight and some will still become revolutionaries - but not tons of people in mass. Mass radicalization happens, a seemingly spontanious change in militancy and consiousness, but then where does that go? It develops into a "left" or a "worker's movement" or "pro-revolutionaries" and they try and create vehicles for their organization and actions. So it seems strange to argue that we have to wait until the flood to build the boat, rather than doing what we can now to gather wood and trying to convince others to help us.

It seems to me that while we can't "make" a revolution, we can help pave the way in a subjective way by organizing people who have already developed revolutionary conclusions, trying to win other workers to this position as much as we can, and try and develop networks and practical experience in class struggles. This way when the mass revolt happens, the people who are most organized and able to make their arguments are the "pro-revolutionaries" rather that the Muslim Brotherhood or the Democrats, for example.

[bcbm]

I don't think anyone posits as such, however; the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class themselves.

who said otherwise


but am also a former ultra-ultra left (big stirner fan)

stirner is like the anti-left


That being said I am almost done my last beer and will be going to sleep soon, but have the day off tmro, so if you respond I will gladly put forth a proper response in the am.

go for it but i am chugging three dolla r wine so i probably will not be in top form tomorrow


We may as well burn all of our silly communist books and do nothing.

itd be a start


I wish embryonic capitalists would have done that as they were fighting to set up condition's which allowed for them to create a dispossessed class of people who would have no other choice but to sell their labor in order to survive. Yep, capitalism came into existence by mere chance!

kind of


Not really no. There was a certain group of people pushing for social change and they used any means necessary to facilitate that process.

capitalist development started before there was any idea of capitalism. they pursued their self-interest to its logical outcome. what if we did the same?


Now we can look at unsuccessful revolts as cases where slaves/peasants/farmers violently resisted oppression but without a plan it's almost useless.

seems like with a plan fails about as regularly and there is some precedent for the 'without a plan' doing the trick in the end, though granted not to the grand finale we all want


That spirit isnt going to come from communists capitalism itself will create the spirit of mass revolt- it's us who need to help turn revolt into revolution.

we like to tell ourselves we are important


Hmm, well if it's the "self-emancipation of the working class" then I think it would have to be "pro-revolutionaries" who help in the subjective battle for communism...

'help,' sure but i don't think we are a 'make or break' type of deal


worker's won't stumble into communism

says who


So it seems strange to argue that we have to wait until the flood to build the boat, rather than doing what we can now to gather wood and trying to convince others to help us.

this analogy sounds good, but more often than not when the flood comes the ones gathering wood try to build a dam rather than a boat


It seems to me that while we can't "make" a revolution, we can help pave the way in a subjective way by organizing people who have already developed revolutionary conclusions, trying to win other workers to this position as much as we can, and try and develop networks and practical experience in class struggles. This way when the mass revolt happens, the people who are most organized and able to make their arguments are the "pro-revolutionaries" rather that the Muslim Brotherhood or the Democrats, for example.

i think many of these networks ultimately become networks for the sake of networks or rather they only exist to perpetuate their own existence, but they don't see any meaningful growth or change and have a negligible impact outside of their subcultural milieu. i mean by all means do what you want to do, obviously a cynic like me won't stop the believers, but i think we'd do better to step back from what we've been doing (and doing and doing and doing and doing and doing) and look at what its got us and maybe try to figure out a different position towards our activity

[Rusty Shackleford]

oh i dont think it is the leftists fault, most of them are trying their best
I'll agree and add to this. The left is trying but it currently, at least in the US, doesn't have the capacity.

Many revolutionists/aries take on quite a bit of work if they are dead serious about their work, but one person can only handle so much. A group of a half or a dozen activists can only do so much.



because of or in spite of them?

I would say both. The current situation cannot be loaded onto the backs of the left alone, or the conditions alone. Ultimately, the conditions are what drives the left's response, but the left's response also must be questioned. And by 'questioning' i simply mean applying constructive (i know) criticism and honest self-criticism after an action in order to go into a future action more skilled and prepared.

At the same time, the capacity of the left to respond or intervene is dependent on the situation.

That capacity, in turn, also determines the quality of work that comes out of the left's intervention, and also the ability to intervene in more than one specific area.


certainly no one is suggesting we shouldn't fight our enemies when the opportunity arises.

And this is where the left is at. It is fighting rearguard actions where it has the ability to, while at the same time trying to push forward on major issues that are not necessarily new, but are gaining more importance. Again, i would argue that capacity (no more italics, i promise) is a major factor in this. All of these rearguard actions like supporting other struggles while being in the back seat when liberals or other non-radicals are at the helm could be offensive actions... if only the left had the resources to do it.

Meanwhile we have the left hopping from issue to issue and providing short bursts of energy into certain struggles only to then leave behind someone to watch the door while the left moves on to try to intervene somewhere else.

Any serious pro-revolutionary (as you would say it) would oppose being bogged down too long in one single issue while other issues may take on greater importance, but with the resources the left has, it has created a near homelessness or baselessness of the left.

To this i would actually applaud the left -however small it is- in its tenacity and disciplined effort to not take on single-issue campaigns as the premier pro-rev struggle or cause or what have you... but to make a concerted effort to try to make connections between these issues into one multi-faceted front against capital.


we're at an interesting point. i don't think there is necessarily nothing to be done, but, experience being had, i think the left is more or less a waste of time and there is a lot to jettison before we can even have an idea of 'where to start,' not that anyone within the subculture will care to listen and so they'll be left tailing history as always. if there is to be communism it isn't going to come from the pro-revolutionaries

And this is where i would disagree. The left must continue fighting in whatever way it can in those small dingy rearguard actions as long as it can hold out.

yes, there is a need to rethink strategy and tactics, but that is upon organizations and individuals because the pro-revs are not a homogeneous group.

On the point of tailing history, it is a side-effect of the limited capabilities of the left and the need to at least keep up a presence in those dingy corners of struggle.


The left cannot determine the situation, it acts on what cards it is dealt. But if the situation turns in the favor of the left, then it can indeed become a contemporary of history(this might open the gates to an absurd argument of being the future of history :lol: or at least the very real and erroneous attempt at forcing history), and not just tail it... so long as it is not stuck in the ways of the past and can competently intervene in the future and GROW.






I want to touch on occupy and the sort of facebook 'revolutionary' and the almost meme-izing of a-political politics but i have to leave it as a note for me to possibly reference it in the future or at least remind me to think about it.

[bcbm]

I'll agree and add to this. The left is trying but it currently, at least in the US, doesn't have the capacity.

Many revolutionists/aries take on quite a bit of work if they are dead serious about their work, but one person can only handle so much. A group of a half or a dozen activists can only do so much.

surely if the work worked there would be some results, capacity would increase, etc


I would say both. The current situation cannot be loaded onto the backs of the left alone, or the conditions alone.

i know which one i would favor in a bet


Ultimately, the conditions are what drives the left's response, but the left's response also must be questioned. And by 'questioning' i simply mean applying constructive (i know) criticism and honest self-criticism after an action in order to go into a future action more skilled and prepared.

eh i think the lefts response is driven by the lefts own internal logic and so even when questioned its still just an echo chamber or whatever


At the same time, the capacity of the left to respond or intervene is dependent on the situation.

That capacity, in turn, also determines the quality of work that comes out of the left's intervention, and also the ability to intervene in more than one specific area.

theres a lot to be said too about what 'response' or 'intervention' mean for the left, tying into what i was saying about its own internal logic. there is a way the left does this, but it doesn't necessarily achieve results


(no more italics, i promise)

nah keep em coming


All of these rearguard actions like supporting other struggles while being in the back seat when liberals or other non-radicals are at the helm could be offensive actions... if only the left had the resources to do it.

this seems like one of those points where stepping back and re-evaluating would be good



To this i would actually applaud the left -however small it is- in its tenacity and disciplined effort to not take on single-issue campaigns as the premier pro-rev struggle or cause or what have you... but to make a concerted effort to try to make connections between these issues into one multi-faceted front against capital.

eh i think theyve done a pretty poor job at this beyond the vaguest connections


And this is where i would disagree. The left must continue fighting in whatever way it can in those small dingy rearguard actions as long as it can hold out.

but to what end? and i mean 'must continue' dont worry it will, just like there will always be punks or hippie or whatever their will always be 'the left' because it is just another consumer identity now more or less


yes, there is a need to rethink strategy and tactics, but that is upon organizations and individuals because the pro-revs are not a homogeneous group.

well i hope they start soon...


On the point of tailing history, it is a side-effect of the limited capabilities of the left and the need to at least keep up a presence in those dingy corners of struggle.

maybe but i think it is a problem when you are the ones who latch on to everything and then leave it as soon as the next thing heats up


so long as it is not stuck in the ways of the past

and theres the rub


I want to touch on occupy and the sort of facebook 'revolutionary' and the almost meme-izing of a-political politics but i have to leave it as a note for me to possibly reference n it in the future or at least remind me to thing about it.

id be interested in your thoughts:)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Frankly, the bourgeois notion of "left politics", that conflates socialism with liberalism, social democracy, various moonbat academic movements and causes, and so on, is part of the problem. As is the fierce determination of some sections of the labour movement to rely on elements foreign to the proletariat and to parrot their rhetoric. The "Occupy Movement" and its anti-Marxist rhetoric of "the 99 percent" is an excellent example; I know several socialists that use this petite-bourgeois rhetoric.

There do not exist five hundred words that will instantly "convert" a worker to socialism. We need to first build up an extensive labour movement, a network of workers' associations, organisations, organisations to fight the bourgeois reaction and so on. At the same time, we must close our own ranks, abandon this ridiculous sectarianism, paranoia, and dick-waving and focus on education, propaganda and agitation among the proletariat.

And certain sections of the labour movement need to stop faulting the proletariat for not being revolutionary enough and trying to find some sufficiently "revolutionary" substitute - students, peasants, "the Third World" and so on.

[bcbm]

good luck with all that

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

good luck with all that

Making a serious attempt to regroup and to strengthen the labour movement would be better than sitting on our arses waiting to die, or organising the seven millionth Revolutionary Progressive Socialist Workers' Communist Party Movement Front League of Labour and Liberation of Arvatia (Marxist-Bolshevik).

I mean, just by looking through the window I can see several shop assistants (I live next to a major store) that are quietly struggling against exploitative owners and who could in all probability become excellent comrades if anyone bothered. But no, Trotsky, Mao, 99 percent, who has time for workers?

[Luís Henrique]

We don't need to win workers for the cause, we need to win the cause (and ourselves) to workers.

Luís Henrique

[The Idler]

I thought it might have been. In any case, it's not especially funny. Or maybe that's just my cryptopacificist liberalism showing.
Is Rurkel a parody of Semendyaev?

[Drosophila]

Sounds like a very convenient excuse to claim sympathy with socialism while doing nothing to show for it(besides playing video games and smoking weed all day long).

Yes, because leftists and pro-revolutionaries definitely don't have anything other to do than sit around all day. Not like any of us work :rolleyes:


But yes I'm sure that some day, maybe even tomorrow, socialism will spontaneously prevail without any effort on the part of socialist workers. It's been what, 350 years since the bourgeoisie first prevailed in England, no? Maybe we'll wait for 350 more and socialism will just drop upon our heads. As if through witchcraft. Meanwhile, there is that new Fallout game coming out, that should keep us busy.I don't remember anyone saying that revolution would just come out of thin air. It does require effort, organization, and certainly some sort of goal. However, there is no possible way for the thousands of competing leftist strategies to form into one coherent revolutionary program that can be applied to any situation and be free of any deviation. In fact, I'd really like for you to define "socialism" for me right now. I doubt you can. Even if you could, it would be so vague that no one would be "enlightened" by it.


But socialist workers educating their comrade-workers who have not yet caught up with their level of development, that is not only desirable but necessary also, more necessary than ever before.Level of development? What the hell are you talking about? This notion that the working class is blinded by some fog of bourgeois "false consciousness" is so untrue and detached from reality that I can even begin to explain. Just because you've studied the Bolshevik Revolution and read a bunch of pro-rev theory doesn't mean you're at a "higher level of development" from anyone else. Leftists need to stop fucking elevating themselves to a level that they don't belong on. This is why no worker will ever want to listen to leftist garbage. People are tired of it.


Either that, or we wait for the benevolent bourgeoisie to hand knowledge of scientific socialism down to us. On second thought, that won't do. Why would they facilitate their own demise? Nope, the proletariat has no one to rely upon in this matter but itself, no magical powers or mystical forces, and no, not even "spontaneity"; we have to educate ourselves. There is no other way.Tell me: what is the value of scientific socialism to the working class? As far as I know, all scientific socialism is is a term used to refer to the collection of Marx/Engels' theories regarding materialism. These are not theories that need to be handed down from the elders of Marxism. They really don't hold much value to anyone other than those who wish to study them. Marx and Engels actually talked very little about how a revolution should progress, how "class consciousness" is to be spread, and all of the crap that the Kautskyite and Leninist crowd miserably attempt to make relevant. And I think that's what is so significant about materialism - that it shows that the imposition of ideas as spoken gospel is a worthless activity.


You will have to explain the pedantry and elitism of that to me, because if that is the case, I have missed it entirely. You see, the concepts and jargon of scientific socialism are quite complicated and are inaccessible to laymen with no prior study of the subject. Trying to make our ideas accessible and comprehensible for even the lowest common denominator is quite the opposite of elitism really; it's egalitarianism.Nice job contradicting yourself. You really don't sound pedantic or elitist at all by making it seem like the unwashed masses will never learn the glorious ideas of scientific socialism on their own. It's such a complicated concept! They'll never understand it!

While Marxism really isn't that hard to understand at all, I'm not even sure if it actually holds much worth to a revolutionary proletariat. You can pretend all you want that you're going to be relevant someday, but the harsh reality is that you never will.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is Rurkel a parody of Semendyaev?

Actually, we're both socks of Rosario. As is everyone on the site.


Tell me: what is the value of scientific socialism to the working class? As far as I know, all scientific socialism is is a term used to refer to the collection of Marx/Engels' theories regarding materialism. These are not theories that need to be handed down from the elders of Marxism. They really don't hold much value to anyone other than those who wish to study them.

That must be why the general strategy of the non-Marxist labour movement (madly flailing around trying to hit the wrong targets - at best) has been so successful, no?

[Drosophila]

That must be why the general strategy of the non-Marxist labour movement (madly flailing around trying to hit the wrong targets - at best) has been so successful, no?

What non-Marxist labor movement? There is no widespread movement of workers anywhere in the world. Unless you're referring to strikes and worker insurrections in places like India and Spain, which I'd say are a much better road to follow than selling papers and building parties.

[bcbm]

Making a serious attempt to regroup and to strengthen the labour movement would be better than sitting on our arses waiting to die

regroup the labor movement for what so we can regroup and strengthen the welfare state? at its zenith the labor movement was still a minority and still a reformist tool. why bark up that tree again?


I mean, just by looking through the window I can see several shop assistants (I live next to a major store) that are quietly struggling against exploitative owners and who could in all probability become excellent comrades if anyone bothered.

what is it like to just see people as potential tools for the revolution? what do you have to offer their struggle? also the 'all in probability' implies to me you aren't doing shit either


But no, Trotsky, Mao, 99 percent, who has time for workers?

yeah i would like more time for myself

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

1. Don't spew Marxist jargon, makes you seem like an elitist hipster talking down to them.
2. Dont make cringeworthy 'great speaches'.
3. Don't play apologetics for Stalin and the like.
4. Give them the basics of LTV, tell them about autogestion.
4. Don't wear a Che tshirt/ushanka/wave a hammer and sicle about, makes you seem like a cosplayer just interested in playing dressup.

[Revenant]

Half working hours.

[Crixus]

Frankly, the bourgeois notion of "left politics", that conflates socialism with liberalism, social democracy, various moonbat academic movements and causes, and so on, is part of the problem. As is the fierce determination of some sections of the labour movement to rely on elements foreign to the proletariat and to parrot their rhetoric. The "Occupy Movement" and its anti-Marxist rhetoric of "the 99 percent" is an excellent example; I know several socialists that use this petite-bourgeois rhetoric.

There do not exist five hundred words that will instantly "convert" a worker to socialism. We need to first build up an extensive labour movement, a network of workers' associations, organisations, organisations to fight the bourgeois reaction and so on. At the same time, we must close our own ranks, abandon this ridiculous sectarianism, paranoia, and dick-waving and focus on education, propaganda and agitation among the proletariat.

And certain sections of the labour movement need to stop faulting the proletariat for not being revolutionary enough and trying to find some sufficiently "revolutionary" substitute - students, peasants, "the Third World" and so on.
To add to what you said opposing idealism and nihilism is helpful. Funny how the nihilist usually starts out as an idealist who eventually becomes disillusioned. And yes, I agree, the 'new left' way of doing things needs to go.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What non-Marxist labor movement? There is no widespread movement of workers anywhere in the world. Unless you're referring to strikes and worker insurrections in places like India and Spain, which I'd say are a much better road to follow than selling papers and building parties.

Non-Marxist sections of the labour movement existed, and still do to an extent (anarchist, syndicalist sections and so on). Their complete irrelevance (except of those anarchists that base themselves on a class analysis) tells us just how much the labour movement needs a consistent, materialist theory.


regroup the labor movement for what so we can regroup and strengthen the welfare state? at its zenith the labor movement was still a minority and still a reformist tool. why bark up that tree again?

This is tiresome; if you're going to pretend the Russian revolution did not happen, good for you. The rest of us balk, or should balk, at such purism and sectarianism.


what is it like to just see people as potential tools for the revolution?

What is it like to read things into other people's posts that were not originally present?


what do you have to offer their struggle?

I, personally? Just an annoying ponce, and these are all too common. Marxism? A consistent theory and a firm basis for revolutionary praxis.


also the 'all in probability' implies to me you aren't doing shit either

That tends to happen when the only left groups in the area are dead, or sticker revolutionaries. If you have spare militants and conscious labourers lying around, send me a PM.


yeah i would like more time for myself

Then take it. It's not as if the rest of us will put you up against the wall for it. But don't think that this ultra-purist, defeatist attitude is at all plausible.

[slum]

Tell me: what is the value of scientific socialism to the working class?

i think the labor theory of value and the idea of surplus labor is of immense value for any exploited worker. it's a simple way to understand that we are being stolen from.



And I think that's what is so significant about materialism - that it shows that the imposition of ideas as spoken gospel is a worthless activity.

ideas can be used as spoken gospel- they can also be used to combat the lies that justify an exploitative system. we need words (and ideas) to even have a conversation about material conditions. at the risk of being pedantic (oh, the most terrible of crimes!) the idea that human behavior and historical events are determined by material conditions is also an idea. just because i happen to like it and it holds up well to scrutiny doesn't mean it stops being an idea and becomes something else free from all the risks of reductionism and dogmatism that all systems of analysis have.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What non-Marxist labor movement? There is no widespread movement of workers anywhere in the world. Unless you're referring to strikes and worker insurrections in places like India and Spain, which I'd say are a much better road to follow than selling papers and building parties.


So you believe that the Indian workers should continue denying themselves their already-meager wages infinitely, until what exactly?
You capitulate to the Bourgeoisie's parties organized within capitalist society's showcase of power of, the parliament, hence advocate the Dictatorship of Capital over and continued oppression of the People, if you merely tell the workers to remain in their reformist unions of the world to strike, protest and yell infinitely without organizing themselves politically and publicly.

[The Jay]

We need to first build up an extensive labour movement, a network of workers' associations, organisations, organisations to fight the bourgeois reaction and so on. At the same time, we must close our own ranks, abandon this ridiculous sectarianism, paranoia, and dick-waving and focus on education, propaganda and agitation among the proletariat.

What differences must be put aside for this unification?

[The Jay]

So you believe that the Indian workers should continue denying themselves their already-meager wages infinitely, until what exactly?
You capitulate to the Bourgeoisie's parties organized within capitalist society's showcase of power of, the parliament, hence advocate the Dictatorship of Capital over and continued oppression of the People, if you merely tell the workers to remain in their reformist unions of the world to strike, protest and yell infinitely without organizing themselves politically and publicly.

He is saying that the class conflict that is erupting in those areas is what is necessary for there to be a development of revolutionary consciousness. Without unusually intense class conflict I do not see many workers developing a class consciousness, let alone revolutionary consciousness. If you wish to attempt to organize the workers then that is a good thing and I encourage you, but I think that the success that you will have will be negligible unless you are lucky. The class dynamic of society may be obvious to us, but that is only because we do not have certain social norms and mores that pro-capitalists maintain as part of how they see the world.

To phrase it in terms of ideologically viewing the world, the conflict of classes must become more easily visible before their ideologies are open for change. This excludes exceptions.

For this reason I only talk to select people about leftist politics.

[blake 3:17]

At the OP -- it's friggin complicated question and make should be reversed. Anyways... The following are both American, but I think have uses more broadly.

I would suggest people studying Piven and Cloward's Poor Peoples Movements.

The best recent thing on strategy is Eric Mann's Playbook for Progressives.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. I think it's a pretty bad scene to conflate the "labour movement" with the proletariat, at least in the contexts I'm familiar with. The gap between workers and the unions/parties that speak on their behalf is for all intents and purposes an unbridgable chasm.
2. I think it's the flip side of the same condescending coin to posit "pro-revolutionaries" (aka communists?) as fundamentally distinguishable from the working class, at least when we are workers.

As an extension of the above points, and response to the original question, the best way to talk to workers about communism is as a communist worker, developing theory and practice at the root, and articulating it accordingly. What that means is different in every workplace.

[bcbm]

Non-Marxist sections of the labour movement existed, and still do to an extent (anarchist, syndicalist sections and so on). Their complete irrelevance (except of those anarchists that base themselves on a class analysis) tells us just how much the labour movement needs a consistent, materialist theory.


the labor movement failed because it didn't have the right theory?


This is tiresome; if you're going to pretend the Russian revolution did not happen, good for you. The rest of us balk, or should balk, at such purism and sectarianism.

ah yes, lets whip that dead horse a few more times. balk away.


What is it like to read things into other people's posts that were not originally present?

simply wonderful


I, personally? Just an annoying ponce, and these are all too common. Marxism? A consistent theory and a firm basis for revolutionary praxis.

but doesn't you or someone like you need to share the wonder of marxism with them?


That tends to happen when the only left groups in the area are dead, or sticker revolutionaries.

seems awfully convenient for you then



Then take it. It's not as if the rest of us will put you up against the wall for it.

you missed the joke, i think.


But don't think that this ultra-purist, defeatist attitude is at all plausible.

what is purist, trying the same well worn path over and over and producing no results or thinking that maybe that isn't working?


I think it's the flip side of the same condescending coin to posit "pro-revolutionaries" (aka communists?) as fundamentally distinguishable from the working class, at least when we are workers.

what does 'fundamentally distinguishable' mean? its a term to distinguish all those who desire communist revolution (though lack the means to make it) from those who don't, which is 'distinguishable' from other workers. there is no condescension.

[zero_cool]

I personally believe that one of the main hindrances to working people seeing the fundamentals of the alternatives to Capitalism is misinformation. Working men and women are constantly exposed to counter-revolutionary propaganda in every aspect of their day. So long as the alternative is the fake fantasy land portrayed to be the USSR, workers who are not class conscious will be hesitant to act. Information and education is key to uniting the working class, especially when the working class is geared to work towards some futile wealth goal from a Capitalist-influenced upbringing. At least, that's what I can say from my experience in America.

For example, I know plenty of minimum wage workers who I have discussed worker self-management with. Who I have discussed common ownership with. Who I have discussed the effects of Capitalism with. To my surprise, quite a few thought it was idealistic to work towards Socialism, despite seeing it as a beneficial and workable economic system due to my arguments. This is because of a dumbing down of the working class by Capitalistic education, which makes them hesitant to act. The only way to fight that without twisting up a reactionist sentiment(AKA Red Scare) is to fight back with Socialistic education and information.

Class consciousness is key. Otherwise the working class will wander aimlessly in search of wealth or leaders instead of working towards revolution themselves. If you are faced with a problem and the only alternatives you know of are appeasements, you will never solve that problem.

[Rusty Shackleford]

surely if the work worked there would be some results, capacity would increase, etc
I hate to bring this to the discussion but the bolsheviks during the war did pretty much everything they could in their power. But they were extremely unpopular during the time.

People were more concerned with hordes of Germans killing their sons, fathers, brothers and so on on the front line and feared for Russian territorial integrity. So, logically, people would be pissed about someone saying 'they are not our enemy, the tsar or presedent is!'


As the conditions changed during the course of the war, the bolsheviks kept to their program.

Soon came the issue of starvation because the war effort required food on the front lines, soldiers dying for a more and more hopeless cause, and soldiers reading about the starvation at home, and their families reading about the deaths on the front... things began to crack. consciousness changed.

this is an oversimplification, yes. But, the point is this:

Throughout the entire ordeal, the bolsheviks stood by their program making tactical adjustments when necessary, but applied the same strategy.
it made them incredibly unpopular, even with large sections of their own tendency. But as things changed, it turned out the points in the program that dictated the strategy were correct.

Im not here to debate the merits of bolshevism in general during the revolutionary, civil war, and pre-wwii period or whether or not it established socialism. this is going to be granted that we may disagree, and if we agree then whatever, its still not the point of the discussion)

This is the point:

Even if the work is correct it does not necessarily translate to growth. The same is true for the opposite. Just because an organization grows, it may not employ a correct program or correctly implement it.

And for the term 'correct' i actually have a tepid relationship with it because what is correct can only be proven in hindsight when dealing with social phenomena.
Like i had paraphrased before, people do not make history in the way they want to. They do so only with the options that are presented to them.

i know which one i would favor in a bet
Sure, the left has dropped the ball. It basically imploded in the 70s.
and the relationship between the soviet union, china, albania, and yugoslavia during the decades before did not help as far as the old communist parties went, and for the maoist parties in the west after the 70s. so in a sense, the left did start leading its own funeral procession i guess.

this also coincided with the degeneration of the social democratic organizations and the more rightward shift of the liberal organizations as well.


eh i think the lefts response is driven by the lefts own internal logic and so even when questioned its still just an echo chamber or whatever

Im in half-agreement with this. the left can take on a siege mentality, especially when -as a social force- it is under attack and is facing defeat after defeat. i cant honestly say i do not engage in this sort of mentality at times. Its probably flying in the open with this discussion when i keep mentioning 'rear guard actions'


theres a lot to be said too about what 'response' or 'intervention' mean for the left, tying into what i was saying about its own internal logic. there is a way the left does this, but it doesn't necessarily achieve results

This is where im thinking of occupy. it was great on so many levels for engaging people, but at the same time, it, not homogeneously, sought to disengage with ideology or organization at all levels.

im somewhat confident in thinking that it has led to new frustrations with the broader working class. at a point. what the fuck is the point of protesting if it achieves nothing. occupy has with few exceptions achieved NOTHING in terms of tangible results. It did change the way people approached questions or at least a very basic level of what ones political choices and opinions could be.

Im kind of rambling with occupy.


In general yes the intervention of the left today can take on a parody or caricature of activism for activism's sake. and a fundamentally legal and legalistic form of activism. A lot of people want to relive the 60s. (each tendency has its own favorite decade though) and this is one of those 'ways' and forms of logic that generate very little in the way of 'success.'


from personal experience, i hardly work with people over the age of 30 on a regular basis. that creates its own set of problems but it relives some of us of the problem of people being stuck in old ways. for better or worse. now, its not by choice, its just how it happened to pan out. in my own experience on a day by day basis.

one of the things lacking is creativity that does not result in a bunch of theatrical bullshit. aaaanyway




nah keep em coming

will do


this seems like one of those points where stepping back and re-evaluating would be good
im generally sympathetic to what you are saying. ive been thinking of ways to cut loose ends and the sort without resulting in bridges being burnt.


a lot of what goes on is stale. it has an air of bureaucracy training but it sometimes needs to be done, not in a full blown entryist way, but to provide a sort of check on things where the left can.


the anarchos, marxists, an mls all have their areas of interest. sometimes the blur into each other, but all of them have a justification for doing what they do. or they wouldnt be doing it. it can easily be a lot of work that is not visible but productive or it can be highly visible but less productive.


eh i think theyve done a pretty poor job at this beyond the vaguest connections
the ultimate attempt at expressing this was, in this area, a pretty big failure. i would agree. and what i mean is occupy.
one of the things about it was, besides some of the productive working groups within the various occupies, was a venue of 'protest what you want, have your own issue be heard' and then leave. or sit through the tedious and dull ultra-democratic theatrical events like the GAs.

and with connections of various struggles, it happens, but at such a slow rate. its really a trickle. but usually when those connections are made, leftists are made.



but to what end? and i mean 'must continue' dont worry it will, just like there will always be punks or hippie or whatever their will always be 'the left' because it is just another consumer identity now more or less
there certainly is an identity attachment to being left. either its through dressup, trying to build a reenactment society (unwittingly), or taking on the activist shtick.

but, when trying to get people to move, one usually has a motivation to do so. that motivation is more than likely codified into some political expression. and generally if the effort is around issues of class it is grouped with the left.

i guess what i would like, before i can carry on with the 'left' versus non-left is an explanation of what it means. to me, it almost seems like a mental exercise.



well i hope they start soon...
yerp



maybe but i think it is a problem when you are the ones who latch on to everything and then leave it as soon as the next thing heats up
it doesnt help. it is somewhat self-destructive even.



and theres the rub
mhm



id be interested in your thoughts:)

since im threading it in through my responses ill just add this...

it is something that i personally loathe, but also have high praise for. finding a median or at least something that isnt bi-polar when expressing my thoughts on it is still something i haven't been able to do.




ps, sorry it took me some time to respond.

Edit: i know my posting style can be a little tedious when trying to find points to quote and respond to. my apologies.

[revolon]

The only ways to win workers support for a cause is to provide them better employment opportunities, facilities, allowances and a better working environment. So, that they would work not only for themselves but for a whole purpose and prosperity.

[cyu]

A better question might be How do you prevent workers from joining the cause? That is a question capitalists ask themselves every day. And if conditions are only getting worse, the average person should in fact be flocking to the cause. How are they stopped?

If you discover what tactics are being used to extinguish movements, then you know what you need to disrupt to prevent those tactics from working.

When a strike breaks out, what prevents people from siding with employees? If it's media coverage from capitalist owned media outlets, then their reporting needs to be disrupted. If capitalists are robocalling people with push-polls to try to gain favor against employees, then the robocalling needs to be disrupted.

[Orange Juche]

In America? Drive heavy the whole democracy aspect - that, if you actually believe in democracy, how can you deny it in the workplace?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What differences must be put aside for this unification?

That's an interesting question. In general, I do not think that any of the serious, theoretical differences between orthodox revolutionary Marxists should prevent cooperation. More often than not, groups fail to cooperate because of sectarianism, or because they are fixated on some historical event or figure, matters that are of academic importance at this point.

This does not mean that those serious theoretical disagreements should be ignored, of course. In fact, the presence of a strong, class-conscious proletarian element, educated in the basics of scientific Marxist thought, could only help us resolve those issues by exercising the sort of ideological oversight Lenin often talked about.


the labor movement failed because it didn't have the right theory?

That section of the labour movement, yes. Why is it that everyone accepts that sending someone to the Moon is impossible without a firm grasp of the relevant theories, but the necessity of an extensive theoretical grounding of labour struggles - which aim to do something far more difficult than sending people to the Moon - is contested?


ah yes, lets whip that dead horse a few more times. balk away.

That "dead horse" was the first large-scale dictatorship of the proletariat in history. I am sorry it was not "pure" enough for you.


but doesn't you or someone like you need to share the wonder of marxism with them?

They could discover the "wonder" of Marxism on their own; they are neither stupid nor illiterate. But an organised propaganda, agitation and education effort accelerates this process.

[No_Leaders]

Ugh so I had a whole reply typed up and for some reason i got logged out after trying to post it.. So basically what I was going to say is that the problem I run across is that so many workers just don't understand there are alternatives to capitalism. In my workplace for example I don't think anyone here geuninely likes this job, everyone complains about the things management forces on us, the changes made, the pay, the benefits, the hours, etc. Yet no one corelates these things to a failed system. I think the main problem is lack of class conciousness. Most people say "oh i'm not poor, i might struggle to make ends meet but i'm not on the streets that must mean i'm middle class, i have a nice tv and some nice things". Especially here in the good ol' USA. A lot of folks think since we're in the most propserious nation in the world we're beyond class divisions, those are problems that don't exist here. /sarcasm. I mean we all know that we, as workers have the power to bring society to it's knees. We build their roads, we run their factories, we produce their food, we push and sell the shit products they vomit out. It goes back to the saying, we don't need the bosses to survive, they need us. More workers need to realize this, and come to that conclussion.

The point is so many people are out of touch, not everyone obviously but a huge portion of the working people are. A lot of it has to do with all the brainwashing pro capitalist propaganda we get indoctrinated with from a young age. At a young age we're taught to compete to do better than the kid next to you so we can get into a good school, and get a good job, and be "happy". Then you go into the work force and you're taught to work harder than the person next to you to get a .25 cent raise. They keep us divided to fight amongst ourselves for the peanuts they toss us. I think it's important to form a direct corelation with the problems we face on a personal level in every day to day life struggling, with the issues of capitalism, to show people there are alternatives to a system that teaches you to succeed at the expense of others. We need to have these discussions with out fellow workers, with our brothers and sisters and show that we're all on the same side and in this together.

[Raúl Duke]

While I mostly agree with bcbm (and basically with nihilist communism)...

I'll give my thoughts.

A lot of this is presented as "what/how should the left present itself to average workers" when it should be more like "how should the workers present itself to the left (and what the left can learn from them)."

Workers have little to no time to play activism, to play party politics, to bother with dumb controversies like sectarianism or historia whats-its or whatever other hoopla. An issue with leftism today is that it has become a somewhat "purist" and "futurist" kind of ideology, it focuses on an ideal framework and what it offers is only something that can be used once the revolution/revolutionary situation/revolutionary moment is upon us.

For most workers, when it comes to politics/economics they're interested primarily with "short-term" gains like higher wages, less working hours, more benefits and more vacation time. To them, what we got to offer (despite calling it "scientific" or whatever) is something that "sounds good, but won't happen (in my lifetime)," is idealist/optimistic, or something along those lines. They don't want to waste their time on it.

SO how is the proletariat revolutionary? It is revolutionary not because of consciousness/ideology (however, unlike the original writers of nihilist communism I don't discount consciousness as something that doesn't exist/is false per se, but I'm rather skeptical of its supposed importance among the left) but because of the role they play within capitalism. When the working class seeks its interests, it brings it towards a contradiction with a system that seeks the opposite of what they want (capitalism want to minimize "labor costs," in direct opposition with the interests of the working class). Out of this contradiction the possibility of revolution arises.

If the left is to play any role, it's to support the interests of the working class and to push as far as possible and to advocate increased militancy in the pursuit of these interests. Who are we to impose our own abstract/ideological interests on the working class?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For most workers, when it comes to politics/economics they're interested primarily with "short-term" gains like higher wages, less working hours, more benefits and more vacation time. To them, what we got to offer (despite calling it "scientific" or whatever) is something that "sounds good, but won't happen (in my lifetime)," is idealist/optimistic, or something along those lines. They don't want to waste their time on it.

They are also concerned with ending discrimination, ending corruption, and other political demands. I understand your point, though it seems fairly orthodox to me, but workers are not limited to economic demands.

[Raúl Duke]

They are also concerned with ending discrimination, ending corruption, and other political demands. I understand your point, though it seems fairly orthodox to me, but workers are not limited to economic demands.

They may as well be, but those demands usually do not come in to direct conflict with capitalism per se (they mostly deal with ideological fetters of capitalism or issues of its state-apparatus). There's also the issue with how these political demands are pushed for, most average workers aren't interested in (or too busy to do) activism/being in demos/etc although they may support the political causes.

[bcbm]

That section of the labour movement, yes.

so the non-marxist section of the labor movement is completely irrelevant and failed because it has the wrong theory

and the marxist section?


Why is it that everyone accepts that sending someone to the Moon is impossible without a firm grasp of the relevant theories, but the necessity of an extensive theoretical grounding of labour struggles - which aim to do something far more difficult than sending people to the Moon - is contested?

:lol:


That "dead horse" was the first large-scale dictatorship of the proletariat in history. I am sorry it was not "pure" enough for you.


why do you keep putting pure in quotation marks like i ever said anything about purity?


But an organised propaganda, agitation and education effort accelerates this process.

there has been an organized propaganda, agitation and education effort in many countries for almost two centuries.

[Emmeka]

Workers don't come to socialism because it is ethically or morally superior, although on some superficial level they will understand social justice, so the sole agitation of "ending oppression and exploitation!" isn't really productive. We need to organise, educate, and agitate workers while most left sects merely agitate and hope that this will draw in supporters.

This. You can't draw in working people using moral arguments. Organizing is the fundamental part most organizations have left out, sticking to agitation and education and hoping that people will just see them and think "gee, the socialism there sure looks nice".

By organizing, we mean get involved in pre-existing movements that concern working people. Go organize a union at your workplace, if you're a student, be active within your student union, if you're a woman be active within the feminist movement, if you're queer be active within the queer community and its political struggles - so on, so forth.

I'd also like to point that the very nature of the question you're asking is condescending. You act as if you're not a part of the working class yourself.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They may as well be, but those demands usually do not come in to direct conflict with capitalism per se (they mostly deal with ideological fetters of capitalism or issues of its state-apparatus). There's also the issue with how these political demands are pushed for, most average workers aren't interested in (or too busy to do) activism/being in demos/etc although they may support the political causes.

They are not in overt conflict with capitalism, but bourgeois rule hinders any substantial progress on these issues. The impossibility of substantial reform needs to be part of the communist propaganda on such issues.


so the non-marxist section of the labor movement is completely irrelevant and failed because it has the wrong theory

and the marxist section?

And, in case you hadn't noticed, the Marxist section succeeded in overthrowing the bourgeoisie in at least one state.


why do you keep putting pure in quotation marks like i ever said anything about purity?

That is what the usual ultraleft criticism of the October revolution amounts to.


there has been an organized propaganda, agitation and education effort in many countries for almost two centuries.

Unfortunately, that effort is quite dead in most states, unless you think that the various Popular Fronts of Judea that the Marxist and anarchist left has disintegrated into can organise an extensive propaganda, etc., campaign.