Educating The Average Person (Scenario)

[Dialectical Wizard]

You don't need to educate anyone about communism. All that Marxism is is just an explanation of what is going on in real life. It doesn't create anything in real life. The actual historical process and class struggle is what creates communist consciousness, it isn't brought in from out side and it also isn't just this innate thing within humanity either. I'm fairly certain that the majority of users here have barely read any Marx but that doesn't stop them from declaring themselves to be Marxists, so really, the only people who need to be schooled are these so-called Marxists.

If being Marxist means dogmatically repeating every line that Marx has ever written, then I guess I'm not a Marxist Reb.
Unlike you I can actually think for myself, you may have read Das Kapital a hundred times over and memorized every line but are you able to think critically about it?

[reb]

If being Marxist means dogmatically repeating every line that Marx has ever written, then I guess I'm not a Marxist Reb.
Unlike you I can actually think for myself, you may have read Das Kapital a hundred times over and memorized every line but are you able to think critically about it?

I don't take everything Marx said as gospel. Marx was wrong a lot of the time, and many of his ideas changed over time. Makes it a little hard to be dogmatic, does it not? Maybe if you actually studied a bit of Marx you might understand this.

[Slavic]

If being Marxist means dogmatically repeating every line that Marx has ever written, then I guess I'm not a Marxist Reb.
Unlike you I can actually think for myself, you may have read Das Kapital a hundred times over and memorized every line but are you able to think critically about it?

What Reb stated is not Marxist dogma, its just very basic principles of how communism forms and its relationship to the current social order ie. Capitalism.

What don't you understand about that?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm working class mate. Just looking for ideas to learn and help others learn. But people are just seeing me as trying to condescend poor people.

What is the point in just preaching to the choir? The average person is surely the person needed onboard? What good is it banging on about stuff on here and then ignoring the person in the street? Makes things look very impractical IMO.

OK, mate.

It's not 'seeing' you as trying to condescend poor people. You are making a direct distinction between people like you and 'average' people. Being a communist doesn't mean we are somehow made of special stuff. I'm fairly sure there are people smarter, prettier, funnier and generally more talented than us out there. In fact I know it.

The idea that because somebody is not into politics, into communism, or a member of some communist party does not make them an 'average' person, and that's an incredibly dangerous attitude because it builds a barrier between communists and the working class that does not need to be built.

So i'm sorry, you may say that you are not condescending working people, and perhaps you are not doing it wilfully, but the language you use is worrying and dangerous.

[bropasaran]

What is exactly the appeal of Marxism? I've tried hard to find one such thing in it and it seems there aren't any. There's a bunch of aproximations to correct views and emancipatory ideas, but why would someone accept Marxism because of that is beyond me, when one has in mind that such ideas do exist in their wholesome and clear form- in the anarchist tradition.

Edit: I'll open a topic about it.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Not sure what I would give to these poor proles in their slum, but I sure suggest this to the OP: Intervention / Communication / Participation

[RA89]

Yes and no. I would have to know what you mean by "victims of capitalism" as thats rather vague, unfortunately.

By that I mean people being exploited by capitalism.

This tactic is called accelerationism, and it is where leftists try to make the conditions for the working class even worse for the proletariat. This should be rejected as a tactic because historically this has simply helped out the more "right wing" of the reaction (as opposed to social democracy, which benefits the "left wing" of the reaction). It's incorrect but please don't feel morally bad for thinking this is contemplative, I am positive that many many great communists at one point thought "if only the situation was worse." But why would the class side with those who would make an intolerable position worse, and have objectively stated that as their aim? In addition, it is not good that the working class lives in such horrible situations. In many cases "extra horrible" cases have led to a revolutionary situation, but in cases where the class party is dead - which it is now (why then be an activist of any type?) - the goal is to rebirth the class party, for historically if one looks at crises and the lack of any real communist movement one sees many great tragedies.

I didn't mean speed up the process by making things worse (though I can see why you thought I meant that), I meant speed up the realisation of people that capitalism is and will always be detrimental to their life and must be abolished.

I completely agree with your reasons for not making things worse.

Do you honestly believe that if every member of the proletariat had some basic knowledge of communism/socialism that any revolution would happen at the exact same speed as if they lacked that knowledge? Surely it would at the very least lower peoples threshold with regards to tolerance for the failures of capitalism.

Bordiga once stated:

Briefly, and in plain words, the law of economic determinism states that in each epoch the general prevailing opinions, the political, philosophical and religious ideas which are shared and followed by the great majority are those which correspond to the interests of a dominant minority who holds all power and privilege in its hands. Hence the priests and wisemen of the ancient oriental peoples justify despotism and human sacrifice, those of the pagan civilisations preach that slavery is just and beneficial, those of the christian age exalt property and monarchy, and those of the epoch of democracy and the Enlightenment canonise the economic and juridical systems suitable to capitalism.


When a particular type of society and production enters into a crisis and when forces arise in the technical and productive domain which tend to break its limits, class conflicts become more acute and are reflected in the rise of new doctrines of opposition and subversion which are condemned and attacked by the dominant institutions. When a society is in crisis, one of the characteristics of the phase which opens up is the continuous relative decrease in the number of those who benefit from the existing regime; nevertheless, the revolutionary ideology does not prevail in the masses but is crystallised only in a vanguard minority that is joined even by elements of the dominant class. The masses will change ideologically, philosophically and religiously through the force of inertia and through the formidable means utilised by every dominant class for the moulding of opinions, but this transformation will occur only after a long period following the collapse of the old structures of domination. We can even state that a revolution is truly mature when the actual physical fact of the inadequacy of the systems of production places these systems into conflict even with the material interests of a large section of the privileged class itself. And this is true in spite of the fact that the old traditional dictates of the dominant opinions, with their tremendous reactionary inertia, continue to be endlessly repeated by the mass which is the victim of it as well as by the superior layers which are the depositories of the regime.


Thus slavery definitively collapsed, in spite of an obstinate resistance on the level of ideology and that of force, when it proved to be a system which was scarcely profitable for the exploitation of labour and which was of little advantage for the slave-masters.


To say it briefly, the liberation of an oppressed class does not proceed first from the liberation of the spirit and then of the body but it must emancipate the stomach well before it can affect the brain.

Communism as a movement exists all around us and existed since capitalism - it simply isn't given a real independent voice. Through the revolution, the proletariat realizes its true struggle, the one unmasking all previous struggles it had had, as being part of its invariant program (the program being the abolition of the current state of things). To quote Luxemburg, "The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs."



Please reread my post. I did not say any such thing such as "wait for them to see the light."

From what I understand the bolded text (within the spoiler) is saying that once shit hits the fan, a small group will influence the rest with their ideas of revolution etc. I don't see how that is different to attempting to educate people (or raise awareness) before the major crisis, only the timing is different.

[RA89]

OK, mate.

It's not 'seeing' you as trying to condescend poor people. You are making a direct distinction between people like you and 'average' people. Being a communist doesn't mean we are somehow made of special stuff. I'm fairly sure there are people smarter, prettier, funnier and generally more talented than us out there. In fact I know it.

The idea that because somebody is not into politics, into communism, or a member of some communist party does not make them an 'average' person, and that's an incredibly dangerous attitude because it builds a barrier between communists and the working class that does not need to be built.

So i'm sorry, you may say that you are not condescending working people, and perhaps you are not doing it wilfully, but the language you use is worrying and dangerous.

There's many people who are being exploited by capitalism yet still support it and identify more with rich people than they do with their fellow poor people. Do you think these people are wrong in their beliefs? If so will you go out of your way to avoid saying it?

I don't see the big deal in calling a spade a spade and saying that it is a wrong outlook to have (supporting capitalism). I'm not saying we should be all militant about it and tell them that they're living a lie and are immoral etc, but to avoid attempting to educate people in case their feelings/ego is hurt is silly right?

Also people can be wrong about stuff without being stupid, much like how most of the world thought the earth was flat at one point.

The average person does not hold communist/socialist beliefs, which is why I call them the average person. It isn't me trying to say their intellect is mediocre.

[Dialectical Wizard]

What Reb stated is not Marxist dogma, its just very basic principles of how communism forms and its relationship to the current social order ie. Capitalism.

What don't you understand about that?

Where did I state that I don't understand reb's post?
I don't necessarily disagree with his post it was only those last two lines that bugged me out. I was referring to some posts reb has made in the past where he sometimes sounds like a dogmatic hardliner.

[Dialectical Wizard]

I don't take everything Marx said as gospel. Marx was wrong a lot of the time, and many of his ideas changed over time. Makes it a little hard to be dogmatic, does it not? Maybe if you actually studied a bit of Marx you might understand this.

It is true that Marx his work became more coherent and systematic at the end of his life. But I haven't seen any evidence that's supports the so called 'epistemological break' that Althusser has theorized. The young 'idealist humanist' Marx vs. the old mature Marx is a false debate because even in the first volume of Das Kapital you still find traces of humanism.

[Remus Bleys]

By that I mean people being exploited by capitalism.

One could make the argument that the petty-bourgeoisie are exploited by capitalism insofar as capital through its concentration, is constantly eliminating this detestable class. You could stretch it further and argue that the bourgeoisie are under attack through capital's concentration. You could even say that the "third world bourgeoisie" are under attack of capital and are oppressed by imperialism. It is better to state that it is the proletarian class that is revolutionary. Of course, it would be ridiculous to think that every individual worker will be a revolutionary and every individual boss/small business owner/peasant will be reactionary.

Do you honestly believe that if every member of the proletariat had some basic knowledge of communism/socialism that any revolution would happen at the exact same speed as if they lacked that knowledge? Surely it would at the very least lower peoples threshold with regards to tolerance for the failures of capitalism.

Yes, I believe this, because it is my argument that the class, if it reads marx (and just because one reads marx does not mean that one will be more revolutionary), will only do so en masse because of the Revolution, and they will accept this because of the Revolution. It is their action that will lead to their consciousness. Now, if we lived in made up world X where every worker was a Marxist, I suppose it is possible the class will be more revolutionary - but then again if this world existed it would be a world where Marxism, as we know it, was incorrect.

From what I understand the bolded text (within the spoiler) is saying that once shit hits the fan, a small group will influence the rest with their ideas of revolution etc. I don't see how that is different to attempting to educate people (or raise awareness) before the major crisis, only the timing is different.

No. The quote is stating that with the guiding action of the conscious party, the class will abolish the conditions that lead to itself as a class, it will lead to the destruction of capitalism and consequently, it will end the mystification of capitalism and the real world becomes apparent to even the most blind of men. The material change caused by the Revolution will lead to the "masses" (an abstract term if there ever was) having a change in ideology (of course, the party's work, proselytization, etc - what you refer to as "education" - will be a component of that in order to help ease the birthpangs of the ideology in communism - if one can refer to it as an ideology - and thus will be a necessary, though not nearly as important (and in fact useless without the change in material conditions) component of the Revolution) gaining the consciousness of the world and of themselves.

Btw Amilcabril is some anti-semitic troll the BA isn't banning for some reason and I thanked Dialectical Wizards post not because I am a humanist because I see no "epistemological break" within Marx.
Sorry about the misunderstanding on accelerationism.

[Slavic]

So we are gonna have to create a new tactic of rising to power, without the need of the great majority of redneck apathetic people who only care about their stupid personal lives and their narcissist families
.

Caring about your personal lives and families is important for everyone. Being a socialist does not mean that you give up your personal life and break from your family. Don't just dismiss and berate those of the working class who are low conscious. Once workers realize that communism greatly benefits working class lives and families, then they won't be so apathetic. Class consciousness must be nurtured not dashed aside for imaginary vanguards and coups.

Also
Poor working class =/= Hopeless Rednecks

Also
Every post you ever make reeks of Anti-Worker, Anti-Poor rhetoric. I'd love to hear your "New tactic of rising to power".