How to solve the problem of conservatives?

[TC]

Some political problems are problems of organization. Others are problems of structure. For example, on the basis of polling it is I think reasonable to think that most liberal democratic voters would prefer socialist policies if they were available and there were no political or economic impediments to getting them (for example, in America they might prefer to support Hillary Clinton out of fearing that Bernie Sanders would lose to a Republican candidate who would deliver disaster, or for reasons of personality and 'trust', but they would actually prefer Sander's views over Clinton's.)

In the case of conservatives however there are often very deeply held reactionary views, such as opposition to women's rights and gay rights, contempt for the poor and identification with the rich despite being poor themselves, xenophobia, support for theocracy (whether of the catholic, islamist, orthodox jewish or protestant dominionist variety) and punitive blood lust for maximum prison sentences and executions for non-violent drug offenders. Some liberals even share some or all of these views.

How do we address and respond to fundamentally conflicting world views like those of reactionary conservatives? Such views are often seemingly impervious to reasoning. It is not nearly enough to say that their positions hurt people, or undermine equality, or even undermine their own socio-economic interests. This just makes no difference to them.

It isn't obvious to me that education is enough. When confronted with evidence contradicting the factual basis for conservative views, conservatives frequently double down: evidence inconsistent with their beliefs is simply incorrect or irrelevant. Moreover conservatives (and liberals) really do feel entitled to their own 'facts': any dispute will have putative experts on both sides (regardless of how lopsided the distribution is) and where there is 'debate' people feel entitled to pick their side.

This is not a question we can simply avoid though: any vision for a new society will have to confront those longing for an old one - people who are not part of the 'ruling class' however defined but are often among those we would want to liberate.

[tallguy]

The only way to get that type of person to change their ways is to make it extremely and unambiguously in their immediate economic interest to do so and that the consequences of not doing so are equally extreme, unambiguous and immediate.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, surely that depends on the social position of people who hold these views? If we are talking about proletarians, or members of specially oppressed groups, then it is our task to explain to them how they are hurt by extreme conservatism - e.g. how the bourgeois family unit underlies the modern capitalist system etc. If they won't listen, well. We won't be able to win over every single proletarian.

If they are members of the petite bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia, that do not experience significant oppression, I don't see why we should waste our resources. We should organise to smash these people, not to win them over.

[Ele'ill]

I noticed within fairly recent liberal participation in generally liberal movements a learning and understanding of what the police are and a distrust of them. This wasn't universal but a lot of folks went from being the type of people who would be first to call the police on a whim, to apologize for the police, to understanding how harmful it is. I don't know why. Repeated exposure to varying levels of confrontation with the state? Was it their own experiences or was it their observations of others going through it or was it both that finally flipped them to such a degree? I guess the question is if a conservative were to be sat down and talked at for all of eternity and coddled and spoon fed theory and history in the most precise way would they change? I don't know if that even matters, I think the answer or solution is elsewhere and part of it is for us to accept that we have class/social enemies.

[synthesis]

I think truly "conservative" politics come from the petite bourgeoisie, not the haute bourgeoisie. Modern liberal capitalism aims to preserve the status quo, not regress from it, and it benefits from tendencies like immigration and women in the workplace, and minorities, to them, now often translate to marketing demographics rather than opponents of their position. The nuclear family and the religious institutions could disappear tomorrow and capitalism would keep on moving, unburdened by such reactionary "social" concerns. It's the petite bourgeoisie who have lost the most during the development of the capitalist mode of production, and the reaction to their continual proletarianization is what produces conservative politics.

[bropasaran]

IMO this is just another thing where marxism as a movement crippled the left.

What I see as the root of the problem is the marxist economic-reductionist view of class (which is even in itself, in it's sphere of economy, wrong and unsocialist) which means that the intelligentsia (along with managers and bureacrats) is included in the ranks of the working class; that root grows into the notion of intelligentsia being crucial for progress, of the working people being stupid, ignorant, incapable of doing on their own, only being able to develop "trade union consciousness" and it's the role of the small, priviledged, knowledgable minority (that Bakunin called "half-capitalist" and "least socialist") to lead them. Incidentally, knowledgabe doesn't (only) mean formally educated, but primarily means well-versed in marxist tenets. Anyways, the fruit of this root and growth is the obnoxious paternalistic and sanctimonius attitude that a huge number of leftist activists have towards the working class. The best example is the attitude towarads right-leaning (wage-)workers, and let's be honest, that's a large plurality of them. If you're part of leftist groups or go to leftist meetings and lectures, just look at how people laugh and scoff at people who accept conservative, capitalist and such ideas, people who are working class people, even in marxist terms; and their being bewildered by the systemic propaganda is laughed at. Or look at the mirror, I know I used to do that. But then I realized that that's like seeing someone get defrauded out of a large amount of his money and laughing at him for believing the fraudster, whereas we, smart as we are, could see right through that.

And if he asks- how do you mean 'defrauded', we start explaining some theory that has nothing to with him or the fraudster, no bearing on his life, but is in some imaginary world of fancy words that he doesn't understand, and when he dismisses us, or even worse, if he didn't in the first place approach us as his intellectual superiors asking us to expain to him why do we think he was defrauded, but said what he believed- "I wasn't defrauded, what's it's to you what I do anyways, who are you at all, go away" then we belittle him as reactionary, petite-bourgeouse, false counscious ingnoramus, stupid, illiterate, uninterested to learn about his own defraudment, we can laugh away anything he has to say, and be content in our self-satifaction. My view is that this is a situation where some leftists, who are not part of the intelligentsia in the real world, in this society, in a fit of indentification with that group, and probably in an aspiration to become that group, treat others simply discriminatory; and the (right-)marxism which is accepted as a (or the) leftist ideology masks with it's economic reductionism (not seeing the intelligentsia as a part of the ruling class) that this is basically classism.

How to approach the workers that have some unleftist views? Which basically means a large majority of workers. I think that aswer to that might come from taking a different view of the fringe elements of such workers, the extremists, conspiracy theorist, really reactionary views holding type workers. Those are the ones that are the easiest ones to dismiss, to mock, and to treat in a classist way, but I think that we really shouldn't do that. Using their example, we can look at their grossly mistaken views as a type of pathology that a victim of some violence and oppresion would have, like the Stochlohm syndrome. How does one approach such people, how does one talk to them, and more importantly- with them? Having such an analogy in mind, we should rethink our approach to workers that are influenced by the propaganda system, and that means a lot of them. We have to approach them with sympathy, we have to want and to put in effort in understanding them, to be willing to help them both theoretically and practically in things that they want help, and always have to treat them with respect. They're not comming from nowhere, they have real life difficulties, they have real oppressions and injusticies in their life, and they have real beliefs that help them cope with that, and someone comes and belittles those views? I think a certain reaction is to expected, and IMO this is why the real left has marginal support among the working people, with reformism and authoritarian left having much more, and various right-wing and centre options. To make an another analogy, a little extreme one, but it illustrates the point- imagine a person whose loved one died, and they're grieving and in that grief that person takes comfort in believing in heaven, we can be correct all we want in our view that such a belief is irrational and unjustified, but if we, without showing any symphaty and solidarity start to sermonize him about that, not only is he not going to consider what we have to say, he's going to become to bitterly oppossed to anything like it and anyone having to say anyhing like it.

It's a rare person who's going to even listen, let alone consider your view if you're being smug, and it certainly isn't going to be the average joe/ jane, the hard working type who doesn't have time to think about theories, and if I, who am trying to explain something to him, am some privilidged studed without a working day in my life, and on top of that I'm being smug. It's a praxis that is inconsistant with LibSoc ideas, when you treat the people as your inferiors, even if you're not aware of it, they will be, and the only people who will listen to you are the ones whose mindset already deeply functions in a authoriarian manner, and if those are the only people who are going to you, that pretty much defeats the point of talking about libertarian socialism.

Of course, we firstly have to acknowledge the this underlying disparagin attitude which a lot of use has towards the workers if they express any right-leaning view, and that's no easy thing.

We should not see ourselves as the superior part of the workers because we're class conscious, and that we should lead them, even in an anarchist sense, we should see that as simply a temporal differentiation, we just got class conscious before them, and when our words help them, like someone else's helped us, that just means that they would get class conscious after us, not because of us.

IMO if we want (to strive for) a classless society, we need to drop this classism, and to treat people in a cooperative way as equals, and untill we do this the true revolutionary, emancipatory left is going to stay on the margins.

[ckaihatsu]

[J]ust look at how people laugh and scoff at people who accept conservative, capitalist and such ideas, people who are working class people, even in marxist terms; and their being bewildered by the systemic propaganda is laughed at.




And if he asks- how do you mean 'defrauded', we start explaining some theory that has nothing to with him or the fraudster, no bearing on his life, but is in some imaginary world of fancy words that he doesn't understand,


But Marxism is a science, and *much* of science happens to be outside of regular everyday experience, because of the *generalizations* it makes -- if Marxism truly '[had] nothing to [do] with him' and '[had] no bearing on his life' then it would *not* be relevant or applicable to the average working person, and *Marxism* would be fraudulent.

Marxism, though, *does* speak to the exploitation and oppression that working people live under, and even if a non-class-conscious person doesn't *feel* exploited, that doesn't mean that they're scientifically, factually correct about their own social position.

Sure, there's no reason to be impolite, impertinent, or condescending, but whatever one's approach is, the objective world of exploitation and oppression is still there, and it's worth explaining that to people so that we're all on-the-same-page in terms of class consciousness.


Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/axvyymiy5/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/axvyymiy5/)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimage.org/f4h3589gt/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/f4h3589gt/)





and when he dismisses us, or even worse, if he didn't in the first place approach us as his intellectual superiors asking us to expain to him why do we think he was defrauded, but said what he believed- "I wasn't defrauded, what's it's to you what I do anyways, who are you at all, go away" then we belittle him as reactionary, petite-bourgeouse, false counscious ingnoramus, stupid, illiterate, uninterested to learn about his own defraudment, we can laugh away anything he has to say, and be content in our self-satifaction.





[I]t is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

However, the explanation is not really difficult to find. It is simply this. Misery and poverty are so absolutely degrading, and exercise such a paralysing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people, and they often entirely disbelieve them. What is said by great employers of labour against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilisation. Slavery was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any express desire on their part that they should be free. It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the question really. It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things. To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism.




http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/





My view is that this is a situation where some leftists, who are not part of the intelligentsia in the real world, in this society, in a fit of indentification with that group, and probably in an aspiration to become that group, treat others simply discriminatory; and the (right-)marxism which is accepted as a (or the) leftist ideology masks with it's economic reductionism (not seeing the intelligentsia as a part of the ruling class) that this is basically classism.


- Yes, some leftists, even revolutionaries, may allow their personal social aspirations to interfere with their political duty as Marxists.

- 'Economic reductionism' is *not* a misconception or false generalization -- class rule determines the mode of economics, so a class-divided society implements a type of economy that benefits the ruling class.

- 'Classism' *is* an inappropriate term in all cases because it alludes to 'class exploitation' as being on the same level as 'racism', 'sexism', and all other social ills. We should be clear in our own understanding that the class division is the *source* of all social ills, and is *not* merely equivalent to them.

- The intelligentsia, like anyone who's "middle class", can potentially go either way -- politics requires intellectual efforts, and that academic-type work can certainly be an aid to developing class consciousness, or it can be more of the bourgeois-propaganda type.

[bropasaran]

But Marxism is a science
It actually isn't.


'Economic reductionism' is *not* a misconception or false generalization -- class rule determines the mode of economics, so a class-divided society implements a type of economy that benefits the ruling class.
So, the ruling class rules outside of the sphere of the economy and then determines the mode of economy in order to benefit itself?

[ckaihatsu]

It actually isn't.


Marxism posits the class division as being the (most) fundamental divide in society, from which all major social dynamics and institutions arise. This isn't merely conjecture or a floating hypothesis -- it's theory.





So, the ruling class rules outside of the sphere of the economy and then determines the mode of economy in order to benefit itself?


Here's a framework illustration:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)


The ruling class has *always* benefitted from whatever overall economic scheme happens to be in place, by definition. There are historical moments like the French Revolution when the *nature* of that rule changes, but regardless of the ruling elite's composition -- or even the type of economic system it presides over -- it remains the main beneficiary of that economics.

[synthesis]

IMO this is just another thing where marxism as a movement crippled the left.

...

IMO if we want (to strive for) a classless society, we need to drop this classism, and to treat people in a cooperative way as equals, and untill we do this the true revolutionary, emancipatory left is going to stay on the margins.

IMO your sentiments are another instance of where leftism as a "movement" cripples the working class. Class collaboration in pursuit of nebulous left-liberal gains rather than meaningful class analysis.

[bropasaran]

Marxism posits the class division as being the (most) fundamental divide in society
So does anarchism. So does parecon. Don't see what's so scientific about it.



IMO your sentiments are another instance of where leftism as a "movement" cripples the working class.
Marxism is not synonimous with leftism, personally I don't consider it even a part of leftism, right (authoritarian) marxism surely, and I think most anarchist don't and shouldn't consider that a part of leftism, but perhaps not even the left kinds of marxism, depends of the conrete views of different movements.

[synthesis]

Marxism is not synonimous with leftism, personally I don't consider it even a part of leftism, right (authoritarian) marxism surely, and I think most anarchist don't and shouldn't consider that a part of leftism, but perhaps not even the left kinds of marxism, depends of the conrete views of different movements.

Good. You take your class-collaborationist leftism, I'll take my Marxism and we'll go our separate ways.

[ckaihatsu]

So does anarchism. So does parecon. Don't see what's so scientific about it.


Well, I already provided a line of reasoning for Marxism being scientific.





Marxism is not synonimous with leftism, personally I don't consider it even a part of leftism, right (authoritarian) marxism surely, and I think most anarchist don't and shouldn't consider that a part of leftism, but perhaps not even the left kinds of marxism, depends of the conrete views of different movements.


More diagrammatic illustrations....


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)


The Meanings of Spatial Relationships

http://s6.postimg.org/rciywyagd/130927_Meanings_of_Spatial_Relationships_aoi_xcf.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/rciywyagd/)

[bropasaran]

Good. You take your class-collaborationist leftism, I'll take my Marxism and we'll go our separate ways.
Marxism is not only class-collaborationist, it is primarily the ideology of the ruling class (the part of it that is the technocratic [sub]class- managers, bureaucracts, intellgentsia).

[ckaihatsu]

Marxism is not only class-collaborationist,


Incorrect.





it is primarily the ideology of the ruling class (the part of it that is the technocratic [sub]class- managers, bureaucracts, intellgentsia).


No, that would be 'business positivism', since these types tend to be invested in the capitalist status quo, as through equity investments, political stability, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lol. Impossible, your post comes off like you just ran into some obnoxious Marxists and then generalized that. The "only develop trade union consciousness" thing doesn't mean that workers are stupid or that they can "only" develop a certain and limited level of thinking. Actually that specific argument was made to counter the argument that radicals should only talk to the working class movement about bread and butter issues and not about revolution or oppression. The argument is actually: radicals should argue for working class movements to have revolutionary politics or else the movement will just remain reformist as they have been. It doesn't mean individual workers won't become revolutionaries, just that if they don't also try and make the class movement revolutionary, then things will tend towards reform only.

But in general, yes, people should listen to people and not crudely stereotype them based on labels or preconceptions... Maybe you should do the same for fellow radicals.:lol:

I've met smug Marxists and anarchists and right wingers. There's no political monopoly on that. And socially, the leg is skewed right now because of decades of decline which means that without movements, then any blogger or academic that comes along has an outsized voice right now. Not only that, but without movements the academics who might be helpful are also grasping as very little tangible experience.

Also while I definitely don't think elitism should be tolerated among Marxists or anarchists, workers also aren't fragile glass trinkets. All my life we argue about all sorts of things, know facts and have technical skills etc. if someone has a bullshit idea - depending on the personality of the individual - some worker is just as likely to call someone out on it as some intellectual would.

[bropasaran]

Impossible, your post comes off like you just ran into some obnoxious Marxists and then generalized that.
Yes, I've ran into their works. Their names are Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky :rolleyes:

E.g. Engels saying how the labor movement is divided into two- the chartists and the socialists, the rabble, the backward mass are the chartists, and the 'far-seeing' ones are the socialist, and there needs to be a union between the chartism and socialism. He mentions what kind of union would that be, writing "With the philosophers to think, and the working mean to fight for us, will any earthly power be strong enough to resist our progress?" What a delightful division of labor to strive for, which naturally has nothing to do with the notion of seeing workers as incapable of grasping the sublime truths of socialism (identified with marxist creed, of course).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, I've ran into their works. Their names are Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky :rolleyes:

E.g. Engels saying how the labor movement is divided into two- the chartists and the socialists, the rabble, the backward mass are the chartists, and the 'far-seeing' ones are the socialist, and there needs to be a union between the chartism and socialism. He mentions what kind of union would that be, writing "With the philosophers to think, and the working mean to fight for us, will any earthly power be strong enough to resist our progress?" What a delightful division of labor to strive for, which naturally has nothing to do with the notion of seeing workers as incapable of grasping the sublime truths of socialism (identified with marxist creed, of course).

Oh yesus, the ol' out of context quote used to sum up an entire school of thought routine.

I actually hadn't read that quote and had to look it up. After skimming the section, I honestly don't know how any one could take your conclusion away from that chapter. In fact in the paragraph immediately preceeding this quoted line, Engels says that the British socialist movement at that time was largely dominated by moralizing reformists from the middle classes whereas Charterism represents the actually organizing of workers, politically, for their own interests now that a split has formed between the post French Revolution bourgois radical liberals and the working class organizations.



The Socialists are thoroughly tame and peaceable, accept our existing order, bad as it is, so far as to reject all other methods but that of winning public opinion. Yet they are so dogmatic that success by this method is for them, and for their principles as at present formulated, utterly hopeless. While bemoaning the demoralisation of the lower classes, they are blind to the element of progress in this dissolution of the old social order, and refuse to acknowledge that the corruption wrought by private interests and hypocrisy in the property-holding class is much greater. They acknowledge no historic development, and wish to place the nation in a state of Communism at once, overnight, not by the unavoidable march of its political development up to the point at which this transition becomes both possible and necessary. They understand, it is true, why the working-man is resentful against the bourgeois, but regard as unfruitful this class hatred, which is, after all, the only moral incentive by which the worker can be brought nearer the goal. They preach instead, a philanthropy and universal love far more unfruitful for the present state of England. They acknowledge only a psychological development, a development of man in the abstract, out of all relation to the Past, whereas the whole world rests upon that Past, the individual man included. Hence they are too abstract, too metaphysical, and accomplish little. They are recruited in part from the working-class, of which they have enlisted but a very small fraction representing, however, its most educated and solid elements. In its present form, Socialism can never become the common creed of the working-class; it must condescend to return for a moment to the Chartist standpoint. But the true proletarian Socialism having passed through Chartism, purified of its bourgeois elements, assuming the form which it has already reached in the minds of many Socialists and Chartist leaders (who are nearly all Socialists), must, within a short time, play a weighty part in the history of the development of the English people. English Socialism, the basis of which is much more ample than that of the French, is behind it in theoretical development, will have to recede for a moment to the French standpoint in order to proceed beyond it later. Meanwhile the French, too, will develop farther. English Socialism affords the most pronounced expression of the prevailing absence of religion among the working-men, an expression so pronounced indeed that the mass of the working-men, being unconsciously and merely practically irreligious, often draw back before it. But here, too, necessity will force the working-men to abandon the remnants of a belief which, as they will more and more clearly perceive, serves only to make them weak and resigned to their fate, obedient and faithful to the vampire property-holding class.
Hence it is evident that the working-men's movement is divided into two sections, the Chartists and the Socialists. The Chartists are theoretically the more backward, the less developed, but they are genuine proletarians all over, the representatives of their class. The Socialists are more far-seeing, propose practical remedies against distress, but, proceeding originally from the bourgeoisie, are for this reason unable to amalgamate completely with the working-class. The union of Socialism with Chartism, the reproduction of French Communism in an English manner, will be the next step, and has already begun. Then only, when this has been achieved, will the working-class be the true intellectual leader of England. Meanwhile, political and social development will proceed, and will foster this new party, this new departure of Chartism.

This whole section is just his take on how the situation and class movements had developed in England by the early 1840s. It would be like if someone today said, "well occupy was great because it had currents open to radical visions and revolutionary ideas... but it was disconnected from working class communities and largely disconnected with specifically working class organization.... at the same time, unions have been able to mobilize some low-wage workers, but the politics of the unions is inherently self-limiting. What would be a good development is if the anti-capitalist insitincts and militancy of occupy was synthesiszed with the new shop-organizing going on in fast food".

What I took from that quote was not that the utopian socialists will lead the workers, but that he saw the necissity of a synthesis between the practical class organization which is at that point just oriented to resistance with a disconnected socialism movement that has no practical means or class focus, but has a larger vision for a better society.

In fact he ends the chapeter with this:

One more point remains to be noticed. The factory operatives, and especially those of the cotton district, form the nucleus of the labour movement. Lancashire, and especially Manchester, is the seat of the most powerful Unions, the central point of Chartism, the place which numbers most Socialists. The more the factory system has taken possession of a branch of industry, the more the working-men employed in it participate in the labour movement; the sharper the opposition between working-men and capitalists, the clearer the proletarian consciousness in the working-men. The small masters of Birmingham, though they suffer from the crises, still stand upon an unhappy middle ground between proletarian Chartism and shopkeepers' Radicalism. But, in general, all the workers employed in manufacture are won for one form or the other of resistance to capital and bourgeoisie; and all are united upon this point, that they, as working-men, a title of which they are proud, and which is the usual form of address in Chartist meetings, form a separate class, with separate interests and principles, with a separate way of looking at things in contrast with that of all property-owners; and that in this class reposes the strength and the capacity of development of the nation.

[black magick hustla]

*shrugs*, I feel this is tackling the issue from the wrong way. I don't think the conservative-liberal division is really that helpful when talking about this sort of stuff, because it suggests that the way to change things is "changing" people's ideas. It's an evangelical mentality. Usually social change is done by sexists, nationalists, racists etc, and are kinda pushed to change through social ruptures that they do not quite understand. By changing the world, they change themselves in the process. Case in point, the Arab Spring. Nobody knew where that was coming from and it just flared through the whole middle east almost spontaneously. Now you might disagree that the Arab Spring is progressive, or whatever, but it definitely marked some sort of social change that nobody really saw coming. Another much minor flare up was Occupy.

[Decolonize The Left]

How do we address and respond to fundamentally conflicting world views like those of reactionary conservatives?

I think that the only way to do so is on a person-to-person basis and to forgo the whole us vs. them notion as a whole. Conservatives are just people with deeply held beliefs. These beliefs are reactionary, sure, but they don't see them as such and this is their truth - not ours.

My goal when dealing with a conservative is always to first figure out why they are holding their particular belief and then relate to it in some way. All conservative beliefs stem from fear: fear of change, fear of the other, fear of losing what they have, etc... So when you figure out what it is exactly that they are afraid of, you can relate to that and tell them so. This reduces their fear of you and hence increases their willingness to listen to you. So you can relate to their fear. Well now I usually find it best to find a simple example which contradicts their perceived notions of the situation. If we're talking about a racist, maybe they know someone who's black or brown and they don't hate them. Well I'll bring this up, point out how it contradicts their racism, and leave it be at that. Brush it off at that point because any more criticism will result in them shutting down. Just plant the seed, brush over the soil, and walk away. They will leave thinking you're a decent person and maybe you have something interesting to say - something they should think about. That's all you can do.

In the end, their conservative beliefs will truly be shaken by action, not personal dialogue. And that action will most likely be radical and taken by those most affected by their reactionary views. But until then, small dialogues can help set the groundwork for that action on the other side. Being a white dude helps as well one occupies an already accepted framework through which they absorb most of their information anyway.

As I write that I wonder how little conservatives will/would listen to a black person, a woman, a non-conforming looking person in general. I imagine they wouldn't listen at all. Maybe that's a job for white dudes - to leverage our privilege against conservatives by tricking them into listening?

[Creative Destruction]

So does anarchism. So does parecon. Don't see what's so scientific about it.



Marxism is not synonimous with leftism, personally I don't consider it even a part of leftism, right (authoritarian) marxism surely, and I think most anarchist don't and shouldn't consider that a part of leftism, but perhaps not even the left kinds of marxism, depends of the conrete views of different movements.

Given your utter ignorance regarding Marxist class analysis that you've displayed in this thread and in your other thread in the Learning forum, there really is no reason to take your opinion seriously until you've actually read Marx. Which it sounds like you haven't done.

[Creative Destruction]

Yes, I've ran into their works. Their names are Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky :rolleyes:

E.g. Engels saying how the labor movement is divided into two- the chartists and the socialists, the rabble, the backward mass are the chartists, and the 'far-seeing' ones are the socialist, and there needs to be a union between the chartism and socialism. He mentions what kind of union would that be, writing "With the philosophers to think, and the working mean to fight for us, will any earthly power be strong enough to resist our progress?" What a delightful division of labor to strive for, which naturally has nothing to do with the notion of seeing workers as incapable of grasping the sublime truths of socialism (identified with marxist creed, of course).

Calling bullshit. I don't think you've actually read Marx and Engels, much less Lenin and Trotsky. It sounds like you skimmed wikipedia or out-of-context passages some shithead spat out at you.

[MarxSchmarx]

In short, you have to mentally neutralize them.

To do that, mdmr is partially right, you need to understand where these right-wing clowns are coming from intellectually. Then you can formulate how to combat them.

To understand them, read George Lakoff. Lakoff breaks it down very effectively, just google it if you haven't come across it before, you'll find gazillion explanations and it's chilling to me how well his explanations work.

Personally I think takling to conservatives about politics is a waste of time, except to get a feel for their talking points, so you can come up with strategies to fight it by going after the persuadables.

On most issues, actually it's probably 30% rightwing, 40% don't care/undecided, 30% leftwing.

The key is to go for the 40% and provide them with the leftist frame of reference at the expense of the rightwing "frame" of reference. The right keeps kicking the left's butt because it provides its frame at the expense of the lefts frame. It has been doing this for decades, and for the left to fight back will take time. But let me point out a few successful examples of the left with a track record at making people less obnoxiously conservative.


Probably race is the best example although secularism v. religion might be another. Racism hasn't gone away, but it much less acceptable in most of the global north to openly espouse white supremicism than it was several decades ago.

Conservatives are by an large racist and religious. But the left has appealed to enough people who might be conservative on code words like "crime" (read scary black people) to nevertheless stay true to the conflicting capitalist values of indivialism and not judging people based on things they can't help etc.... I think we are witnessing the beginning of this with gays rights. Enough peoploe who are indifferent to it are being persuaded of the capitalist virtues rather than the vague "tradition".

Arguably we are witnessing something similar with the decline of religion, esp. in US where the generational shift is very sharp. People still talk about "values" and whatnot, but issue by issue from the credibility of traditional religion has eroded in the face of triumphant capitalist values.

This will be harder to achieve when the left moves to economic issues that contradict capitalism, and to whit neoliberalism has proven comfortable with some social liberalization at least in the US and W. Europe. But I think by appealing to "good" ideas like democracy, rewarding effort instead of dumb luck, etc... the left can appeal to more peoploe who haven't adopted the conservative mentality on the "market as stern, righteous father". Polls show diehard support for fre markets are limited, and in any case on concrete issues like subsidies noone outside the internet is a true laissez-faire freak.

[consuming negativity]

How many rank-and-file serfs/peasants were convinced of capitalism ideologically before all of those revolutions and social reforms that brought us to where we are today? The proof is in the pudding: you make their lives better, let our views become the status quo, and everything else will shift into place just fine. And no, I'm not trying to say we need some Great Man to lead us out of capitalism. I'm saying the exact opposite - we need to stop trying to evangelize Marx as told through the holy book Das Kapital and instead come up with practical ideas based in theory that make things better. People are very much receptive to left-wing economics if you don't tell them that what you're saying is coming straight out of Satan's mouth before they get a chance to entertain the idea or see it in action.

[bropasaran]

@rednoise

Knowing about parecon you should know how defective the marxist class analysis is.

@communer
"I'm saying the exact opposite - we need to stop trying to evangelize Marx as told through the holy book Das Kapital and instead come up with practical ideas based in theory that make things better."

There is such an ideology. Go through this, it's explained in detail here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[Per Levy]

I'm saying the exact opposite - we need to stop trying to evangelize Marx as told through the holy book Das Kapital

i dont se how you can say that Kapital is a holy book in any way, its an analyzis and critique of capitalism and nothing else.


@communer
"I'm saying the exact opposite - we need to stop trying to evangelize Marx as told through the holy book Das Kapital and instead come up with practical ideas based in theory that make things better."

There is such an ideology. Go through this, it's explained in detail here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

yeah marx and marxism is bad but look here this anarchistic evangelium will teach you how to see the world. seriously you are embarrissing yourself.

[Creative Destruction]

@rednoise

Knowing about parecon you should know how defective the marxist class analysis is.

I don't completely agree with Albert's position about class analysis and I also think that he has a faulty understanding of Marx's class analysis, although his reasoning is more thoughtful than the dregs you've posted here so far.

The "Coordinator" class, while clarifying in that it points to an imbalance in workplace empowerment between workers and the managerial class, does not constitute an entirely separate class. They're still the petit-bourgeois. That they would have more empowering tasks than the proletariat is a given, so all he is doing is restating the position and giving it another name. I use this designation from time to time if the discussion warrants it, because it is helpful in some contexts, but it isn't valid as an entirely separate class analysis.

ETA. I still don't think you've actually read Marx, because nothing you've said here or in your other thread would indicate as such.

[bropasaran]

although his reasoning is more thoughtful than the dregs you've posted here so far.

The "Coordinator" class, while clarifying in that it points to an imbalance in workplace empowerment between workers and the managerial class, does not constitute an entirely separate class.
If you've read what I write, you would see that I consider the "coordinator class" as a subclass of the ruling class, in the traditional anarchist master class - working class dichotomy.


They're still the petit-bourgeois.
You're just talking nonsense now. "Petite-bourgeoisie" own means of production according to any of the three proposed definition of them that people use.

[Creative Destruction]

You're just talking nonsense now. "Petite-bourgeoisie" own means of production according to any of the three proposed definition of them that people use.

That's one part of the petty bourgeoisie. The other part are the managers and coordinators. This wouldn't be an issue for you if you actually read Marxist theory.


1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.

This group has been disappearing since the industrial revolution, as large factories or retail outlets can produce and distribute commodities faster, better, and for a cheaper price than the small proprietors. While this class is most abundant in the least industrialized regions of the world, only dwindling remnants remain in more industrialized areas.

These people are the foundation of the capitalist dream (aka “the American dream”): to start a small buisness and expand it into an empire. Much of capitalist growth and development comes from these people, while at the same time capitalism stamps out these people more and more with bigger and better industries that no small proprieter can compete against. Thus for the past few decades in the U.S., petty-bourgeois are given an enourmous variety of incentives, tax breaks, grants, loans, and ways to escape unscathed from a failed business.

2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.

While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are seperated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm

ETA. I have to apologize. I confused you with barbelo, which was my reference to the "Learning forum" thread. Y'all are both as clueless about Marxist class analysis and both have black flags in your avatar, so I hope you understand my confusion.

[consuming negativity]

@rednoise

Knowing about parecon you should know how defective the marxist class analysis is.

@communer
"I'm saying the exact opposite - we need to stop trying to evangelize Marx as told through the holy book Das Kapital and instead come up with practical ideas based in theory that make things better."

There is such an ideology. Go through this, it's explained in detail here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Yes, I'm aware of what anarchism is. Thank you for sharing?


i dont se how you can say that Kapital is a holy book in any way, its an analyzis and critique of capitalism and nothing else.

The point behind my post was more or less the same thing I always say when this question pops up: that we're even talking about this subject in this manner is part of the problem. The comparison was between the attitudes of subscribers to each particular ideology rather than a comparison of the books or the founders of aforementioned ideologies themselves.

[bropasaran]

That's one part of the petty bourgeoisie. The other part are the managers and coordinators. This wouldn't be an issue for you if you actually read Marxist theory.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm
Is there any reference to this in Marx' works?

[Creative Destruction]

Is there any reference to this in Marx' works?

Marx doesn't complete the class model, but he lays the foundation for considering managers as having separate class interests than that of the proletariat and more in line with the interests of small business owners. In Vol. III of Capital:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-III.pdf


The conception of profit of enterprise as the wages of supervising labour, arising from the antithesis of profit of enterprise to interest, is further strengthened by the fact that a portion of profit may, indeed, be separated, and is separated in reality, as wages, or rather the reverse, that a portion of wages appears under capitalist production as integral part of profit. This portion, as Adam Smith correctly deduced, presents itself in pure form, independently and wholly separated from profit (as the sum of interest and profit of enterprise), on the one hand, and on the other, from that portion of profit which remains, after interest is deducted, as profit of enterprise in the
salary of management of those branches of business whose size, etc., permits of a sufficient division of labour to justify a special salary for a manager.The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers.2 However, it has a double nature.

On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.

On the other hand – quite apart from any commercial department – this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision.

Whereas the proletariat is primarily concerned with drudgery work as a means of their livelihoods, managers are primarily concerned with the overseeing of capital as their livelihoods. Nonetheless, they are still constantly threatened with sliding into the proletariat. However, while technically a part of the working class, their economic interests lie more with the bourgeoisie than it does with the proletariat. This is the same as a small business owner, where the small business owner is always in threat of joining the proletariat should their business fail, and they have a class interest in maintaining capitalism, either through aspirationalism or through wanting to maintain their position as small business owner as their primary livelihood. The managerial class depend on maintaining capitalism for the same reasons: to fulfill aspirations of "climbing the ladder" or to maintain their relatively posh positions as overseers of capital. The proletariat's sole interest, however, is to completely overthrow the system and to abolish classes.

[bropasaran]

Interesting, I went trough the Volume 3 of Capital and totally forgot this part, although when I read it I wasn't an anarchist, but something of a social-democrat, so I guess I wasn't too interested in the question then. Thanks for the reference.


On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.
Not that it is crucial here that there exist conductorless orchestras, but the idea that a commander is necessary for coordination of people is simply wrong and reactionary. Nice to be aware of part of Marx that is not only contradictory, but complitely antithetical to libertarian socialism.

A few sentances later he says: "In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."

Economic reductionism strikes again to cover up by voluntary blindness the fact that power stratification is the real basis of class division of society. As someone who is aware of parecon theory, I just don't get how can you not see the erroneousness of Marx(ist) analysis.


This is the same as a small business owner, where the small business owner is always in threat of joining the proletariat should their business fail, and they have a class interest in maintaining capitalism The managerial class depend on maintaining capitalism for the same reasons: to fulfill aspirations of "climbing the ladder" or to maintain their relatively posh positions as overseers of capital. The proletariat's sole interest, however, is to completely overthrow the system and to abolish classes.
How can people repeat such irrationalities is beyond me. If the it's fear of the small business owner to becoma proletarian, then isn't it in his interest to abolish the proletariat, and thus do away with his fear?

The manager class has as it's most formative life experience (job) the stiving for the efficacy of passing down authority on the working people, and they don't see themselves only as betters of the workers, but also of the capitalists, because they are managers by expertise, education, hard-work, and the capitalist can be one based on inheritance, speculation, fraud, cronyism, etc.; having that in mind isn't it more logical that it's their interest to emancipate themselves from the owner and become owners or just complete controlers themselves, thus establishing technocracy (like they did in bolshevik systems) where they can continue to rule unbridled by whims of some rich voluptuary sitting on their back?

Why should the interest of technocracts be 'climbing the ladder' but the proletariat interest isn't to be to 'climb the ladder', I don't see why it the interest of one and not the insterest of the other, can you argument it, because it seems inconsistent.

[Creative Destruction]

Interesting, I went trough the Volume 3 of Capital and totally forgot this part, although when I read it I wasn't an anarchist, but something of a social-democrat, so I guess I wasn't too interested in the question then. Thanks for the reference.

No problem.


Not that it is crucial here that there exist conductorless orchestras, but the idea that a commander is necessary for coordination of people is simply wrong and reactionary. Nice to be aware of part of Marx that is not only contradictory, but complitely antithetical to libertarian socialism.

It's not contradictory. If you're reading Capital completely as a vision of socialism or a possible socialist economy, then you've completely missed the point. Capital, as the title implies, applies only to the capitalist mode of production. And, working within this framework, what Marx says about the necessity of coordination is by-and-large true. IOW, of course it's antithetical to libertarian socialism, or any kind of socialism for that matter. Because it's describing capitalism. Not socialism.


A few sentances later he says: "In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."

This is Marx contrasting the capitalist mode of production he was talking about, with a co-operative, socialist mode of production. You may want to read all of Capital in context. I've obviously made a mistake in assuming you knew what framework he is doing his analysis in.


Economic reductionism strikes again to cover up by voluntary blindness the fact that power stratification is the real basis of class division of society. As someone who is aware of parecon theory, I just don't get how can you not see the erroneousness of Marx(ist) analysis.

It's pretty funny to see an anarchist complain about "economic reductionism", especially one who supports the ultimate in economic reductionism with the "worker" vs. "master" framework. And, again, I don't completely agree with Michael Albert's conception of class, for the reasons I previously stated. Complete and total agreement with him is not a requirement to enjoy the rest of his ideas.

I'm not sure what you mean by this: "voluntary blindness the fact that power stratification is the real basis of class division of society."

Marx points to the power stratification that arises from capital ownership and people's relationship to it as being the basis of class division in society. That's kind of the overarching point of much of Capital, as well as other parts of his body of work.


How can people repeat such irrationalities is beyond me. If the it's fear of the small business owner to becoma proletarian, then isn't it in his interest to abolish the proletariat, and thus do away with his fear?

First, you're assuming that the petit-bourgeoisie are rational actors, not given to things like aspirations of building a larger business empire and striking it rich. In fact, this drive for profit and expansion is an underpinning idea of capitalism and the business owners -- large and small -- who maintain it.

Regardless, I am not sure what you mean, in this context, why they would "abolish the proletariat" since the ability to rent labor-power from people who only have that to sell, and to exploit them, is a significant driving force in expansion. Unless the small business person has enough capital to invest in automation, or are even in an industry that can be automated, they benefit from having a reserve army of proletariat workers. It's not logical for them to do away with that large and beneficial reserve.


The manager class has as it's most formative life experience (job) the stiving for the efficacy of passing down authority on the working people, and they don't see themselves only as betters of the workers, but also of the capitalists, because they are managers by expertise, education, hard-work, and the capitalist can be one based on inheritance, speculation, fraud, cronyism, etc.; having that in mind isn't it more logical that it's their interest to emancipate themselves from the owner and become owners or just complete controlers themselves, thus establishing technocracy (like they did in bolshevik systems) where they can continue to rule unbridled by whims of some rich voluptuary sitting on their back?

Their interests, under a capitalist system, still align more with the capitalists than it does with the proletariat, which is what this conversation -- and Marx -- was mainly concerned about. And by-and-large, if business is good, they're not going to fuck with it. In fact, they're going to try and get themselves a better seat at the table. If the system is working in their favor, they have no incentive to overthrow it for a "technocracy" or anything else. This is aspirationalism.

However, if the system isn't working out in their favor, former members of this class tend to be more conservative than the proletariat. Even though the small business owners, managers, etc., would generally have more to gain under socialism than capitalism, the allure of climbing up the ladder and gaining more money and power is better to them than one where equality is the rule of the day. This is why the petite-bourgeoisie were great recruiting grounds for fascism, Nazis and right-wing nationalists in the 30s and up until now. Those ideologies attack the haute bourgeoisie and professed a radical middle class vision based on preserving capital and class collaborationism, rather than class abolition (and thus their stations, hopes and aspirations at being better than they were).


Why should the interest of technocracts be 'climbing the ladder' but the proletariat interest isn't to be to 'climb the ladder', I don't see why it the interest of one and not the insterest of the other, can you argument it, because it seems inconsistent.

Well, you have to keep in mind, these are general lines. It's possible that a member of a proletariat can move up, but it's not generally true and this is pretty widely known. Because these "technocrats" are in a position to actually, maybe have their dreams realized, and move up the ladder, or just maintain an empowering job of overseeing commodity production, their interest lie with maintaining capital, since being in the proletariat would be an objective step down, in terms of economic wellbeing. There is also a whole lot more opportunity to move up when you already have your foot in the management doorway. However, while some members of the proletariat may be candidates for "moving up," this is not, by and large, true (especially since companies are more and more hiring out of places like business schools, rather than out of the working labor pool, like firms used to do quite frequently) and most members of the proletariat know this. The only way to emancipate the class in full is to overthrow the system and abolish the class division that exploits them and leaves them to toiling work. That is the proletarian consciousness, which is definitively different from the aims and concerns of the coordinator class.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If you want my opinion, the first thing you must NOT do is to be condescending to any of these people. One of the worst things you can do is to treat them as some kind of unwashed fool. They aren't stupid people. They're people who are coming to politics from a different direction than you.

At the same time, you have to talk to them at their level. You can go on and on about obscure Marxist theory all the days of your life, but it won't make a lick of difference. You have to be able to speak to them in a way that addresses their immediate needs. Even your most hardened conservative will still have some complaint about money or other necessities.

[Creative Destruction]

If you want my opinion, the first thing you must NOT do is to be condescending to any of these people. One of the worst things you can do is to treat them as some kind of unwashed fool. They aren't stupid people. They're people who are coming to politics from a different direction than you.

At the same time, you have to talk to them at their level. You can go on and on about obscure Marxist theory all the days of your life, but it won't make a lick of difference. You have to be able to speak to them in a way that addresses their immediate needs. Even your most hardened conservative will still have some complaint about money or other necessities.

Exactly. Writing them off as "clowns" is a sure way to see yourself into irrelevance. Liberals do this dumb shit and you're not doing yourself any good by adopting the same views and lines that liberals do.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Exactly. Writing them off as "clowns" is a sure way to see yourself into irrelevance. Liberals do this dumb shit and you're not doing yourself any good by adopting the same views and lines that liberals do.

Indeed. Smugness and a false sense of superiority are the last resorts of fools and blowhards. Nobody likes a braggart.

[synthesis]

It's pretty funny to see an anarchist complain about "economic reductionism", especially one who supports the ultimate in economic reductionism with the "worker" vs. "master" framework. And, again, I don't completely agree with Michael Albert's conception of class, for the reasons I previously stated. Complete and total agreement with him is not a requirement to enjoy the rest of his ideas.

He's not an anarchist. He's some kind of "libertarian Strasserist" or something.

[Creative Destruction]

He's not an anarchist. He's some kind of "libertarian Strasserist" or something.

i have to say, that's pretty unique. carving out his own little niche of "libertarian" Nazism. if this is true -- and he's admitted to this -- why hasn't he been restricted yet?

[bropasaran]

It's not contradictory. If you're reading Capital completely as a vision of socialism or a possible socialist economy, then you've completely missed the point. Capital, as the title implies, applies only to the capitalist mode of production. And, working within this framework, what Marx says about the necessity of coordination is by-and-large true. IOW, of course it's antithetical to libertarian socialism, or any kind of socialism for that matter. Because it's describing capitalism. Not socialism.
Are you reading the words? Do you not understand them or are choosing to be ignorant of what they say? He is stating very clearly his opinion that existance of managers is necessary. Which is simply wrong and reactionary.


This is Marx contrasting the capitalist mode of production he was talking about, with a co-operative, socialist mode of production.
And in doing that making a huge mistake. For him, antagonism exists between the management and the workers if managers are representatives of the capitalists, but when the wokers themselves choose the management, there's no antagonism. Totally in line with his electioneering. He is totally blind to relations of hierarchy, of oppression, and in the line of economic reductionism assumess class division happens only on the basis of ownership of means of production, which is wrong, because it it happens on the basis of relations of domination, and the ownership of MoP is just one way that opressive relations can be established, they can also be established in politics, or as in this case- in management, and then we have a class standing over the workers even though that class doesn't own the MoP. As I said, being familiar with parecon, you should already know this.


It's pretty funny to see an anarchist complain about "economic reductionism", especially one who supports the ultimate in economic reductionism with the "worker" vs. "master" framework.
The only "funny" thing here would be not only your ignorance, but your unwillingness to hear what people are saying to you. Anarchism sees class division as being based on dominance and that that's why we don't think the capitalists aren't the only (part of the) ruling class, as I have said multiple times, politicians and managers being ones, too. How could someone suggest that it's anarchism that is economically reductionist, and not Marxism, I really don't understand.


Marx points to the power stratification that arises from capital ownership and people's relationship to it as being the basis of class division in society.
Which is only partially true if understood as you seem to understand it, and when his analysis is understood in the cannonical way, that sees managers same as any other wage-workers- it's wrong and anti-socialistic, because it's the basis for an anti-capitalist movement aiming to establish a new class society where the technocracts are the only master class which oppresses and exploits the workers, as was talked about by Bakunin and other early anarchist critics of Marx.


First, you're assuming that the petit-bourgeoisie are rational actors, not given to things like aspirations of building a larger business empire and striking it rich. In fact, this drive for profit and expansion is an underpinning idea of capitalism and the business owners -- large and small -- who maintain it.

Regardless, I am not sure what you mean, in this context, why they would "abolish the proletariat" since the ability to rent labor-power from people who only have that to sell, and to exploit them, is a significant driving force in expansion. Unless the small business person has enough capital to invest in automation, or are even in an industry that can be automated, they benefit from having a reserve army of proletariat workers. It's not logical for them to do away with that large and beneficial reserve.
The threat to "petty-bourgeoisie" is to become proletarian, you said that, not me, and then you suggested that it is therefore their interest to mantain capitalism. It's not only the case that such a conclusion doesn't follow, but an opposite conclusion is much more likely to follow- that it's in their interest to abolish capitalism. If something is a threat to me, how can it be in my interest to mantain a system that has as it's basis that threat, the only conclusion conclusion with regards to my relation to that system is that it is in my interest to abolish it and thus remove the threat to myself.


Their interests, under a capitalist system, still align more with the capitalists than it does with the proletariat, which is what this conversation -- and Marx -- was mainly concerned about. And by-and-large, if business is good, they're not going to fuck with it. In fact, they're going to try and get themselves a better seat at the table.
We can see from history that technocracts follow power. Capitalist managers were more then happy to join bolsheviks when they were in power, and bolshevik bureaucrats were more then happy to switch to neoliberal systems and be managers there, preciselly because they're the same class. An interesting question is how it came to be that the technocracs managed to become the only ruling class in USSR. Well, they followed power. People became revolutionary, and active to such a degree that it had power to topple the old system, and the technocracs used the revolutionary wave to take the ruling positions by opportunistically portraying themselves as part of the working people. How? By using Marxist theory, with it's very faulty class analysis.

Marx never mentions them as a part of the ruling class, as exploiter or oppressors, in the section you pointed out to he even sees managers as a necessity or any coordination. How come the technocracts used Marxism, why didn't they appeal to Bakunin? Well, because he talked about "intellectual-managerial elite" as oppressors and exploiters of the working people who reduce them to the status of machines and beasts of burden, and that they need to be abolished, and workers need to self-manage MoP and the society, something Marx rejected as nonsense.


This is why the petite-bourgeoisie were great recruiting grounds for fascism, Nazis and right-wing nationalists in the 30s and up until now. Those ideologies attack the haute bourgeoisie and professed a radical middle class vision based on preserving capital and class collaborationism, rather than class abolition
Is that true at all, are there any statistics proving such assuptions? Being that I don't find this notion of people accepting ideas based on their class really convincing (having in mind lack of workers' acceptance of anti-capitalism) I wouldn't be supprised if that was just a marxist slur, in their fetishization of the wage-workers using argumentum ad hitlerum against workers who are not proletarian. (Along with the standard use of "petty-bourgeois" as an vague label that's suppossed to entice emotional reaction by identifying non-proletarian workers with the capitalists.)

All along not having much meaningful to say abou the class structure of the USSR, being hampered in that by the Marxist theory they accept, which justifies managerial rule.


It's possible that a member of a proletariat can move up, but it's not generally true and this is pretty widely known.
Is it true? The possibility of upward mobility seen as in interest of the proletariat has been one of the bigger reasons for it's non-acceptance of anti-capitalist ideas.

[Creative Destruction]

Are you reading the words? Do you not understand them or are choosing to be ignorant of what they say? He is stating very clearly his opinion that existance of managers is necessary. Which is simply wrong and reactionary.

lol. It's not wrong or reactionary when it's a description of how the capitalist mode of production operates, which is what it is. You're so absolutely clueless about this very fundamental point that I'm not really sure the rest of your post deserves any reply. You obviously do not have the understanding required to carry through this conversation if you insist on misrepresenting what is being said in the text.

Go read Capital, in the proper context. Pay attention to what he is saying and not what you think he's saying, then come back.

[bropasaran]

On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.
He is stating his opinion that commanders are necessary in every labor where people combine to cooperate. It is wrong and reactionary, a straightforward reason for anyone wanting emancipation of the working people to reject Marx.

[Red Economist]

I have to confess the very fact we are considering "how to solve the problem of conservatives" makes me uncomfortable, as once you stop hoping education will change people's political view voluntarily, you end up arguing for an 'innate' conception of opposition to a socialist socioeconomic system based on class interest.
This veers pretty close to arguing that under socialism a dictatorship of the proletariat must wage an ideological struggle against such views through state repression, if not the kind of socialist "final solution" practiced in supposedly communist states by 'liquidating' the class enemy, which quickly became anyone suspected of holding counter-revolutionary views as being a threat to the state.

given the primacy of economics over politics, it is necessary that the class struggle take a back seat and that so long as conservatives are not actively engaged in counter-revolutionary activity, holding reactionary views cannot itself be considered a threat to the state. In practice, it makes little difference what a person believes if they accept the rule of the state and long-term economic changes will do the rest. This is a rightist view, but surely the greatest threat to socialism, if it is to be a free society, is giving the state the right to decide what people can and cannot believe?

[ckaihatsu]

On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.





He is stating his opinion that commanders are necessary in every labor where people combine to cooperate. It is wrong and reactionary, a straightforward reason for anyone wanting emancipation of the working people to reject Marx.


* Chill *

This is merely objective reality -- that *some* kind of administrative duties will be required to dispatch administrative tasks.

And administrative tasks pop up as soon as some kind of *generalization* -- towards broader-scale cooperation and coordination -- of production is possible. Contrast this with *de*-centralized production, which isn't desirable because the patchwork approach to production is too redundant and inefficient compared to using far-reaching economies of scale, for mass production.

This doesn't mean that administrative duties should be *specialized*, though, because that would tend to produce a caste-like separation that favors a bureaucratic elite. While some call for immediately-recallable representatives here, I posit instead that current technologies would enable a purely *flat-level* ongoing political participation from every single individual -- just look at RevLeft....





4. Ends -- Flat, all-inclusive mode of participation at all levels without delegated representatives

[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.

[...]




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism

[synthesis]

He is stating his opinion that commanders are necessary in every labor where people combine to cooperate. It is wrong and reactionary, a straightforward reason for anyone wanting emancipation of the working people to reject Marx.

How does it not bother you that maybe two-thirds of all responses to your posts contain the phrase "LOL" directed at the degree to which you are misinformed about Marxism? Doesn't that suggest anything to you?

[bropasaran]

* Chill *

This is merely objective reality -- that *some* kind of administrative duties will be required to dispatch administrative tasks.
We have to be clear about what we're talking about, and I in that regard, I would separate administration and management. Management refers to people being engaged in managing "human resources". I would separate administration from that, and include in it tasks like e.g. accounting, which are like any other task of a workplace. That would then mean that members of administration manage some information and resources, whereas members of management manage what other people do. Having thus clearly defined what is being talked about, the conclusion would be that administration is ok, but that management is an institution that is inconsistent with libertarian socialism and should be abolished, that is- workers should be self-managed, not managed by others.

Note also then that this would mean that coordination would be an administrative task, not a managerial one.


How does it not bother you that maybe two-thirds of all responses to your posts contain the phrase "LOL"
Being a sensible person, I see neither derision nor your argumentum ad populum as something that is relevant, requiring neither prima facie reaction nor further examination.


directed at the degree to which you are misinformed about Marxism? Marx' words where he expresses his view about the necessity of management- as he says explicitly- commanding workers have been quoted multiple times. I don't see how could anyone who wants to read and to think about what he read fail to see the radically anti-libertarian and anti-emancipatory character of such a view. To deny that is to deny and obvious fact, which is to delude oneself on a pathological level.


Doesn't that suggest anything to you?It suggests to me that some people are entrenched in their already accepted views which they hold on to like dogmas, and they then ridicule and slander anyone who rationally challenges those views.

[Creative Destruction]

Marx' words where he expresses his view about the necessity of management- as he says explicitly- commanding workers have been quoted multiple times. I don't see how could anyone who wants to read and to think about what he read fail to see the radically anti-libertarian and anti-emancipatory character of such a view. To deny that is to deny and obvious fact, which is to delude oneself on a pathological level.

To consistently get it wrong so often and claim to nonetheless be right is a delusion, and it's a delusion you've displayed throughout this thread.

Again, you have to read Capital in context. You're pulling that quote out of context and ascribing it to Marx as if he's saying that this is the way it needs to be under a socialist mode of production (that is, a singular manager coordinating all production.) His references to managers -- as if they were singular or the "Army of Industrial Workmen" -- occurs within a context of explaining the capitalist mode of production. When he says that a "coordinating will" is required of all industrial-scale production no matter the mode of production, even co-operative modes of production, he isn't saying that there needs to be a single manager or managerial class that oversees socialist production. At least, that is not how I read it, given what he said about the cooperative mode of production just a few paragraphs before that passage.

But, let's entertain your delusion anyway, just to make you happy. Let's say that what you're saying is actually what Marx meant. That a singular managerial class (that is, not accountable to the workers themselves, but hired and imposed from above) is necessary no matter the mode of production. So what? This does not mean that it cannot be tweaked or disregarded and it doesn't mean that if you do tweak or disregard this concept -- per your interpretation -- that the entire analytic framework comes collapsing down, or make it "anti-libertarian." As you deftly point out, Marxism is not dogma or should not be treated as such. You can just as well substitute that line -- "commanding will" -- to mean a democratically elected production council, or even a collective coordination of workers that decide not vote for a separate committee or council.

If you had read Capital in full, even though Vol. III is incomplete in its ideas, you would understand how a "commanding will" would differ in form and character than it does under a capitalist mode of production. And, not entertaining your bullshit interpretation anymore, Marx is right anyway. You cannot have industrial-scale production without a coordination and without some sort of authority to execute it, whether it's an overseer in capitalism, or a democratic workers council in socialism.

So, again, you should read Capital in full, in context and without attaching your bullshit interpretations to the text. Read what he is saying. You don't even have to agree, and no one is really asking you to agree, but right now you just lack a fundamental understanding of what is being said and alluded to in the text. Otherwise, you're just a delusional piece of shit talking from your ass and without the faintest idea of what you're saying, if you continue forward without doing any of the work required to have this conversation.

[bropasaran]

You're pulling that quote out of context and ascribing it to Marx as if he's saying that this is the way it needs to be under a socialist mode of production (that is, a singular manager coordinating all production.) His references to managers -- as if they were singular or the "Army of Industrial Workmen" -- occurs within a context of explaining the capitalist mode of production.

Let's see:

"The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers."

"all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production."



When he says that a "coordinating will" is required of all industrial-scale production no matter the mode of production, even co-operative modes of production, he isn't saying that there needs to be a single manager or managerial class that oversees socialist production. At least, that is not how I read it, given what he said about the cooperative mode of production just a few paragraphs before that passage.Let's see:

"In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."




But, let's entertain your delusion anyway, just to make you happy. Let's say that what you're saying is actually what Marx meant. That a singular managerial class (that is, not accountable to the workers themselves, but hired and imposed from above)It's a delusion that Marx actually meant managers hired and imposed from above? Let's (again) see:

"In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."

"all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor."

Are you going to admit you are wrong in your "hidden meaning" interpretation of Marx and admit that he's saying what he is bluntly saying or are you going to continue to delude yourself?


But, let's entertain your delusion anyway, just to make you happy. Let's say that what you're saying is actually what Marx meant. That a singular managerial class (that is, not accountable to the workers themselves, but hired and imposed from above) is necessary no matter the mode of production. So what?Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this clear. You're saying: "let's entertain ... That a singular managerial class ... is necessary no matter the mode of production." And then asking "So what?"

Basically, to a proposed opinion "class division is necessary", that is, to rephrase it- to a proposed opinion "classless society is impossible" your answer is "so what?" - really? What makes you a revolutionary socialist again? When some capitalist or fascist or neo-feudal monarchist comes and tells you "classless society is impossible" do you answer with "so what"? Or only when saint Marx says it?


This does not mean that it cannot be tweaked or disregarded and it doesn't mean that if you do tweak or disregard this concept -- per your interpretation -- that the entire analytic framework comes collapsing down, or make it "anti-libertarian."Well, that's a wonderful concept- we assume that a classless society is impossible, and them just disregard the concept of that class division which we think necessary and voila- we can now have a classless society. By doing that we in effect reject the idea of libertarianism and the idea emancipation of the working people in any meaningful sense, but "so what?".

This wonderful concept can then be applied to anything, depending of what form of class division we assume is necessary. E.g. we can apply it to USSR to form a claim that it was a classless society. "USSR was a brutal tyranny of oppression and exploitation of the working people!" - "So what, it was a classless society!".


And, not entertaining your bullshit interpretation anymore, Marx is right anyway. You cannot have industrial-scale production without a coordination and without some sort of authority to execute it,Nice to see you finally admit that Marx was an authoritarian and that you're one, too.


whether it's an overseer in capitalism, or a democratic workers council in socialism.If a coordinating council has the same function as an overseer does in capitalism, if it is an authority above the people doing the work, then that "democratic workers' council" is neither "democratic" nor "workers'"; and it's existence means that the mode of production where it functions is not socialism, because the it has control over production and not the workers.

.

Having demolished your "argumentation" and exposed your authoritarianism (and thus anti-socialism) I won't waste time countering your vain insults, I'll just point that they don't say anything about me or my arguments, but they do say something about you and what kind of person you are. Cheers.

[ckaihatsu]

* Chill *

This is merely objective reality -- that *some* kind of administrative duties will be required to dispatch administrative tasks.





We have to be clear about what we're talking about, and I in that regard, I would separate administration and management. Management refers to people being engaged in managing "human resources". I would separate administration from that, and include in it tasks like e.g. accounting, which are like any other task of a workplace. That would then mean that members of administration manage some information and resources, whereas members of management manage what other people do. Having thus clearly defined what is being talked about, the conclusion would be that administration is ok, but that management is an institution that is inconsistent with libertarian socialism and should be abolished, that is- workers should be self-managed, not managed by others.

Note also then that this would mean that coordination would be an administrative task, not a managerial one.


I'll take a pass here to allow rednoise to actively continue with you, and I'll only add the following diagram for the sake of illustration:


[8] communist economy diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/mgmjarrot/8_communist_economy_diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/mgmjarrot/)

[Creative Destruction]

Let's see:

"The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers."

"all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production."

These quotes do not rebut my argument. Sorry, maybe you should read them a bit closer.



Let's see:

"In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."

He was offering a counterpoint to how managers would work in a cooperative economy. He never said that is the only way it should be done. Again, you need to read a bit closer.


It's a delusion that Marx actually meant managers hired and imposed from above? Let's (again) see:

"In a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to them."

"all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor."

Well, the quotes you pulled out directly contradict your contention. This is exactly not an example of "managers hired and imposed from above." Multiple times he says that they are hired by and paid by the workers themselves. I don't know how the hell you square that with being "imposed from above".

What Marx is doing here is counterposing a manager in a capitalist firm to one in a cooperative firm. In a capitalist firm, power is vested in the manager far and above just "coordinating" activity. They are also vested with power to fire and demand concessions from workers. This is different in form and character to a "manager" that Marx means in the cooperative sense, which he limits to that of being an overall coordinator of production, rather than being an authority figure imposed on the workers.

Again, you need to read these passages a bit more closely.


Are you going to admit you are wrong in your "hidden meaning" interpretation of Marx and admit that he's saying what he is bluntly saying or are you going to continue to delude yourself?

No, I'm not wrong. The quotes you've pulled out do not support your arguments. That you think so shows you dumb and deluded you actually are.


Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this clear. You're saying: "let's entertain ... That a singular managerial class ... is necessary no matter the mode of production." And then asking "So what?"

Basically, to a proposed opinion "class division is necessary", that is, to rephrase it- to a proposed opinion "classless society is impossible" your answer is "so what?" - really? What makes you a revolutionary socialist again? When some capitalist or fascist or neo-feudal monarchist comes and tells you "classless society is impossible" do you answer with "so what"? Or only when saint Marx says it?

This wonderful concept can then be applied to anything, depending of what form of class division we assume is necessary. E.g. we can apply it to USSR to form a claim that it was a classless society. "USSR was a brutal tyranny of oppression and exploitation of the working people!" - "So what, it was a classless society!".

Well, that's a wonderful concept- we assume that a classless society is impossible, and them just disregard the concept of that class division which we think necessary and voila- we can now have a classless society. By doing that we in effect reject the idea of libertarianism and the idea emancipation of the working people in any meaningful sense, but "so what?".

lol. Good lord, are you ever the dishonest jackass. Why don't you deal with my quotes in whole instead of cherry picking them?

My reasoning for asking "So what?" is clearly laid out in the following sentences. But I'll make it simpler for you: assuming that Marx thinks an entire managerial class -- completely divorced from and overpowering the working class -- is necessary for all modes of production, what part of that makes you think that it is necessary for the rest of Marxist thought to hold? What I was telling you is that it isn't necessary. You can get rid of that part and most of the rest of Marxist critique and theory would still stand.

However, that's different from saying that Marx said this. He didn't. Clearly he didn't, even in the passages you quoted and misinterpreted. It was a thought experiment posed in order to get you to stop being such an idiot about this.


Nice to see you finally admit that Marx was an authoritarian and that you're one, too.

The irony of having a Bakuninist say this dumb shit is overwhelming. Actually, no, it's typical hypocrisy from Bakuninite anarchists.


If a coordinating council has the same function as an overseer does in capitalism, if it is an authority above the people doing the work

Gonna stop you right here, because at this point, either you're just too fucking dumb to know what's going on or you're lying. Are you trying to have a conversation here or are you having too much fun batting at strawmen?


Having demolished your "argumentation"

lol. Don't flatter yourself, sports fan.

As an aside, to your questioning about Parecon and coordinating earlier, you should probably pick up Albert and Hahnel's "Looking Forward". There's some interesting passages in there about the acceptability of "Team Leads" in a parecon, which almost mirror Marx's own conception of what a "manager" is in a cooperative economy.

[adipocere]

)

How do we address and respond to fundamentally conflicting world views like those of reactionary conservatives? Such views are often seemingly impervious to reasoning. It is not nearly enough to say that their positions hurt people, or undermine equality, or even undermine their own socio-economic interests. This just makes no difference to them.

It isn't obvious to me that education is enough. When confronted with evidence contradicting the factual basis for conservative views, conservatives frequently double down:

Conservatives such as you describe seem to function with an immature or stunted kind of morality. In fact they seem to be immature in many ways, but there is an emotional immaturity to them, like something you find in tweens. Highly conformist, blindly obedient and respectful of ingroup authority, black and white thinking thinking with a punitive sense of justice and a self-centered but intense notion of fairness (as it relates to them) Combine all of that with a childlike awe of authority (human and divine) and you get people for whom cognitive dissonance must feel quite a bit like fear, hence the doubling down you mentioned. On the otherhand there is a fierce loyalty and a kind of ethical pride and honesty these folks seem to have that shouldn't be dismissed. All of it seems to me to be very psychological in nature.
I think the key to combating conservatism, particularly the kind you mention is in childhood development, in particular, moving away from authoritarian upbringings. That would require a seismic cultural shift. One that would include the demilitarization of society, which I think plays as large a part as the more obvious religiosity factor in authoritarian upbringing.

[Five Year Plan]

To consistently get it wrong so often and claim to nonetheless be right is a delusion, and it's a delusion you've displayed throughout this thread.

If you check his history in other threads, you'll see that the poster in question has many delusions, on display regarding many issues. One of his delusions, if I recall correctly, is that Marx and Engels advocated a peaceful revolution through the ballot box. My advice? Ignore him, since he seems to feed off the attention. Maybe he'll go away after a while.

[Creative Destruction]

If you check his history in other threads, you'll see that the poster in question has many delusions, on display regarding many issues. One of his delusions, if I recall correctly, is that Marx and Engels advocated a peaceful revolution through the ballot box. My advice? Ignore him, since he seems to feed off the attention. Maybe he'll go away after a while.

Well, I don't know about Engels, but there's a grain of truth to that with regards to Marx. After the Paris Commune, Marx conceded (I think wrongly, as history has turned out) that a "peaceful" transition to socialism was possible in the more advanced countries (he listed America, England and Holland as examples.) Later on, he revised a little bit again and said that while this ballot-box option may have been possible, it was just as possible (maybe even likely) that the bourgeoisie would react in a violent manner, thus forcing the working class to defend itself.

[ckaihatsu]

Conservatives such as you describe seem to function with an immature or stunted kind of morality. In fact they seem to be immature in many ways, but there is an emotional immaturity to them, like something you find in tweens. Highly conformist, blindly obedient and respectful of ingroup authority, black and white thinking thinking with a punitive sense of justice and a self-centered but intense notion of fairness (as it relates to them) Combine all of that with a childlike awe of authority (human and divine) and you get people for whom cognitive dissonance must feel quite a bit like fear, hence the doubling down you mentioned. On the otherhand there is a fierce loyalty and a kind of ethical pride and honesty these folks seem to have that shouldn't be dismissed. All of it seems to me to be very psychological in nature.
I think the key to combating conservatism, particularly the kind you mention is in childhood development, in particular, moving away from authoritarian upbringings. That would require a seismic cultural shift. One that would include the demilitarization of society, which I think plays as large a part as the more obvious religiosity factor in authoritarian upbringing.


I'd argue it's a socio-developmental disability, to put it clinically:


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)