Achieving Class Consciousness with a Capitalist Base?

[Sabot Cat]

Basically, I want to know how most of the proletariat can be convinced of the need to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize for ourselves the means of production. The base of our society determines the superstructure- the culture, the media, the mores and the values of the people. But how can the working class be expected to undergo the transvaluation necessary to overturn bourgeois cultural hegemony when the superstructure is still determined by a capitalist base?

Are the attempts to change the minds of people against the current mode of production ultimately a fruitless, almost Sisyphean endeavor? Any and all activism appears to be ultimately for not if the base isn't changed- and we are in no position to change that without convincing others to put their lives and livelihood at risk in pledging themselves to a revolution!

Consequently, is it just a matter of waiting as we're faced with crisis upon crisis until the nature of bourgeois oppression is exposed, and class conflict escalates to the level of an armed struggle that leads to the overthrow of global capitalism? Yet, this doesn't appear to cohere with history. Capitalism is proving itself stronger and stronger by the day, and crisis alone is an apparently necessary but not sufficient condition for a change in the mode of production. Indeed, because of the nature of the capitalist superstructure, most class conflict has historically given way to reactionary narratives that pit "us" versus "them" and fanned the flames of fascism.

So thus I return to the question: how can we challenge capitalism from this material and cultural position? I don't ask this academically or rhetorically either, as I want to do everything I can to help in bringing about a world where the working class has been liberated from wage slavery, but I have little inkling as to how this can be done. I'm open to any and all suggestions based in fact or probable inference from therein, and I apologize if the nature of my analysis is flawed- in fact, my hope lies in any and all errors committed herein. Thanks in advance for reading this and for your responses.

[Atsumari]

Eh, I would say that America is getting more class conscious to the point that it is getting rather easy for Americans to realize their class position. You have Bernie Sanders and Sawant on the left and the Tea Party, many of whom are class conscious but completely misguided who end up siding with the cause of their situation. You do not have to be a radical or even a leftist to be class conscious

But on topic, after almost every economic crisis where the bourgeoisie fuck up, an anti-capitalist movement rises and starts demanding some accountability. With this crisis, the left's present has been rather weak for a few reasons.
1. Much of the radical left is still stuck in the past debating Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Kronstadt, and the Spanish Civil War whereas the New Right has abandoned Evola, Mussolini, and Hitler and adopted something new, namely Enlightenment values. I would also add that much of the left has abandoned populism in favor for post-modernism and obscurantism which is not going to build a mass movement anytime soon. As difficult as Hegel can get, he was widely read and had tremendous influence. Plus, there is the sectarianism which is not a problem of unity, but too many people viewing politics as being incredibly personal rather than something for everyone. This is 100 percent our fault.
2. Identity politics and anti-discrimination has a way disgusting many people. It seems like whenever I talk to people who are incredibly anti-left, they seem to talk less about the ridiculousness of economic egalitarianism or workers taking control and less of "Cause it worked so well for the Soviet Union" these days. Instead, the rhetoric I am hearing is that the left is filled with feminazis, self-righteous politically correct assholes who want to force us to accept creepy degeneracy such as "trannies," and that we are anti-white. When it comes to the politics of disgust, I simply cannot have a serious discussion with these kinds of people regarding social issues and there are quite a few of them in the Occupy movement as well which makes me wonder if simply focusing on economic issues should be our only concern in this idiotic "Culture War."
3. A revolution has not happened in America yet. History has shown us that revolutions have a way of popping up almost spontaneously. The reason why promoting revolution is a Sisypherean endeavor is because no one really wants a revolution yet, they want a reform meaning that only reformist ideas will be relevant. If we are serious about revolution, then we should prepare ourselves for the power vacuum that follows a decay of a state and make sure that the Militias or David Duke's of the world do not seize control.The Enlightenment did not cause the French Revolution, but it did help pave the ideological foundation when the French monarchy started to fall apart.

[Sabot Cat]

But what I'm saying is that reactionaries typically do get the reins because the superstructure of our society in crisis still has a capitalist base. This also provides a useful explanation for the discriminatory or reactionary responses you describe to the Great Recession. Finally, I can't agree that sectarianism is the cause of the revolutionary left's inability to take power as much as it is a result of it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Basically, I want to know how the class conscious proletariat can convince the rest of the working class of the need to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize for themselves the means of production. The base of our society determines the superstructure- the culture, the media, the mores and the values of the people. But how can the working class be expected to undergo the transvaluation necessary to overturn bourgeois cultural hegemony when the superstructure is still determined by a capitalist base?

For clarification, are you assuming that a revolutionary situatin comes about when workers are convinced by a class conscious minority?

[Sabot Cat]

For clarification, are you assuming that a revolutionary situatin comes about when workers are convinced by a class conscious minority?

I'm assuming a revolutionary situation comes about when most workers are convinced that a proletarian revolution is the best solution to their problems and/or able to readily apprehend the nature of class conflict for themselves. But I'm not sure how this happens with a capitalist base even during a crisis.

I've edited the OP to make this clearer, thanks for pointing it out.

[Sabot Cat]

I made a diagram of the problem, if that helps.

http://i.imgur.com/UanJcdj.png

[Sinister Intents]

How to change the base from being capitalist to being socialist should come from the workers themselves when a large majority realize their position. I notice a lot of people in my area seem to have some kind of idea of their position, but also look at themselves as middle class or think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. I'd say a way of swaying workers to the left and eventually out of the left-right political spectrum would come from supporting organizations that directly affect workers of various sorts. If parts of the media could be taken over for reasons of propaganda we could churn out information to people of all walks of life. A small influence is at least a drop in the lake and with enough drops we could create a lot of noise and spread our influence onward to educate people, to get people to organize, and to agitate others for our cause. I'm not very eloquent on all this and if I think of more I'll add more.

[RedWorker]

"When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence" - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (Communist Manifesto)

[Sabot Cat]

"When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence" - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (Communist Manifesto)

The elements of the new one will never have the clout of the old ones because of the base, though. “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

The only way to change the superstructure is to change the base, but the only way to change the base is to change the superstructure, or wait for it to change by itself somehow.

[Sabot Cat]

How to change the base from being capitalist to being socialist should come from the workers themselves when a large majority realize their position. I notice a lot of people in my area seem to have some kind of idea of their position, but also look at themselves as middle class or think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. I'd say a way of swaying workers to the left and eventually out of the left-right political spectrum would come from supporting organizations that directly affect workers of various sorts. If parts of the media could be taken over for reasons of propaganda we could churn out information to people of all walks of life. A small influence is at least a drop in the lake and with enough drops we could create a lot of noise and spread our influence onward to educate people, to get people to organize, and to agitate others for our cause. I'm not very eloquent on all this and if I think of more I'll add more.

Mm, I feel like these are good organization ideas, I'm just skeptical that this will ever amount to anything more than the numbers needed to achieve a Blanquist revolution because of the aforementioned relationship between base and superstructure.

[keine_zukunft]

achieve cultural power and then that permeates through..then class consciousness but it's harder than it looks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Basically, I want to know how most of the proletariat can be convinced of the need to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize for ourselves the means of production. The base of our society determines the superstructure- the culture, the media, the mores and the values of the people. But how can the working class be expected to undergo the transvaluation necessary to overturn bourgeois cultural hegemony when the superstructure is still determined by a capitalist base?

Are the attempts to change the minds of people against the current mode of production ultimately a fruitless, almost Sisyphean endeavor? Any and all activism appears to be ultimately for not if the base isn't changed- and we are in no position to change that without convincing others to put their lives and livelihood at risk in pledging themselves to a revolution!

Consequently, is it just a matter of waiting as we're faced with crisis upon crisis until the nature of bourgeois oppression is exposed, and class conflict escalates to the level of an armed struggle that leads to the overthrow of global capitalism? Yet, this doesn't appear to cohere with history. Capitalism is proving itself stronger and stronger by the day, and crisis alone is an apparently necessary but not sufficient condition for a change in the mode of production. Indeed, because of the nature of the capitalist superstructure, most class conflict has historically given way to reactionary narratives that pit "us" versus "them" and fanned the flames of fascism.

So thus I return to the question: how can we challenge capitalism from this material and cultural position? I don't ask this academically or rhetorically either, as I want to do everything I can to help in bringing about a world where the working class has been liberated from wage slavery, but I have little inkling as to how this can be done. I'm open to any and all suggestions based in fact or probable inference from therein, and I apologize if the nature of my analysis is flawed- in fact, my hope lies in any and all errors committed herein. Thanks in advance for reading this and for your responses.

The premise of your thesis and question is based upon the idea that the workers require others to "convince" them or "change their minds." This is an incredibly nefarious position. It is also decidedly liberal, based on an idealist conception of reality and imbibed with middle class prejudice. Ironic, considering the apparent understanding of the superstructure.

It should all be rejected entirely.

[Sabot Cat]

achieve cultural power and then that permeates through..then class consciousness but it's harder than it looks.

How can cultural power be achieved without command over the material base of a society?


The premise of your thesis and question is based upon the idea that the workers require others to "convince" them or "change their minds." This is an incredibly nefarious position. It is also decidedly liberal, based on an idealist conception of reality and imbibed with middle class prejudice. Ironic, considering the apparent understanding of the superstructure.

It should all be rejected entirely.

No, my thesis is based in historical materialism. How is it idealist to contend that the conceptual framework of most workers is shaped by the bourgeois, because of the latter's control of the productive forces, including the assorted instruments of cultural diffusion? Do you even know what 'idealism' means? Can you explain how it's 'liberal' or 'middle class', considering this is the very premise of the Marxist conception of ideology in relation to the mode of production?

You don't present a cogent counter-argument. You just have a jumble of inapplicable barbs, devoid of reasoning or thinking.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, my thesis is based in historical materialism. How is it idealist to contend that the conceptual framework of most workers is shaped by the bourgeois, because of the latter's control of the productive forces, including the assorted instruments of cultural diffusion? Do you even know what 'idealism' means? Can you explain how it's 'liberal' or 'middle class', considering this is the very premise of the Marxist conception of ideology in relation to the mode of production?

I suggest you go back and re-read my post more carefully.


You don't present a cogent counter-argument. You just have a jumble of inapplicable barbs, devoid of reasoning or thinking.

I am not attempting to present a counter-argument. I am simply suggesting that people reject yours.

[Sabot Cat]

I suggest you go back and re-read my post more carefully.

Is your issue more that most workers already see the need to overthrow the bourgeois? That 'workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.' is a liberal motto because the workers are already somehow united in the common goal of achieving a socialist mode of production? I can tell you for sure that neither of these are the case either, and such should be blindingly obvious.


I am not attempting to present a counter-argument. I am simply suggesting that people reject yours.

I'm not really concerned with debating an amorphous cloud of others- I'm interested in trying to figure out this problem or where precise errors in my interpretation of this can be found. I'm eagerly amenable to correction on this issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is your issue more that most workers already see the need to overthrow the bourgeois? That 'workers of the world, unite!' is liberal because the workers already somehow united in the common goal of achieving a socialist mode of production? I can tell you for sure that neither of these are the case either, and such should be blindingly obvious.

It is definitely my view that "the workers", for the most part, are convinced of the need for change. Certainly in my experiences I have never come across a friend, family member, colleague or member of "the public" who has said "everything should stay exactly how it is." Many times people say "it was better then," but all that really means is, "I wish it wasn't now," which is essentially the same as "things need to change." So yes, I reject the idea that "the workers" require "convincing," on the basis that most people already are convinced -- at the very least -- that something is not quite right.

But no, that is not my issue. My issue is with the premise of your question, which is that the revolution or change will come about because someone has been "convinced." It is the equivalent of saying to a cancer patient that all they need to do to be rid of it is to have "positive thoughts."


I'm not really concerned with debating an amorphous cloud of others- I'm interested in trying to figure out this problem or where precise errors in my interpretation of this can be found. I'm eagerly amenable to correction on this issue.

The error is that the whole premise of your concerns come from a liberal, middle class, idealist conception of political struggle. You can either take that criticism or you can leave it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Tim asked the crucial question:


For clarification, are you assuming that a revolutionary situatin comes about when workers are convinced by a class conscious minority?

To clarify the question (whole lot of clarification going on), Tim is asking if a class conscious minority - the political organization advancing working class rule and communism - brings about a revolutionary situation by their propaganda and agitation ("convincing").

Your response isn't that clear (no pun inteded...okay, maybe a small one):


I'm assuming a revolutionary situation comes about when most workers are convinced that a proletarian revolution is the best solution to their problems and/or able to readily apprehend the nature of class conflict for themselves. But I'm not sure how this happens with a capitalist base even during a crisis.

Thing is, there is language ambiguity here, since when you say "workers are convinced" it isn't necessarily the case that the mass of us has accepted the argument and plan put forward by the before mentioned political organization. For instance, I am convinced of X all the while there was no person or group of people convincing me of it, persuading me to accept it.

What you seem to be asking is how can we expect the global working class to become convinced and active (if activity is taken as sure evidence of conviction); and it's a huge question. One basic line of demarcation in answering it is along Tim's lines: it's easier to conclude that it is illusory to expect enligtened minorities (communists) to produce a revolutionary situation by means of persuading workers to fight and fight in a particular way for a particular goal.

This leaves us with a picture almost like that of the labor of Sisyphus; or better yet, of waiting for Godot, even though there are tangible effects which can be made by the activity of communists.

But to be clear, I think our activity, even if necessary, is of secondary importance in relation to the self-activity of the class. By "self-activity" I mean the assertion of our manifold interests through struggle against capital and the state - either through strikes for conditions and wages (which on their own might serve as the basis for class unification) or political actions of much broader scope (incidentally, this was how Marx defined political action - that which is directed towards affecting the situation of the class as a whole, or at least of a majority of the class). I think communists ought to be clear on that one, that the self-activity of the class is an irreducible and non-negotiable factor.

This isn't even a modest answer to the question you pose (which is the question - if understood not in terms of substitutionism, "how can enlightened commies make the masses see the light"), it's a brief sketch of an introduction to the answer.

[Sabot Cat]

It is definitely my view that "the workers", for the most part, are convinced of the need for change. Certainly in my experiences I have never come across a friend, family member, colleague or member of "the public" who has said "everything should stay exactly how it is." Many times people say "it was better then," but all that really means is, "I wish it wasn't now," which is essentially the same as "things need to change."

I'm sorry for not articulating this contention as clearly before, but I find it evident that the crises that come with capitalism are fertile ground for reactionary ideology, if not more fertile than that of socialism because of my much repeated point about the determined nature of the superstructure and ruling ideology.


So yes, I reject the idea that "the workers" require "convincing," on the basis that most people already are convinced -- at the very least -- that something is not quite right.

The difference between a reactionary and a revolutionary is incredibly crucial, in my view.


But no, that is not my issue. My issue is with the premise of your question, which is that the revolution or change will come about because someone has been "convinced." It is the equivalent of saying to a cancer patient that all they need to do to be rid of it is to have "positive thoughts."

The error is that the whole premise of your concerns come from a liberal, middle class, idealist conception of political struggle. You can either take that criticism or you can leave it.

I leave it because it's not what I'm arguing. I don't mean 'convince' as 'persuade' I mean it in the sense of convince. One can be convinced of something without someone telling you as much. I can be convinced of the necessity of pursuing a proletarian revolution through the mere experience of exploitation alone- my problem is that it's unlikely that disorders in the capitalist system will lead to more than reactionary action from a proletariat steeped in capitalist ideology.


Tim asked the crucial question:

To clarify the question (whole lot of clarification going on), Tim is asking if a class conscious minority - the political organization advancing working class rule and communism - brings about a revolutionary situation by their propaganda and agitation ("convincing").

Your response isn't that clear (no pun inteded...okay, maybe a small one):

Thing is, there is language ambiguity here, since when you say "workers are convinced" it isn't necessarily the case that the mass of us has accepted the argument and plan put forward by the before mentioned political organization. For instance, I am convinced of X all the while there was no person or group of people convincing me of it, persuading me to accept it.

I apologize if my wording is obscure here: I say 'convinced' whether that comes from self-realization from recognition of class conflict, or by others' active attempts to persuade; it doesn't matter to me how because the problem remains the same.


What you seem to be asking is how can we expect the global working class to become convinced and active (if activity is taken as sure evidence of conviction); and it's a huge question. One basic line of demarcation in answering it is along Tim's lines: it's easier to conclude that it is illusory to expect enligtened minorities (communists) to produce a revolutionary situation by means of persuading workers to fight and fight in a particular way for a particular goal.

This leaves us with a picture almost like that of the labor of Sisyphus; or better yet, of waiting for Godot, even though there are tangible effects which can be made by the activity of communists.

But to be clear, I think our activity, even if necessary, is of secondary importance in relation to the self-activity of the class. By "self-activity" I mean the assertion of our manifold interests through struggle against capital and the state - either through strikes for conditions and wages (which on their own might serve as the basis for class unification) or political actions of much broader scope (incidentally, this was how Marx defined political action - that which is directed towards affecting the situation of the class as a whole, or at least of a majority of the class). I think communists ought to be clear on that one, that the self-activity of the class is an irreducible and non-negotiable factor.

This isn't even a modest answer to the question you pose (which is the question - if understood not in terms of substitutionism, "how can enlightened commies make the masses see the light"), it's a brief sketch of an introduction to the answer.

I appreciate your thinking on the matter. I suppose one thing that works against capitalism is that the many justifications for its exploitation are resoundingly false especially in light of direct experience with its mechanisms, but this hasn't proven to be enough for a successful proletarian revolution in the past century and a half or more...

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm sorry for not articulating this contention as clearly before, but I find it evident that the crises that come with capitalism are fertile ground for reactionary ideology, if not more fertile than that of socialism because of my much repeated point about the determined nature of the superstructure and ruling ideology.

And the effectiveness of those reactionary ideologies exist because the left has effectively collapsed and poses no legitimate challenge. And by legitimate I mean one that will succeed.


The difference between a reactionary and a revolutionary is incredibly crucial, in my view.

What is a revolutionary? Are you arguing that "the workers" all have to be this mysterious revolutionary in order for revolution to exist?


I leave it because it's not what I'm arguing. I don't mean 'convince' as 'persuade' I mean it in the sense of convince. One can be convinced of something without someone telling you as much. I can be convinced of the necessity of pursuing a proletarian revolution through the mere experience of exploitation alone- my problem is that it's unlikely that disorders in the capitalist system will lead to more than reactionary action from a proletariat steeped in capitalist ideology.

No doubt the right are better positioned than the left to begin with, but as an organised (or not so organised) political force, the left in the West is incompetent and ineffective.


I apologize if my wording is obscure here: I say 'convinced' whether that comes from self-realization from recognition of class conflict, or by others' active attempts to persuade; it doesn't matter to me how because the problem remains the same.

But herein lies the contention: What difference does it make that someone is convinced? Whether it's through self-realisation or attempts made by others.

[Sabot Cat]

And the effectiveness of those reactionary ideologies exist because the left has effectively collapsed and poses no legitimate challenge. And by legitimate I mean one that will succeed.

Yes, but why is the left is in this condition? I contend it's not for any philosophical or organization deficiencies, but for the material determinants of the superstructure.


What is a revolutionary? Are you arguing that "the workers" all have to be this mysterious revolutionary in order for revolution to exist?


Kind of exasperated by this kind of hair-splitting. I mean that there's a difference between someone who wants to change society in the direction of the past and a revolutionary leftist.


No doubt the right are better positioned than the left to begin with, but as an organised (or not so organised) political force, the left in the West is incompetent and ineffective.

Yes, and I'm trying to discern if this is an insurmountable obstacle from the perspective of historical materialism.


But herein lies the contention: What difference does it make that someone is convinced? Whether it's through self-realisation or attempts made by others.

The difference is the target: it's critical that one is convinced that hardship comes from the capitalist class, and not from the Other- the immigrant neighbors who 'took their job', or the women who 'refuse to stay home', etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

I apologize if my wording is obscure here: I say 'convinced' whether that comes from self-realization from recognition of class conflict, or by others' active attempts to persuade; it doesn't matter to me how because the problem remains the same. I don't think the problem remains the same; actually, I think it's a huge difference, and this is the very basis for tFU's attack against you (on their side, based on an assumption).

When you frame the problem in what I call substitutionist terms, the only thing that needs answering is how us, the enlightened ones (I sure hope all the toxic sarcasm can be read off) persuade the unwashed. How to manipulate, how to harness the power of the great undifferentiated mass.

Not that any adherent to substitutionist class politics here would admit to doing so; yet their activity is precisely this. The "problem" is a quite specific one.

On the other side of things, the problem is much more grave and serious - it's the problem as I said, the problem of how and why the working class comes to act; notice the shift of focus from the "vanguard" ("how we persuade workers to...") to the class ("how we...X, Y and Z") with a complementary question for us communists ("how do we as communists facilitate X, Y, and Z").

I do think these two alternatives serve as a basic starting point when it comes to thinking about it all.

And yes, direct experience isn't any guarantee; also, and not to sound offensive, if it is guarantees that you want to find - there aren't any.


A
But herein lies the contention: What difference does it make that someone is convinced? Whether it's through self-realisation or attempts made by others.
On the most basic level, the assumption is that activity is a sure sign of conviction; conversely, doubt and hesitation as degrees of the lack of it can be said to be fertile ground for inactivity. The problem is that communists consider, rightly so, the activity of the class paramount.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, but why is the left is in this condition? I contend it's not for any philosophical or organization deficiencies, but for the material determinants of the superstructure.

I am not convinced that it is solely because of that.


Kind of exasperated by this kind of hair-splitting. I mean that there's a difference between someone who wants to change society in the direction of the past and a revolutionary leftist.

Well, I don't think it is hair-splitting. I think, fundamentally, you come from a substitionist mind-set and therefore trying to navigate your terminology is important to me in order to effectively critique your views. For example, a revolutionary leftist? I mean, that's a term so vague it is practically meaningless. What is a revolutionary leftist?

If you want to get to the bottom of this, then you need to be clearer about what you mean. I asked you, for example, if you wanted workers to be revolutionaries. You haven't answered that. It's not a flippant question, it's an important question in understanding how you conceive political struggle.


Yes, and I'm trying to discern if this is an insurmountable obstacle from the perspective of historical materialism.

Is the fact the left in the West is ineffective and incompetent and insurmountable obstacle? Right now it probably is, but I doubt it will be in the future. Whether it will come about due to failures in capitalism or because we get our shit together is something I don't have an answer for.


The difference is the target: it's critical that one is convinced that hardship comes from the capitalist class, and not from the Other- the immigrant neighbors who 'took their job', or the women who 'refuse to stay home', etc.

Right, but then what? So "workers" have these views and they're all convinced, what happens next? What difference does it actually make to anything as a fact?

[The Feral Underclass]

On the most basic level, the assumption is that activity is a sure sign of conviction; conversely, doubt and hesitation as degrees of the lack of it can be said to be fertile ground for inactivity. The problem is that communists consider, rightly so, the activity of the class paramount.

I don't follow you, I'm sorry.

[Sabot Cat]

I am not convinced that things would remain the same if the left in the West were not incompetent and ineffective.

This seems like an idealist explanation, to me.


Well, I don't think it is hair-splitting. I think, fundamentally, you come from a substitionist mind-set

I don't think that's the case.


and therefore trying to navigate your terminology is important to me in order to effectively critique your views. For example, a revolutionary leftist? I mean, that's a term so vague it is practically meaningless. What is a revolutionary leftist?

One attempting to challenge to the capitalist mode of production in favor of a socialist mode of production through revolutionary tactics.


If you want to get to the bottom of this, then you need to be clearer about what you mean. I asked you, for example, if you wanted workers to be revolutionaries. You haven't answered that. It's not a flippant question, it's an important question in understanding how you conceive political struggle.

It's necessary for workers to be revolutionaries, and for the whole of the working class to act in concert in order to not merely reshuffle who constitutes the bourgeois as a Blanquist revolution would [and has done].


Is the fact the left in the West is ineffective and incompetent and insurmountable obstacle? Right now it probably is, but I doubt it will be in the future. Whether it will come about due to failures in capitalism or because we get our shit together is something I don't have an answer for.


It's not a matter of 'getting our shit together', and even when capitalism fails, it has yet to be a solid basis for most of the working class to band together to overthrow it anywhere at any point in history.


Right, but then what? So "workers" have these views and they're all convinced, what happens next? What difference does it actually make to anything as a fact?

If the proletariat acts as a class to change the mode of production, it will be changed- that's the difference.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't follow you, I'm sorry.You asked what difference it makes if someone is - convinced.

There's a good reason to assume it makes all the difference. Because if someone isn't convinced (in the sense I sketched, I'm convinced of X without a gang persuading me to accept it) there is good chance they won't act, if our acts are acts out of conviction. Communists hold that class activity is paramount; then it is reasonable to ask about working class folk of being convinced, and here lies the rub, of 1) further and further action against our particular employers and in ever growing combination of our forces (meaning against not only one capitalist, but more of them) and 2) action against the state as the ultimate guarentee of their rule

Step no. 2 ("2)" above) is the step where the class asserts itself as the potential ruling class (on the way to communist transformation)

EDIT: The equation is simple.

Conviction = activity

Lack of convicton = inactivity

[The Feral Underclass]

This seems like an idealist explanation, to me.

Your claim could only be true if there were not already massive resistance to the current crises. I don't know the American experience as well as the British, but there has been widespread discontent with the coalitions austerity measures, including huge union opposition, rioting, issue based campaigns and protest spectacles.

If what you're saying is true, then how does it account for the existence of resistance?


I don't think that's the case.

There's a surprise.


One attempting to challenge to the capitalist mode of production in favor of a socialist mode of production through revolutionary tactics.

More vagueness. What revolutionary tactics? Be specific.


It's necessary for workers to be revolutionaries

Okay, so does that mean they need to understand the nuanced details of capitalist and socialist modes of production to qualify as a revolutionary? Do they need to know all the revolutionary tactics or just some of them? Do they take a test to make sure they have the requisite qualifications? Do they need to be in a specific organisation?


and for the whole of the working class to act in concert in order to not merely reshuffle who constitutes the bourgeois as a Blanquist revolution would [and has done].

And you think this will be achieved by everyone having a clear understanding of socialist modes of production and revolutionary tactics?


It's not a matter of 'getting our shit together'

Then how do you imagine the left is going to be effective and organised?


and even when capitalism fails, it has yet to be a solid basis for most of the working class to band together to overthrow it anywhere at any point in history.

And that is certainly going to be exacerbated if it is not a matter of us getting our shit together.


If the proletariat acts as a class to change the mode of production, it will be changed- that's the difference.

So your argument is that if the class is "convinced" they will suddenly start to "act"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Conviction = activity

Lack of convicton = inactivity

That's simply false. The class act all the time without being convinced of communism or self-identifying as revolutionaries.

[Thirsty Crow]

That's simply false. The class act all the time without being convinced of communism.
Okay, but I was aiming at a particular - revolutionary - activity there.

So the idea is, no conviction no revolutionary activity.

[The Feral Underclass]

Okay, but I was aiming at a particular - revolutionary - activity there.

So the idea is, no conviction no revolutionary activity.

Well, again I find that really prescriptive. Like, what is "revolutionary activity"? Doesn't revolutionary activity come in various guises at various levels of conflict? I posit that the August Riots 2011, for example, was "revolutionary activity" insofar as it was an insurrectionary act, which is necessarily revolutionary in nature.

These conflicts occur on a daily basis within these communities. Resistance to police harassment, re-appropriation etc. There is a constant revolutionary antagonism that expresses itself without conviction...

[Sabot Cat]

Your claim could only be true if there were not already massive resistance to the current crises. I don't know the American experience as well as the British, but there has been widespread discontent with the coalitions austerity measures, including huge union opposition, rioting, issue based campaigns and protest spectacles.

If what you're saying is true, then how does it account for the existence of resistance?

The grasp on the superstructure that the bourgeois possesses is of course imperfect, but it has proven itself resilient without any evidence that they can't just adapt or give way to reactionaries or Blanquist regimes.


There's a surprise.

More vagueness. What revolutionary tactics? Be specific.


I'm being broadly inclusive to define a broad term.


Okay, so does that mean they need to understand the nuanced details of capitalist and socialist modes of production to qualify as a revolutionary? Do they need to know all the revolutionary tactics or just some of them? Do they take a test to make sure they have the requisite qualifications? Do they need to be in a specific organisation?

It just means they know enough to work towards the goal of seizing for themselves the means of production. I don't believe this requires a lot of theoretical knowledge. The implications you're desperately searching for aren't here.



And you think this will be achieved by everyone having a clear understanding of socialist modes of production and revolutionary tactics?

This will be achieved when the working class knows their enemy and how to fight them.

And no, that doesn't mean they need to know academic minutiae about revolutionary theory and Marxism nor did I ever imply as much.



Then how do you imagine the left is going to be effective and organised?

That's the question I'm struggling with. :(


So your argument is that if the class is "convinced" they will suddenly start to "act"?

Sure? If there's a consensus among the working class, if it's evident to the whole of us that the bourgeois are the exploiters, a revolution is not far off. I'm not sure how this is a controvertible premise?

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, again I find that really prescriptive. Like, what is "revolutionary activity"? Doesn't revolutionary activity come in various guises at various levels of conflict? I posit that the August Riots 2011, for example, was "revolutionary activity" insofar as it was an insurrectionary act, which is necessarily revolutionary in nature.

These conflicts occur on a daily basis within these communities. Resistance to police harassment, re-appropriation etc. There is a constant revolutionary antagonism that expresses itself without conviction...
Fair enough. I don't consider the August struggle in UK as what I'd say is revolutionary activity - only because there was no attempt (there could not be then and there, this is the point) to fight the state on its own terrain - as the only legitimate body of people deciding the way things will be run.

I guess I have a more inflated vision of "revolutionary activity" (one that doesn't allow for a number of massive class struggles; I do admit that).

[The Feral Underclass]

Fair enough. I don't consider the August struggle in UK as what I'd say is revolutionary activity - only because there was no attempt (there could not be then and there, this is the point) to fight the state on its own terrain - as the only legitimate body of people deciding the way things will be run.

I guess I have a more inflated vision of "revolutionary activity" (one that doesn't allow for a number of massive class struggles; I do admit that).

And I think this is the problem, or at least one of them. Communists don't consider the struggles of daily life as revolutionary activity. The antagonism between classes exists everywhere and all the time, yet these struggles and conflicts aren't considered revolutionary...Well, if these class antagonisms are not revolutionary, what the hell is?

Sabot Cat wants us to believe that the class needs "convincing" of these antagonisms and then they will suddenly "act", calling themselves revolutionaries, without understanding that people are already aware of those antagonisms -- they live them every single fucking day.

[Sabot Cat]

And I think this is the problem, or at least one of them. Communists don't consider the struggles of daily life as revolutionary activity. The antagonism between classes exists everywhere and all the time, yet these struggles and conflicts aren't considered revolutionary...Well, if these class antagonisms are not revolutionary, what the hell is?

Sabot Cat wants us to believe that the class needs "convincing" of these antagonisms and then they will suddenly "act", calling themselves revolutionaries, without understanding that people are already aware of those antagonisms -- they live them every single fucking day.

It's pretty clear from this post that you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to mine.

How many times do I have to say that being convinced of something doesn't mean you were persuaded? Or that just because you recognize there's hardship in your life, that doesn't mean you're going to know what's causing it?

[The Feral Underclass]

It's pretty clear from this post that you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to mine.

I'm sorry, but I have paid attention! You've spoken a lot, but said very little.


How many times do I have to say that being convinced of something doesn't mean you were persuaded? Or that just because you recognize there's hardship in your life, that doesn't mean you're going to know what's causing it?

"I say 'convinced' whether that comes from self-realization from recognition of class conflict, or by others' active attempts to persuade; it doesn't matter to me how because the problem remains the same."

In any case, it doesn't make any difference whether you mean convinced as in persuaded or something else, it doesn't alter what I said.

[Thirsty Crow]

And I think this is the problem, or at least one of them. Communists don't consider the struggles of daily life as revolutionary activity. The antagonism between classes exists everywhere and all the time, yet these struggles and conflicts aren't considered revolutionary...Well, if these class antagonisms are not revolutionary, what the hell is?I did specify what I think constitutes revolutionary activity - born out of class antagonism of course. I also think this difference is important as not all class conflict (actually, very little of it from historical and contemporary record) develops such a dynamic. But it is precisely those extraordinary episodes which merit the label:


(because there was no) attempt (there could not be then and there, this is the point) to fight the state on its own terrain - as the only legitimate body of people deciding the way things will be run.


All sorts of things can be said of the August riots; this one can't be, if one wants to remain serious and outside the scope of the delusional.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm sorry, but I have paid attention! You've spoken a lot, but said very little.

"I say 'convinced' whether that comes from self-realization from recognition of class conflict, or by others' active attempts to persuade; it doesn't matter to me how because the problem remains the same."

In any case, it doesn't make any difference whether you mean convinced as in persuaded or something else, it doesn't alter what I said.

Class antagonism is not the only kind of resentment bred by workers' struggles though, especially not when bourgeois ideologies prevail. Do you agree with this?

[The Feral Underclass]

I did specify what I think constitutes revolutionary activity - born out of class antagonism of course. I also think this difference is important as not all class conflict (actually, very little of it from historical and contemporary record) develops such a dynamic. But it is precisely those extraordinary episodes which merit the label

Class antagonism creates the revolutionary agent and since the proletariat is that agent, their activity against those antagonisms is revolutionary.


All sorts of things can be said of the August riots; this one can't be, if one wants to remain serious and outside the scope of the delusional.

And herein lies the fundamental problem with the left: their inability to understand the revolutionary nature of the proletariat's daily life.

[The Feral Underclass]

Class antagonism is not the only kind of resentment bred by workers' struggles though, especially not when bourgeois ideologies prevail. Do you agree with this?

Class antagonism isn't bred by workers' struggles, it is the daily life of the class. It is what being "a worker" is: Living in antagonism, day-in, day-out.

[Sabot Cat]

Class antagonism isn't bred by workers' struggles, it is the daily life of the class. It is what being "a worker" is.

Being a worker doesn't mean you're an anti-capitalist, or that you're incapable of reactionary attitudes. Yes?

[The Feral Underclass]

Being a worker doesn't mean you're an anti-capitalist, or that you're incapable of reactionary attitudes. Yes?

Being a worker doesn't instinctively make you a communist...

[Sabot Cat]

Being a worker doesn't instinctively make you a communist...

Okay, so I'm not sure why it's so controvertible that most workers would have to come to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie is to be opposed, and that such a viewpoint isn't an intrinsic part of the experience of wage slavery.

[The Feral Underclass]

Okay, so I'm not sure why it's so controvertible that most workers would have to come to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie is to be opposed, and that such a viewpoint isn't an intrinsic part of the experience of wage slavery.

Because I don't accept that coming to that conclusion is particularly necessary.

[Thirsty Crow]

Class antagonism creates the revolutionary agent and since the proletariat is that agent, their activity against those antagonisms is revolutionary.Whose?

Of the workers over at Tesco demanding better conditions? Of public sector workers for pay rises over years? Over assembly workers demanding the workplace be left alone and not shut down?

The point being, not all activity born out of class antagonism can be intelligibly considered revolutionary.

Our activity outside revolutionary periods, garden variety class struggle even if it is sectional and not nearly enough - is the precondition for revolutionary activity, but the latter is a different beast.

And trust me, there isn't any damn thing about my daily life - that is revolutionary. This life isn't in its nature revolutionary; it's the basis for such activity that is collective and that transcends the most common of barriers (like that of gender, race and ethnicity, sector/sectional ones, or indeed the mere fact that one particular segment of the class is actively fighting while the rest watch on and do nothing).

By all means, do argue for the potential where there is one; I don't think we're in actual disagreement on this account. But we are definitely when the rhetoric you use implies something entirely else.

Anyway, there is no argument against my explicit specification of the notion of "revolutionary activity", which I'll repeat for the second time:



(because there was no) attempt (there could not be then and there, this is the point) to fight the state on its own terrain - as the only legitimate body of people deciding the way things will be run.

So you might want to give a go at this; why is it wrong or insufficient to regard activity which can reasonably be called revolutionary - in these terms*.

*Of course, there's a shitload of unvoiced assumptions here; the state being the class state of the bourgeoisie, and consequently the fight against it being waged on grounds of proletarian collective (self)rule in terms of eliminating the existing state of affairs - those being exploitation and existential dependence on capital.

[Sabot Cat]

Because I don't accept that coming to that conclusion is particularly necessary.

So workers can just organize and protest together and a socialist mode of production will be the natural result? We don't have to be pursuing anti-capitalist goals? What of all of the general strikes and mass protests in history that didn't result in a socialist mode of production?

[The Feral Underclass]

Of the workers over at Tesco demanding better conditions? Of public sector workers for pay rises over years? Over assembly workers demanding the workplace be left alone and not shut down?

The point being, not all activity born out of class antagonism can be intelligibly considered revolutionary.

Can calling for better conditions of exploitation really be defined as activity against class antagonisms?


And trust me, there isn't any damn thing about my daily life - that is revolutionary. This life isn't in its nature revolutionary; it's the basis for such activity that is collective and that transcends the most common of barriers (like that of gender, race and ethnicity, sector/sectional ones, or indeed the mere fact that one particular segment of the class is actively fighting while the rest watch on and do nothing).

Of course your life is revolutionary in nature. You're a worker. Your very existence is revolutionary, that's what makes you a worker. What do you think being a worker is? We have the power to change the world; our very existence gives us that power. We are the revolutionary subject.


Anyway, there is no argument against my explicit specification of the notion of "revolutionary activity", which I'll repeat for the second time

I haven't responded directly to it because I can't work out what you're trying to say.


So you might want to give a go at this; why is it wrong or insufficient to regard activity which can reasonably be called revolutionary - in these terms*.

I don't understand the passage, I'm sorry.

[The Feral Underclass]

So workers can just organize and protest together and a socialist mode of production will be the natural result? We don't have to be pursuing anti-capitalist goals? What of all of the general strikes and mass protests in history that didn't result in a socialist mode of production?

Struggle and its success aren't dependent on whether "workers" have come to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie is to be opposed. They are dependent on the class initiating solutions to their problems and how effectively it is united and working in solidarity to achieve those objectives.

[Sabot Cat]

Struggle and its success aren't dependent on whether people have come to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie is to be opposed.

It is, because abolishing capitalism is a specific aim and if a certain struggle waged by the proletariat has more limited goals, the revolutionary actions will end once those goals are achieved.

[Sabot Cat]

They are dependent on the class initiating solutions to their problems and how effectively it is united and working in solidarity to achieve those objectives.

That... ugh. That is precisely what I'm saying. You have to know your objectives in order to unite and work in achieving them, don't you?

[The Feral Underclass]

It is, because abolishing capitalism is a specific aim and if a certain struggle waged by the proletariat has more limited goals, the revolutionary actions will end once those goals are achieved.

All struggle will have limited goals until they escalate. Communists should have that specific aim and we should always be promoting it, but it is not necessary for "the workers" to have those conclusions in order to struggle. The more that the class struggle, the more struggle will escalate and the more it escalates the more confrontations will emerge. The enemies of the class will become clear through those struggle, through those escalations and through those confrontations.


That is precisely what I'm saying. You have to know your objectives don't you?

No, what you're saying is very different. What you're saying is that the class have to have some holistic understanding of who their enemy is before we confront them.

Look, you're conception of struggle is that the class come to some ideological conclusions in order for struggle to exist. My conception of struggle is that the class have to actually struggle in order for struggle to exist.

[Sabot Cat]

All struggle will have limited goals until they escalate. Communists should have those specific aim, but it is not necessary for the proletariat to have those aims in order to struggle.

No, what you're saying is very different. What you're saying is that the class have to have some holistic understanding of who their enemy is before we confront them.

Look, you're conception of struggle is that the class come to some ideological conclusions in order for struggle to exist. My conception of struggle is that the class have to actually struggle in order for struggle to exist.

No, I'm saying that in order to successfully seize the means of production, it's absolutely necessary for the working class to want to do that or they won't. And I'm saying that it's unlikely that they will want to do that because their ideology is being informed by a capitalist superstructure.

[The Feral Underclass]

What?


No, I'm saying that in order to successfully seize the means of production, it's absolutely necessary for the working class to want to do that or they won't.

So this whole time all your point has been is that at some point in future struggle, at a certain heightened period of class conflict, the class need to want to seize the means of production?


And I'm saying that it's unlikely that they will want to do that because their ideology is being informed by a capitalist superstructure.

But if you share my point of view, this can't possibly be a concern, since that realisation will come at a heightened phase of class conflict, which means the capitalist superstructure has already started to collapse...

[Sabot Cat]

What?

So this whole time all your point has been is that at some point in future struggle, at a certain heightened period of class conflict, the class need to want to seize the means of production?

Yes, and that's why the entire superstructure thing is a significant obstacle.


But if you share my point of view, this can't possibly be a concern, since that realisation will come at a heightened phase of class conflict, which means the capitalist superstructure has already started to collapse...

On what basis can we assert that this supposed heightened phase of class conflict will ever come to pass, especially in light of prior experience? It doesn't seem parsimonious.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, and that's why the entire superstructure thing is a significant obstacle.

You're a bizarre individual.


On what basis can we assert that this supposed heightened phase of class conflict will ever come to pass, especially in light of prior experience? It doesn't seem parsimonious.

Your view is entirely Western focused to begin with. The USA and the UK, for example, are probably not going to be the centre of emerging class conflict. In any case, history does demonstrate that the logic of capitalism doesn't always maintain its stranglehold. Conflict comes in waves. Your question also assumes that there isn't already conflict, and that is not true.

[Sabot Cat]

You're a bizarre individual.

Your view is entirely Western focused to begin with. The USA and the UK, for example, are probably not going to be the centre of emerging class conflict. In any case, history does demonstrate that the logic of capitalism doesn't always maintain its stranglehold. Conflict comes in waves. Your question also assumes that there isn't already conflict, and that is not true.

How am I Western focused in this analysis, precisely?

And you're right, it doesn't always maintain its stranglehold- sometimes liberal capitalist societies give way to state capitalism, theocracies, fascism, etc. But in all of this conflict, the mode of production is never truly changed.

[The Feral Underclass]

How am I Western focused in this analysis, precisely?

How do you think the success of capitalism's ideological hegemony is measured? I would argue that a good measure of the success of capitalism's ideological hegemony is stability, or at least the ability to create the perception of stability. With stability, real or perceived, conflict is minimised as the justifications for capitalism become stronger: jobs, good economy, cheap homes, cheap cars, low crime, opportunities, access to education and the more pernicious things such as aspiration, consumerism, replication, cultural norms, entertainment, the media, equality, functioning parliamentary democracy, education designed to produce new capitalist innovators, workers and managers. All of these things provide people with a sense of stability. Society works. It functions. So dissent and conflict becomes more and more alien and mystifying.

But these things only apply in the West and Westernised nations (even though conflict does exist in them anyway). They do not apply to many other countries where the justifications and logic of capitalism don't really exist in terms of stability, either real or perceived. Open conflict is happening in parts of the world and will only increase as capitalism in the West seeks to squeeze those economies even further.

Revolution is unlikely to begin in the UK, for example. I doubt that the West will be the centre for emerging global class conflict. Your analysis is Western focused, therefore, because it does not take into consideration what is happening in other parts of the world.


And you're right, it doesn't always maintain its stranglehold- sometimes liberal capitalist societies give way to state capitalism, theocracies, fascism, etc. But in all of this conflict, the mode of production is never truly changed.

But in a practical sense that's not because of the ideological hegemony of capitalism. If the ideological hegemony of capitalism was so capable of pacifying dissent these conflicts wouldn't exist in the first place -- so the question of why moves beyond that of the ideological hegemony of capitalism.

Take Germany 1919 for example. Capitalism's hegemony had completely collapsed and people took to the left and the right. The Left almost succeeded in achieving a workers' state and even installed a Government in Bavaria. Why did that fail? Why did the upheaval in 1960s/1970s France and Italy not generalise? The Paris Uprising for example?

The point I'm trying to get at is that the superstructure, being as it is, will most certainly impede on the abilities of the left to generalise its culture of resistance and the ideas and methods necessary, but it is not the exclusive contributing cause for why the left is failing. Especially when you consider that resistance to capitalism exists all over the world, in increasingly more militant ways in some parts.

[Sabot Cat]

How do you think the success of capitalism's ideological hegemony is measured?

Globally?


But in a practical sense that's not because of the ideological hegemony of capitalism. If the ideological hegemony of capitalism was so capable of pacifying dissent these conflicts wouldn't exist in the first place -- so the question of why moves beyond that of the ideological hegemony of capitalism.


The ideological hegemony of capitalism has proven almost completely successful in preserving itself.


Take Germany 1919 for example. Capitalism's hegemony had completely collapsed and people took to the left and the right. The Left almost succeeded in achieving a workers' state and even installed a Government in Bavaria. Why did that fail? Why did the upheaval in 1960s/1970s France and Italy not generalise? The Paris Uprising for example?

Germany 1919 did not have capitalist hegemony completely collapse- that's why the revolution failed. The same is true of the other cases you mention, and pretty much any example you care to name. Even in Nicaragua, the Sandinista revolutionaries stopped short of establishing socialism before their fragile, more progressive republic was felled by American imperialism.

Indeed, the proletariat of any one nation has never sufficiently united to seize for themselves the means of production- which is why most of the 'successes' for self-proclaimed socialists come from revolutions waged by an ideological minority. In movements that relied on broader, mass action, they've universally failed because the entire proletariat didn't unite in solidarity with the members of their class. The 200,000 blackshirts that suppressed the socialists during the Bienno Rosso, the 600,000 infantrymen under Franco's command- you can't tell me they were all owners of capital.

Furthermore, the May 1968 protests in France resulted in a snap election where the right-wing parties received 12,875,139 votes- approximately a million more than the number of workers who participated, or 22% of the French population. Immediately after a poll was conducted, and 20% of those surveyed suggested that they would have participated in a revolution. 57% said they would have avoided participation, and 23% would have opposed it. This mirrors both the election results and the number of participants in the events that transpired.

As long as the working class remains divided against itself, there is no hope for a successful socialist revolution.


The point I'm trying to get at is that the superstructure, being as it is, will most certainly impede on the abilities of the left to generalise its culture of resistance and the ideas and methods necessary, but it is not the exclusive contributing cause for why the left is failing. Especially when you consider that resistance to capitalism exists all over the world, in increasingly more militant ways in some parts.

Sure it exists all over the world- but the class dictatorship of the proletariat organized under the principles of workers' self-management- that exists no where, and where it has in the past, it's not long before they're crushed.

[The Feral Underclass]

As long as the working class remains divided against itself, there is no hope for a successful socialist revolution.

Which according to you is never going to be possible. I mean, that's the logical conclusion of your argument anyway.

Ultimately as we have seen in history, and as you yourself have admitted to, conflict comes in waves. The justifications for capitalism's ideological hegemony wanes and falters, if not at times collapses to the point that communist ideological hegemony can make advances. The question then is how successful communists can be in practice.

The debate, therefore, shouldn't dwell, as you are, on the superstructure and its almighty power, but on how do we effectively organise as communists to build unity and solidarity in the class and construct a counter-hegemony strong enough to generalise class conflict.

To get bogged down in your neurosis is to concede to pessimism and defeat and that makes you just as guilty of being subsumed by capitalism as any thing else.

[Sabot Cat]

Which according to you is never going to be possible. I mean, that's the logical conclusion of your argument anyway.

I suppose it is, but I don't accept that I'm correct in this. :(


Ultimately as we have seen in history, and as you yourself have admitted to, conflict comes in waves. The justifications for capitalism's ideological hegemony wanes and falters, if not at times collapses to the point that communist ideological hegemony can make advances. The question then is how successful communists can be in practice.

The debate, therefore, shouldn't dwell, as you are, on the superstructure and its almighty power, but on how do we effectively organise as communists to build unity and solidarity in the class and construct a counter-hegemony strong enough to generalise class conflict.

I agree; this would be a more productive conversational focus. I'm interested in hearing your ideas. :)

These suggestions are probably dumb or redundant, but here's some I can think of:

-> We must ensure that all of us remain staunchly opposed to imperialism and wars that sacrifice us by the thousands and the millions, because this is one of the starkest demonstrations of how capitalism is inherently opposed to the interests of the proletariat. I can only think of how much healthier the socialist movement would have been in the European continent before, during and after the First World War if all of the socialist parties had stayed steadfast in their stated commitment to the Stuttgart Resolution instead of falling into 'Social chauvinism'. It's worth nothing that the only group that did stay true to their pre-war peace commitments was the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Burgfriedenspolitik and the Union sacrée- these were the pacts that evaporated any possible credibility of socialism as a movement in this time and place.

-> Related, but we should continue our promotion of environmentalism, even if it might seem extraneous now. The effects of climate change will be a clear catastrophe caused by capitalism, and again, a clear example of

-> Rounding out the trifecta, we must oppose nuclear war and armaments as clearly as possible.

I think all three of the above tactics fall into the "Lone Voice in the Wilderness" strategy, because if/when these spark massive crises and fertile ground for a revolutionary situation, socialist workers will be able to point how if their lead would have been followed, none of this would have happened, building their credibility and reinforcing the thesis that capitalism as an institution is inherently working against the interests of the proletariat and cannot be tolerated.


To get bogged down in your neurosis is to concede to pessimism and defeat and that makes you just as guilty of being subsumed by capitalism as any thing else.

That is an interesting point. Perhaps this very thread is a manifestation of the capitalist superstructure's cultural hegemony.