Why won't the proletariat rebel?

[Ramachandra]

Recently in an argument some nationalist asked the following question.
If there is something called class consciousness in an era which poverty and stuff are increasing severely why won't the proletariat rebel?
He suggested that therefore the concept of class struggle is a myth and argued workers don't have something called class consciousness and the concept about "class" is also an abstract concept.and further pointed out that workers don't feel that they belong to a specific class neither they won't to have a struggle against the ruling class so "class struggle" has been expired.Instead of class struggle he highlighted various ethnic and religious uprisings,conflicts and argued that the "real" consciousness is based on ethnicity/nation/ religion etc.
Well I had some answers of mine.Some were not perfect although:)
Can you guys supply a strong answer?

[politics student]

Short answer: Consumerism

Why rebel when you have to keep up with payments on your home?

Why rebel when your credit card bills are through the roof when the message society gives every one is to spend spend spend. Sensible money management is not even taught in schools.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Why rebel when you think you live in a democracy and problems can be solved by voting in public school boy number 2.

[Ramachandra]

Why rebel when you think you live in a democracy and problems can be solved by voting in public school boy number 2.

__________________
So has class struggle expired???

[politics student]

So has class struggle expired???

No but the 21st century is said to be the death of ideology where only a handful will survive Neo liberalism, democracy, environmentalism and consumerism.

Communism will have its day in the future we need to be prepared and keep our efforts to bring a new revolution to the world.

[mykittyhasaboner]

apathy is the number 1 reason. people just seem to not give a shit about anything if its not concerning themselves personally. (which is a horrible paradox because a revolution, and current material conditions for sustenance concerns everyone)

also, lack of education. the average everyday person you see doesn't know what communism is, nor do they understand what capitalism is either.

and finally, content for current conditions. to most people, having a house, car, family, etc is enough for a "happy life". consumerism (as passmore described above) drives people to literally become addicted to buying things, and spending money on a constant basis.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So has class struggle expired???


Of course not!


We just need to convince people that voting in a fucked up system will accomplish fuck all.

[politics student]

apathy is the number 1 reason. people just seem to not give a shit about anything if its not concerning themselves personally. (which is a horrible paradox because a revolution, and current material conditions for sustenance concerns everyone)

also, lack of education. the average everyday person you see doesn't know what communism is, nor do they understand what capitalism is either.

and finally, content for current conditions. to most people, having a house, car, family, etc is enough for a "happy life". consumerism (as passmore described above) drives people to literally become addicted to buying things, and spending money on a constant basis.

Politics is no longer in education, socialism is part of a history GCSE to show how "evil" socialism is by looking at the cold war.

I was at work reading a book called "the thoughts of Marx" and my co workers did not even know who he was. (it was one of my motivations to quit I could stand being round such ignorance)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Politics is no longer in education, socialism is part of a history GCSE to show how "evil" socialism is by looking at the cold war.
and people are educated in history. in my old history textbook, theres quite a bit about socialism, but its all biased. essentially its kind of like "marx was wrong, communism was totalitarian, capitalism is better." its a bunch of misinformation.

and there are specific economic classes in high schools/college as well. but i know what you mean, there is obviously a strong bias against socialism in Western schools.

[Trystan]

I think that that Gramscian hegemony is the reason for lack of class-consciousness. Capitalist ideology is shoved down your throat at every corner, on bus stops, on television, on billboards etc.


So has class struggle expired???

Of course not. Class antagonisms still exist, thus class struggle is not over.

[politics student]

and people are educated in history. in my old history textbook, theres quite a bit about socialism, but its all biased. essentially its kind of like "marx was wrong, communism was totalitarian, capitalism is better." its a bunch of misinformation.

and there are specific economic classes in high schools/college as well. but i know what you mean, there is obviously a strong bias against socialism in Western schools.

I agree, the education system is in a depressing state. I wish critical thinking was taught rather than RE, we need to teach children to question not blindly respect everyone.

There is also the issue that no one bothers to learn ideologies as they blindly accept what they were told as a child in schools.

I have never understood this capitalism creates freedom BS, you have a few billions in poverty so you can extra choice when shopping?

[Winter]

Education, mass media, all this is pro-capitalists propaganda that shapes and molds the out look of the common worker. When force fed this kind of filth people don't realize any other options really exist.

So how do we regain class consciousness in modern society? The conditions here in America for instance are good enough to make people content on what they have. Nobody wants to rebel because they don't have it bad enough. That mixed with the American dream of striking it big are primary reasons why people do not see the inherent downfalls of capitalism. Why worry about the state of society when you must worry about feeding your children and paying off that new Hummer?

Class consciousness is very unlikely to hit America anytime soon. The New Deal presented the scraps to make Americans calm their Revolutionary tendencies. This is why we must support under-developed countries that are victimized by capitalism to rise up. America doesn't get this advantage of wealth for no reason, they get it because they reap resources and labor from poor countries. Countries without any child labor laws and workers rights. The people in these countries see clearly the truth of class-warfare.

We must support all revolutions against imperialism in under-developed countries, whether they be socialistic or merely for liberation. That would cause the American system not to benefit from the reapings of cheap labor and goods. Only til things get desperate in the U.S. will the working man be class conscious.

[politics student]

Education, mass media, all this is pro-capitalists propaganda that shapes and molds the out look of the common worker. When force fed this kind of filth people don't realize any other options really exist.

So how do we regain class consciousness in modern society? The conditions here in America for instance are good enough to make people content on what they have. Nobody wants to rebel because they don't have it bad enough. That mixed with the American dream of striking it big are primary reasons why people do not see the inherent downfalls of capitalism. Why worry about the state of society when you must worry about feeding your children and paying off that new Hummer?

Class consciousness is very unlikely to hit America anytime soon. The New Deal presented the scraps to make Americans calm their Revolutionary tendencies. This is why we must support under-developed countries that are victimized by capitalism to rise up. America doesn't get this advantage of wealth for no reason, they get it because they reap resources and labor from poor countries. Countries without any child labor laws and workers rights. The people in these countries see clearly the truth of class-warfare.

We must support all revolutions against imperialism in under-developed countries, whether they be socialistic or merely for liberation. That would cause the American system not to benefit from the reapings of cheap labor and goods. Only til things get desperate in the U.S. will the working man be class conscious.

I support any revolutionaries in Africa, The Middle East and South America.

These are the main areas we need to form international communism with out this then the west will never change its ways while we abuse all these people for food, oil and luxury goods.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Recently in an argument some nationalist asked the following question.
If there is something called class consciousness in an era which poverty and stuff are increasing severely why won't the proletariat rebel?
He suggested that therefore the concept of class struggle is a myth and argued workers don't have something called class consciousness and the concept about "class" is also an abstract concept.and further pointed out that workers don't feel that they belong to a specific class neither they won't to have a struggle against the ruling class so "class struggle" has been expired.

This seems like a very narrow view of class struggle. How does this person explain strikes? There is one of the basic elements of class struggle. The bosses want greater profits and want to attack pay and conditions - the workers fight these attacks and themselves aim for better pay and conditions. It is never ending tug of war. Not that this is the only way class struggle mainifests itself. It is of course happening in every workplace every day but if their are still strikes then there is clearly class struggle and suffice to say, there are still strikes going on all over the world. Arguably we might be going through a low level period for class struggle but it can never actually 'expire'.


Instead of class struggle he highlighted various ethnic and religious uprisings,conflicts and argued that the "real" consciousness is based on ethnicity/nation/ religion etc.

No, more like as the world becomes more and more bankrupt, meaningless and where alienation permeates, things like nationalism and religion provide something that people see as an alternative. However they're going to end up disappointed as class is what divides us, not race or religion.

For example, the white nationalist dream was a reality in Britain in the 1930s and most of Europe, in fact. Britain was 99% white (or what they'd describe as white) but yet their was huge inequality and poverty. In turn there was two world wars where millions died. Doesn't this sorta make a mockery of the idea that multi-racialism is the great evil?

[nuisance]

If there is something called class consciousness in an era which poverty and stuff are increasing severely why won't the proletariat rebel?
He suggested that therefore the concept of class struggle is a myth and argued workers don't have something called class consciousness and the concept about "class" is also an abstract concept.
Something that is important for you to note is that it is correct that there is currently no class conciousness among the masses of the type that class struggle revoluntionists speak of, there is a false class conciousness. As class strugglers we promote the realisation of class conciousness, this is when the revolution will come, when the working class are concious of ourselves as one single international class.

[shorelinetrance]

Because the proletariat is too apathetic and all they want to do is drink beer and watch football.

Oh yeah, and an increasing anti-intellectual society doesn't help that apathy.

"fuck reading dude, lets get smashed"

[Chapter 24]

Brainwashed into believing that things are just fine with the way they are. Lack of class conscientiousness. Complete apathy. All of which are very, very depressing.

[Prairie Fire]

Well, one of the major points of Marxism-Leninism is the concept of the vanguard party, the most concious elements of the proletariat providing leadership; every succesful revolution had one.

Even if every single working persyn is completely class concious, discontent and militant in a country, it becomes moot if they do not act in a coordinated manner, towards common goals, with orchestrated tactics, organized offensives and defined objectives.

A genuine Marxist-Leninist party is the difference between a riot and a revolution.


To your nationalist, I would comment on how he stated that the concept of "class" is an abstract concept. Class divisions are an "abstract concept"? class is one of the few defing features of a demographic of people that actually has roots in material reality.
Religion, ethnicity,nation...these things are not the ties that bind. Having the same economic objectives, on the other hand, has never failed to inspire uprisings (more than petty ethnic squabbles,) and has consistently dominated the political situation and diplomacy of every country (remember that the bourgeosie stick together too, as they have the same class objectives).

Class is something that can be measured, can be quantified based on material factors, hardly an "abstract concept". Religions are merely reflections of the ideologies of ruling classes, and nationalism is another vehicle for military expansionism and other initiatives of the bourgeoisie.

[nuisance]

all they want to do is drink beer and watch football.

Oh yeah, and an increasing anti-intellectual society doesn't help that apathy.

"fuck reading dude, lets get smashed"
When haven't we liked football and getting pissed? Most activists I know partake in either one or both of these activities, including myself. It hardly hinders anything, people can do those activities and be active in the class struggle you know.
Now stop being so snobbish about the class that you allegedly believe can achieve so much.
Also you don't have to be intelluctual to be part of the class struggle. It is attitudes like yours that put many people off.

[Acorn]

Antonio Gramsci's "Cultural Hegemony" has large implications for the lack of rebellion amoungst the working class. It is considered "common Sense" in mondern times that Capitalism is the only working system, & that communism's flaws are much more severe, ingrained, & unrepairable. Plus, we live an a Corperate wasteland, a consuumeristic materialistic hell. the uneducated workers will not rebel as long as they can watch Springer every afternoon.

[Pogue]

Media, education in schools. Consumerism - opium of the masses. Religion.
Racism/nationalism (blinds people, divides people)
Consumerism is the big one. It keeps people happy, helps them forget. Absence of a strong revolutionary socialist movement which is adocating change - most people don't know what socialism is, and have never heard of a revolutionary movement. Divisions and splits is the cause of the small, uninfluencial groups. Ignorance, social conditioning and peer pressure - I know people who say they support the Conservatives because they're family do. The effect of the Thacther years - I'm out for myself, fuck everyone else. Ties in with consumerism - I need to be rich to be happy, then I can buy stuff.
Absence of alternative/revolutionary movement means people consume because they see no solution to their problems (such as long hours, pad pay) which then further deepens their misery and makes their shit situation worse.
Capitalist society makes it seem like mass consumption and the free market are rights.
Laziness - many people know about the problems, but are too lazy to do something about it. E.g. people who think the NHS should not be privatised, but wont go on a demonstration/join a campaign group about it.

I think our main focus should be getting a highly visible, clear movement off the ground which is a clear alternative to capitalism and oppresion - a United Socialist Movement, which incorporates Unions, Campaign Groups, Parties, Federations (like the AF). This way we can show the people our alternative and the power all have when we unite, and start getting visible victories.

[Lost In Translation]

So has class struggle expired???
Nope, but again, the working class doesn't see the problem. It's just like the roaring 20's: People thought everything will continue on as it will, but behind them, something horrible was building up. Something horrible is building up, and many are already witnessing it.

The propaganada spewed about communism from the 60s is still fresh on people's minds, and they choose to pass that onto the next generation, which makes us seem like an unreliable source, in their eyes.

[Pogue]

I think this thread should be stickied/saved, it's brilliant, everyones giving clear and relevant answers. Top marks comrades :D

[LiberaCHE]

Why won't the proletariat rebel?

gpRQhVd63Y8

[Lost In Translation]

gpRQhVd63Y8


Oh man, they don't know who Jesus is???

I thought America had lots of religious folks...

[ships-cat]

I'd have to agree with a lot that has been said here; I don't get any sense of "class awareness" in any of my social circle, non of whom I would describe as 'unlearned'.

They simply don't think of themselves as belonging to a 'class', or rather... don't see such a catagorisation as having any personal significance to them.
they may be aware of the label, but don't see it as having any relevance to their daily life, or their aspirations.

Changing tack slightly, has anyone ever considered that the seeming enthusiasm of UK governments over the last two decades to promote mass immigration, and the subsequent ethos of "multiculturalism", may have been a deliberate attempt to help fragment the group identity of the proletariat ? I hear stories in the paper of some muslim area's wherein people talk of a seperate Islamic identity, and a rejection of UK "values".

Such groups are unlikely to easily form a gestalt 'awareness' with other UK communities. Divide and conquer ?

Meow Purr. :)

[chicanorojo]

Recently in an argument some nationalist asked the following question.
If there is something called class consciousness in an era which poverty and stuff are increasing severely why won't the proletariat rebel?
He suggested that therefore the concept of class struggle is a myth and argued workers don't have something called class consciousness and the concept about "class" is also an abstract concept.and further pointed out that workers don't feel that they belong to a specific class neither they won't to have a struggle against the ruling class so "class struggle" has been expired.

1. It assumes that poverty, political oppression, etc. comes down evenly against the working class w/i a "national" boundary. You have to remember that the working is not a monolithic "thing."

2. Class struggles is not always hight pitch affair. Class struggle comes waves of high and lows of action.

[Faction2008]

I believe that a revolution needs a leader and I believe the proletariats (most of them) don't have someone to point out how exploited they are and how much better things could be.

[Psy]

Nope, but again, the working class doesn't see the problem. It's just like the roaring 20's: People thought everything will continue on as it will, but behind them, something horrible was building up. Something horrible is building up, and many are already witnessing it.

The propaganada spewed about communism from the 60s is still fresh on people's minds, and they choose to pass that onto the next generation, which makes us seem like an unreliable source, in their eyes.
The "end of history" of the 90's are long over, instead a end to class struggle (like the bourgeoisie proudly claimed in after the fall of the USSR) the working class blues are back with a vengeance. I have seen a huge spike of depression amoung my co-workers (I work in a telecommunication cable plant), hitting the bottle and the blunt over the recent years as they lose all hope in the future, they see the growing rust belt, they see what is happening to auto workers and just want to escape into the bottle (or pot smoke), I can tell they are in heavy denial as they can't come to terms of the thought of losing their job, they just want to shield themselves in denial, like if they don't think about it can't hurt them.

[Pogue]

I don't think they did it to cause divisions. That'd mean they were relying on the majority of British people to be racists who oppose multicultaralism and immigration, and they'd also have to rely on it making us all hate each other as opposed to making us become friends and integrate and notice we all have more in common than we have differences. The majority of people in Britain are tolerant and accepting of other cultures.

[shorelinetrance]

When haven't we liked football and getting pissed? Most activists I know partake in either one or both of these activities, including myself. It hardly hinders anything, people can do those activities and be active in the class struggle you know.
Now stop being so snobbish about the class that you allegedly believe can achieve so much.
Also you don't have to be intelluctual to be part of the class struggle. It is attitudes like yours that put many people off.

how's completing missing the point of my point, you chimp.

People are happy with these things, they aren't aware of class struggle, or what even makes the classes.

You have to be a thinking individual i.e an intellectual, to bad the capitalist education system makes jobs, not minds.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Changing tack slightly, has anyone ever considered that the seeming enthusiasm of UK governments over the last two decades to promote mass immigration, and the subsequent ethos of "multiculturalism", may have been a deliberate attempt to help fragment the group identity of the proletariat ? I hear stories in the paper of some muslim area's wherein people talk of a seperate Islamic identity, and a rejection of UK "values".

Such groups are unlikely to easily form a gestalt 'awareness' with other UK communities. Divide and conquer ?

Meow Purr. :)

That is undoubtedly the purpose of multiculturalism. For just one example of this see Kenan Malik's excellent essay: 'Born in Bradford'

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/bradford_prospect.html

This is the pertinent part if you don't want to read it all:


First generation black and Asian immigrants were concerned less about preserving cultural differences than about fighting for political equality. They recognised that at the heart of that fight were shared values and aspirations between blacks and whites, not an articulation of unbridgeable differences. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, three big issues dominated the struggle for political equality: opposition to discriminatory immigration controls; the fight against racist attacks; and the issue of police brutality. These struggles radicalised a new generation of black and Asian activists and came to a climax in the inner city riots of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

In April 1976, 24 people were arrested in pitched battles in the Manningham area of Bradford, as Asian youths confronted a National Front march and fought police protecting it. It was seen as the blooding of a new movement. The following year the Asian Youth Movement was born. Built on the model of self-organisation, the AYM was nevertheless more outward looking, working closely with other anti-racist and radical organisations. AYM activists did not distinguish themselves as Muslim, Hindu or Sikh; indeed many did not even see themselves as specifically Asian, preferring to call themselves 'black' which they viewed as an all-inclusive term for non-white immigrants. They challenged not just racism but also many traditional values too, particularly within the Muslim community, helping establish an alternative leadership that confronted traditionalists on issues such as the role of women and the dominance of the mosque.

The next few years brought further conflict between Asian youth and the police, culminating in the trial of the Bradford 12 in 1982. Twelve young Asians faced conspiracy charges for making petrol bombs to use against racists. They argued they were acting in self-defence - and won.

Faced with this growing militancy, Bradford council drew up a new antiracist strategy, based on a template pioneered by Ken Livingstone's Greater London Council. It established race relations units drew up equal opportunities policies, and dispensed millions of pounds in grants to black and Asian community organisations. Bradford's 12-point race relations plan declared that every section of the 'multiracial, multicultural city' had 'an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs'. At the heart of this multicultural strategy was a redefinition of racism built on the insights of identity politics. Racism now meant not simply the denial of equal rights but the denial of the right to be different. Black and Asian people, many argued, should not be forced to accept British values, or to adopt a British identity. Rather different peoples should have the right to express their identities, explore their own histories, formulate their own values, pursue their own lifestyles. Through this process the politics of difference became institutionalised

Multiculturalism transformed the character of antiracism. By the mid-1980s the focus of antiracist protest in Bradford had shifted from political issues, such as policing and immigration, to religious and cultural issues: a demand for Muslim schools and for separate education for girls, a campaign for halal meat to be served at school, and, most explosively, the confrontation over the publication of The Satanic Verses. Political struggles unite across ethnic or cultural divisions; cultural struggles inevitably fragment. As different groups began asserting their particular identities ever more fiercely, so the shift from the political to the cultural arena helped to create a more tribal city. Secular Muslims were regarded as betraying their culture (they belonged to the 'white left') while radical Islam became not just more acceptable but, to many, more authentic.

This process was strengthened by a new relationship between the local council and the local mosques. In 1981, the council helped set up and fund the Bradford Council of Mosques and looked to it as a voice of the community. This helped marginalise secular radicals - the Asian Youth Movement eventually broke up - and allowed religious leaders to reassert their power. As the secular tradition was squeezed out, the only place offering shelter for disaffected youth was militant Islam.

Multiculturalism did not create militant Islam, but it helped create a space for it within British Muslim communities that had not existed before. It fostered a more tribal nation, undermined progressive trends within the Muslim communities and strengthened the hand of conservative religious leaders - all in the name of antiracism. It is true that since 9/11. and particularly since 7/7 there has been growing questioning of the consequences of multiculturalism. From former Home Secretary David Blunkett to CRE chief Trevor Phillips many have woken up to the fragmenting character of pluralism and have talked of the need to reassert common values. Yet the fundamental tenets of the politics of difference remain largely unquestioned. The idea that society consists of a variety of distinct cultures, that all these cultures should be respected and preserved and that society should be organised to meet the distinct needs of different cultures - these continued to be regarded as the hallmarks of a progressive, antiracist outlook. The lesson of the past two decades, however, is this: a left that espouses multiculturalism makes itself redundant. In a world of narrow, competing interest groups there is little room for a progressive vision. Back in the 1980s, my old friend Hassan may well have taken to militant Islam because of his disenchantment with the left. But it was the disenchantment of the left with its own secular, universalist traditions that helped ease his path to the mosque - and the path of many others since.

[nuisance]

how's completing missing the point of my point, you chimp.
Nicely done.....


People are happy with these things, they aren't aware of class struggle, or what even makes the classes.
Yes, however you blamed it on football and alcohol, which to my knowledge aren't new invention and were indulged in during previous revolutions. Which kind of makes your blame of such things piss poor.


You have to be a thinking individual i.e an intellectual, to bad the capitalist education system makes jobs, not minds.
What? Not all have to be a intelluctaul but have a general feeling of injustice and a inclination to rectify it. Believe it or not, not everyone in the revolution will have read read Marx or Malatesta, and it is not necessary for them to have done so.

[Chapter 24]

I believe that a revolution needs a leader and I believe the proletariats (most of them) don't have someone to point out how exploited they are and how much better things could be.

Truly, though, this is an oversimplified way of educating the proletariat. A leader who educates them? How will s/he reach the masses in the first place - through each media form (television, literature, etc.)? And how can this one leader alone do this? Is s/he going to go door to door to each proletarian to educate them or a massive propaganda campaign? How will this leader collect the means to do this in the first place? And for that matter, how do we know the proletariat will even listen? Will this leader of ours have to be a highly-educated intellectual who sounds like he knows what he's talking about and therefore we should take his/her word for it? Or will this leader have a glaring charismatic personality that allows him/her to draw people into his/her revolutionary ideas?
The working-class do need to be educated, but this "one leader" idea would not only make it more likely to have a "cult of personality" surrounding the leader, but it would be highly undemocratic and, as stated above, highly unrealistic. The people themselves should be active in the revolution, not one figurehead.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I don't think they did it to cause divisions. That'd mean they were relying on the majority of British people to be racists who oppose multicultaralism and immigration, and they'd also have to rely on it making us all hate each other as opposed to making us become friends and integrate and notice we all have more in common than we have differences. The majority of people in Britain are tolerant and accepting of other cultures.

Opposing multiculturalism is nothing to with racism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The whole logic of multiculturalism essential asserts that culture made man and not the other way around. This is many ways very similar to the romantic notions about race. Consider typical racist views against 'race mixing' and how it could mean the end of one race or another. Then consider what multiculturalists say about the importance of maintaining 'cultural diversity'. Different cultures for the multiculturalists, should be preserved at all costs just because they're different.

It is also interesting how in many ways the far-right have co-opted this multiculturalist language for their own agenda. They basically agree with the logic and put themselves up as wanting to 'preserve white culture' and put themselves up the 'community leaders' for whites. And it has been quite successful, in this respect.

[ships-cat]

Thats an interesting point Gold' .. (oh, and thanks for the link earlier).

In context of the OP, do you think the "Right" are doing this as part of a drive to fragment "class consciousness" as a subervient part of a larger... well... I hate to use the term "conspiracy"... perhaps "agenda" ?

Or is it that they are just reacting to the environment ?

You're comment about "co-opted this multicultural... " is interesting. I have limited experience in this sort of thing, but I DID notice with some interest the ideological/legal "Judo" that the BNP employed over the last few years.

I seem to recall an angst-ridden article dating back to... umm.. 2002/2003 ? somewhere around then ? The BNP (and I think it MIGHT have been Simon Derby who wrote the article... or it may have been an interview) was pondering that the BNP might have to allow non-white's to become members, in order to meet the requirements of some recently enacted Race laws.

Fast-forwarding.... in around 2005, the BNP announced that this was no longer an issue. Thanks to some MORE Race laws (this time specificly relating to the rights of ethnic groups to form racialy-exclusive-membership support groups), the BNP remodelled itself as a Racial Support Group for 'indiginous' Britains. As a result, their "whites only" membership policy was SUPPORTED by legislation intended to support ethnic minorities, and specificly to support the 'multicultural' ethos of ethnic groups organising on ethnic lines.


I guess three things arise from this;
(1) Sometimes, you've just got to laugh.
(2) Governments shouldn't try and rush legislation in to tackle narrow tactical goals, because it can explode in their face when exposed to a wider judicial environment, and to the law of unintended consequences.
(3) Do I get a prize fo possibly the vaugest post ever written on Revleft ?

(if it becomes relevant to anyone, I WILL try and track down the references... )

Meow Purr :)

[Faction2008]

Truly, though, this is an oversimplified way of educating the proletariat. A leader who educates them? How will s/he reach the masses in the first place - through each media form (television, literature, etc.)? And how can this one leader alone do this? Is s/he going to go door to door to each proletarian to educate them or a massive propaganda campaign? How will this leader collect the means to do this in the first place? And for that matter, how do we know the proletariat will even listen? Will this leader of ours have to be a highly-educated intellectual who sounds like he knows what he's talking about and therefore we should take his/her word for it? Or will this leader have a glaring charismatic personality that allows him/her to draw people into his/her revolutionary ideas?
The working-class do need to be educated, but this "one leader" idea would not only make it more likely to have a "cult of personality" surrounding the leader, but it would be highly undemocratic and, as stated above, highly unrealistic. The people themselves should be active in the revolution, not one figurehead.
That's not entirely what I meant. I didn't realize how much workers are exploited and how immoral some parts of the capitalist system are until I researched it myself. Also I wanted to say that is there needs to be a key figure or figures (whatever) that will actually make sure that people realize it because look at Britain. There are many poor here who don't realize they could have much better and this is due to a lack of education and people like Marx are rarely mentioned. I just came across this after reading about Stalin and how he gathered people and made them interested in Marxism.

[shorelinetrance]

Nicely done.
thanks, chimp.


Yes, however you blamed it on football and alcohol, which to my knowledge aren't new invention and were indulged in during previous revolutions. Which kind of makes your blame of such things piss poor.
I was implying people are apathetic, and would rather get smashed and watch sports all day instead of reading and learning about the class struggle. Alcohol and sports are a contributing factor to apathy and to the proletariat's ignorance of the class struggle. I'm not saying those things are inherently reactionary because they aren't but it's advantageous to keep the proletariat busy, i'm sure you understand.

How are we going to educate the proletariat when people are busy with capitalist time sinks?



What? Not all have to be a intellectual but have a general feeling of injustice and a inclination to rectify it. Believe it or not, not everyone in the revolution will have read read Marx or Malatesta, and it is not necessary for them to have done so.
I'm pretty sure class consciousness means that the proletariat understands the class struggle which can only be brought on by reading marx and another marxist thinkers.

I don't know about you, but i don't want to lead the proletariat by the nose. I'd rather have a thinking and critical working class.

[nuisance]

thanks, chimp.
Oooo ain't you a fucking nutter. Please refrain from using immature insults.


I'm pretty sure class consciousness means that the proletariat understands the class struggle which can only be brought on by reading marx and another marxist thinkers.
No that is not class consciousness. Class consciousness is when working masses realises itself as as international class. So the class is conscious of itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness
"Class consciousness is not a product of individual commitment but an ideological transformation effecting every aspect of social interaction. It will be reached not when everyone can quote Bakunin and Malatesta ad infinitum but when the working class recognises itself as such and libertarian forms of organisation are seen as both possible and the natural way to run our lives."



I don't know about you, but i don't want to lead the proletariat by the nose. I'd rather have a thinking and critical working class.
That should really go with out saying.

[RHIZOMES]

Nope, but again, the working class doesn't see the problem. It's just like the roaring 20's: People thought everything will continue on as it will, but behind them, something horrible was building up. Something horrible is building up, and many are already witnessing it.

The propaganada spewed about communism from the 60s is still fresh on people's minds, and they choose to pass that onto the next generation, which makes us seem like an unreliable source, in their eyes.

Why the 60's specifically? The 60's was the most revolutionary time the West has had in ages! Not saying there was no anti-communist propaganda in the 1960's, but anti-communist propaganda was around way before then.

[disobey]

I believe that a revolution needs a leader and I believe the proletariats (most of them) don't have someone to point out how exploited they are and how much better things could be.

This depends in what capacity you define a "leader". A leader like Stalin? Like Chavez? Castro, perhaps?

While leadership can have its benefits with regard to the appropriation of information to the proletariat, it certainly has major downsides. Direct democracy, autonomy and federalism should be what the working class aspire to regardless of any educational shortcomings leading up to revolution. There is good propaganda, and bad propaganda I suppose.


So has class struggle expired???

Practical consideration has to be given to educating the class about the various facets of left politics. The problem is, any party with an ideological majority over others will always be able to shout louder regardless of whether their actions will benefit that of the working class. Then there is the "chinese whisper" problem of various interpretations on the same theme which is a natural occurrence but can unavoidably cause fractures, for example the sham that was the Socialist politics of the UK left in recent years.

Disinformation in the popular media and cross-party infighting are the two greatest barriers to educating workers about the alternatives to capitalism. Revolution is all the more difficult because of this; for example:

Joe the factory worker hasn't even heard of Marx or Engels, let alone cast a vote in his life, and his illiteracy and ignorance, no fault of his own, is due to increasing privatisation of the state education system means that working class history is no longer on the curriculim. Instead, Joe has a propagandized view of the society he lives in provided from a single source - the corporate media. Existing or organising outside this system, for Joe, is as unthinkable and irrelevant as riding a bicycle is to a fish.

In my opinion, class struggle has not expired, but lays dormant. The looming global recession is already providing new opportunities for struggle, but the left has to ensure these are not seized by fascists.

[Faction2008]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Gilbert_class.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Gilbert_class.svg
As you can see from the image in the US there are quite a few proletariats.

[RadioRaheem84]

People won't rebel, because they're afraid. It's out of fear. They don't want anything to ruin what they've built up so far and they're also afraird of what their government will do them if they rebel. Almost every American is afraid of the American Jail System.

[giev]

What do you think about this: There is the futurist/singularity theory that states that the world is becoming so interconnected and diverse that there is no way one person or group of people could ever totally comprehend it in part or in totality. If this has some merit, then this obviously negatively affects peoples political consciousness.

I think that the world may indeed be becoming more complex but two factors make this moot. First, IQ's are rising (search for Flynn Effect). Secondly, as the world becomes more "complex", so does our ability to comprehend it expand - i.e. better schools and tools of learning [the internet for example].

Why won't the proletariat rebel? Political consciousness is not at the right level. Why aren't people more politically aware? This is a question worth discussing

[Decolonize The Left]

What do you think about this: There is the futurist/singularity theory that states that the world is becoming so interconnected and diverse that there is no way one person or group of people could ever totally comprehend it in part or in totality. If this has some merit, then this obviously negatively affects peoples political consciousness.

This theory is not new, but a simple philosophical dilemma. Basically:

If one wants to understand system X, one cannot be within system X. For if one is within system X, one's attempt at understanding said system will alter said system and one will have to account for it. Hence one can never reach an absolute understanding, as there will always be a remainder.


Why won't the proletariat rebel? Political consciousness is not at the right level. Why aren't people more politically aware? This is a question worth discussing

This is too vague, and probably much too simplistic. I do not think that the issue of proletarian revolt can be reduced to political consciousness. One must consider economic factors, governmental repression, and organization.

- August

[Chapaev]

An apolitical attitude is widespread among the most backward, least class-conscious strata of the population in capitalist countries as a result of the deliberately propagated ideological influence of the ruling class. This attitude may be more than a manifestation of backwardness: it may be a conscious expression of unconcern and indifference.

The apolitical attitude that is a manifestation of backwardness must be distinguished from that which results from deliberate propagation by the ideologists of reactionary and conservative classes. These classes attempt to veil and hide the class content of their ideology, which aims at maintaining and strengthening the dominance of the bourgeoisie while drawing working people away from the struggle for their class interests. The latter form of apolitical attitude appears in the guise of doctrines of “nonparty attitude”, the “neutrality” and “supraclass” nature of law and the state. By means of empty entertainment or gangster films, comics, pornographic literature, and other devices, the propaganda for individualism, crude material comfort, and a consumer psychology serves to distract the masses from acute political problems.

In contrast to an apolitical attitude, Marxism-Leninism presents a scientifically grounded doctrine of the social obligation of each individual and the party identification and class character of all forms of ideology. Communists struggle resolutely against the apolitical attitude and lack of ideals in all spheres of culture and life. Communists instill a high ideological and principled attitude and call upon all toilers to be active participants in political life, the revolutionary struggle, and the construction of a communist society.

[giev]

This is too vague, and probably much too simplistic. I do not think that the issue of proletarian revolt can be reduced to political consciousness. One must consider economic factors, governmental repression, and organization.

- August

But aren't economic factors, governmental repression and organization political issues themselves? People need to understand why they are poor, repressed and have no outlet to make changes. That's what I mean by raising political consciousness, becoming aware of the power structure that keeps them at the bottom. I see your explanation as simple excuse-making.

[Decolonize The Left]

But aren't economic factors, governmental repression and organization political issues themselves? People need to understand why they are poor, repressed and have no outlet to make changes. That's what I mean by raising political consciousness, becoming aware of the power structure that keeps them at the bottom. I see your explanation as simple excuse-making.

They can be political issues, but often are not. For example, as the crude oil becomes more and more scarce, the price of it rises, and hence the price of all goods involving oil rise as well. When milk, to choose a random product, becomes $5 a gallon, people will become visibly upset and begin to contemplate "political" issues with more severity. But until this point, the price of milk is not a political issue. In the US at least, we have a strong contemporary belief in the divide between economics and politics.

The apathy and indifference of a large portion of the public has much to do with the perceived notion of well-being. If people can get what they need relatively easily, and if they believe that everything is going to be alright - why revolt?

Economic factors (such as crises), large outbursts of governmental oppression, and other issues can contribute to forcing individuals to become more political. This is all I was saying.

- August

[Lamanov]

So has class struggle expired???

Of course not.

Class struggle is a real and everyday thing.

France 2006. was a real proof that the revival of massive class struggle (rather that just sectional and localised) is inevitable.

[giev]

They can be political issues, but often are not. For example, as the crude oil becomes more and more scarce, the price of it rises, and hence the price of all goods involving oil rise as well. When milk, to choose a random product, becomes $5 a gallon, people will become visibly upset and begin to contemplate "political" issues with more severity. But until this point, the price of milk is not a political issue. In the US at least, we have a strong contemporary belief in the divide between economics and politics.

The apathy and indifference of a large portion of the public has much to do with the perceived notion of well-being. If people can get what they need relatively easily, and if they believe that everything is going to be alright - why revolt?

Economic factors (such as crises), large outbursts of governmental oppression, and other issues can contribute to forcing individuals to become more political. This is all I was saying.

- August

It seems like your point is - political issues are whatever the people on top say they are. The fact is that politics is at the root of all the things you mention. For example, the price of milk fluctuating, the fact that you are buying milk from a store, has its roots in the way a society organizes itself. To say that it is beyond the political or in some way more fundamental that the political would be to deny the relevance of politics itself.

[Psy]

People won't rebel, because they're afraid. It's out of fear. They don't want anything to ruin what they've built up so far and they're also afraird of what their government will do them if they rebel. Almost every American is afraid of the American Jail System.
True but historically when the masses pontaneously revolt when backed into a corner and can't surrender anymore to the ruling class.

[Decolonize The Left]

It seems like your point is - political issues are whatever the people on top say they are. The fact is that politics is at the root of all the things you mention. For example, the price of milk fluctuating, the fact that you are buying milk from a store, has its roots in the way a society organizes itself.

There are many definitions of politics. It seems as though you are using a very loose one, one often employed by political theorists - that politics is anything that involves the questions of 'who get what, when, where, and how?' If this is the case, then you have a point.

However, the vast majority of citizens do not hold this definition. They view politics as the 'set of policies relating to government or legal matters.' This definition is much more restricted.


To say that it is beyond the political or in some way more fundamental that the political would be to deny the relevance of politics itself.

I never said anything was "beyond political or in some way more fundamental." You have read this into my argument. I merely said that there were more issues involved, ones which could be termed 'economic' and 'social.' This is only a differentiation of terms on my part, in order to discuss the relevant issues with more clarity.

- August

[Gold Against The Soul]

Thats an interesting point Gold' .. (oh, and thanks for the link earlier).

In context of the OP, do you think the "Right" are doing this as part of a drive to fragment "class consciousness" as a subervient part of a larger... well... I hate to use the term "conspiracy"... perhaps "agenda" ?

I'm not so sure you can pin it down to the 'right'. Many on the right have always consistently opposed multiculturalism but for very different reasons to why revolutionary socialists would oppose it! Some have always been for top down forced assimilation of establishment values. See Norman Tebbitt and his 'cricket test' for an example of that. According to him, the true test of whether a 2nd generation Indian for example, is now English or not, is whether he supports the England cricket team instead of his parents nation. This illustrates clearly want type of assimilation he wants: Respect for queen and country etc. Of course, I oppose this but that doesn't mean some of the right wing critics of multiculturalism say aren't often correct. Too many people just hear the likes of Tebbitt attacking multiculturalism and there is a knee jerk reaction but quite honesty, he would often make more sense than the liberal left on this issue.

Which brings us onto: Yes, in many ways it has been the establishment liberal left that have pushed multiculturalism and put it in place. Using Malik's example from Bradford - it was a Labour council that put in place those policies and according to him, they in turn based this on what the GLC had been doing under Livingstone (which is more than believable as Livingstone is to this day a huge apologist for multiculturalism - going as far as saying that Trevor Phillips 'would soon be joining the BNP' for daring to attack it. Which is ironic as Livingstone's politics of difference are actually closer to BNP thinking)

Why have they done this? I suppose it could be argued it is the result of political defeat. They've essentially given up on the idea of society being divided by class and instead have bought into the whole lie that class doesn't matter anymore. So equality for multiculturalists comes down to cultural equality.


I seem to recall an angst-ridden article dating back to... umm.. 2002/2003 ? somewhere around then ? The BNP (and I think it MIGHT have been Simon Derby who wrote the article... or it may have been an interview) was pondering that the BNP might have to allow non-white's to become members, in order to meet the requirements of some recently enacted Race laws.Dunno what that was all about. Suffice to say, the party (at the moment) would fall to pieces if they let non-whites in large numbers and the leadership know this full well, so perhaps Darby was just paying lip service to the idea to promote the new line that the BNP is an anti-racist party. This is what I hate about the new fangled BNP - you just don't know where you are with them half the time. Looking back I now almost have some grudging respect for someone like John Tyndall. At least he was honest and straightforward with his nazism. There is a great clip of him where he is being interviewed and he's asked if he and the BNP are racists and Tyndall snaps straight back with: "Yes absolutely. 100% racist." Nothing has changed it is just the BNP under Griffin have done a successful job of changing their image somewhat and multiculturalism, which shares their politics of difference, has helped them do that because it is now so firmly an establishment ideology. Yes for all the BNP anti-establishment rhetoric, their success has been largely on the backs of the establishment.