tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post5885292831154661391..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Internal Class Divisions and the PartyPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-73659081688840151862010-08-21T20:27:36.077+01:002010-08-21T20:27:36.077+01:00Another interesting and enlightening post in this ...Another interesting and enlightening post in this series thank you.<br /><br />The problem that is mainstream political parties, in the sense in which the term is used here, being the parties of capital is not necessary absolute; by this I mean, the party of the working class consciousness has the potential to simultaneously be the party flogging a dead horse - that is capitalism itself.<br /><br />This for me sums the Labour party; it is at once the party organised through which the working class gain consciousness - in the sense that historically the party had been composed of actors brought together through working class and uinon interest - but today it is the party that flogs the dead horse of capital.<br /><br />In this sense we are in a far safer position within the labour party than any other which is predicated upon capitalism alone, or a party like the fringe groups that Sunder (I assume) above speaks of, with little history other than mere protest.<br /><br />Another reason why I enjoyed this particular chapter of the series is its element on the organisational structure, through which Gramsci was able to define party. I think this can serve two functions; to define the party in opposition to the party of capital, and to define the party against left wing elements where the structure is different (utopianist or "fantasy" socialism or even Proudhonian anarchism.<br /><br />I particularly liked the conclusion too - it does a better job of saying what I want to say above - "[d]espite the many problems plaguing the labour movement we still have the advantage that the institutions it has built remain and still organises masses of workers, economically and politically. Therefore socialists must work in them, build them, democratise them, and work to ensure our ideas come to the fore." - a strong message directed to the fringe groups, the nut trots and the socialists whose politics hasn't grown up from their undergrad days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-36110970802493884582010-08-19T17:23:34.947+01:002010-08-19T17:23:34.947+01:00As Marx and Engels put it they acted as basic asse...As Marx and Engels put it they acted as basic assembly points for workers into which socialists could intervene, and attempt to demonstrate that the basic premise of Trade Unionism was bouregois and limited, because it implied continuing to accept the current system, and only to bargain within it. They argued that it was necessary instead to use the Trade Unions as means of support for other Workers organisations that DID address that basic problem i.e. the creation of a Workers Party, the establishment of Workers Co-ops, and the fight for those basic political demands that would facilitate the class struggle e.g. the Ten Hours Act without, which workers would not have had time, and would have been too exhausted to have created their own Party, to educate themselves etc.<br /><br />I do not accept the view of Rosa Luxemburg that because the Trades Unions were essentially bourgeois they were an impediment to workers development, and that it was necessary for Marxists to rely on spontaneity.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-29305759718182939222010-08-17T18:45:18.227+01:002010-08-17T18:45:18.227+01:00Given the historic experience of the last 100 year...Given the historic experience of the last 100 years, does Boffy think it would be better if unions died out? That is certainly the vibe that I am getting from him. If not, what positives do you think they have/have had in actual reality?Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-1269035391239088542010-08-17T18:30:38.414+01:002010-08-17T18:30:38.414+01:00“Draper spent the last 30 or so years of his life ...<b>“Draper spent the last 30 or so years of his life trying to get the radical left to think in terms of cultivating a pluralistic socialist culture”</b><br /><br />Today that is labelled communalism or multi-culturalism and is vilified by the ‘Marxist’ left. At least admit this so called pluralism has a dogma all of its own.<br /><br /><b>“Mass support for socialist politics is dependent on a complex mix of social, economic and cultural factors”</b><br /><br />Which are? I mean <i>everything</i> is dependent on a complex mix of social, economic and cultural factors, even the way one shits!Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-78225154066018796092010-08-17T17:18:26.923+01:002010-08-17T17:18:26.923+01:00What ever happens if your working class do not hav...What ever happens if your working class do not have an accident because if you do! you belong to the scrounging class, not wanted by labour Tory or anyone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-73701442070459393702010-08-16T22:14:40.675+01:002010-08-16T22:14:40.675+01:00Next left,
Good points. The point I was also try...Next left,<br /><br />Good points. The point I was also trying to make, but reading what I wrote again, I don't think I made clear is that the existing leadership was itself bound by a TU consciousness. Ironically, the "Marxist" Left, hung up on the question of "Leadership", and criticism of it, failed to actually spot that the basis of their criticism was itself faulty and anti-Marxist. Their criticism of the leadership was not, as Fine's argument correctly points out, that TU struggle could not answer the workers problems and would ultimately be counter-productive, but the opposite, a criticism of not being TU militant enough. As Fine, says the latter would only make sense if it was in the context of flowing over into a Socialist overturn, but there was no chance that was going to happen. In the end the sects reason for adopting that position was founded solely on theri own sectarian ends of gaining the odd incremental additions to their own tiny groups out of such struggles. A true definition of sectarianism, putting their own ends ahead of the movement.<br /><br />But, the implication also is that a "marxist" leadership that DID argue such a position would be screwed too, because it would not have found a resonance for such ideas so long as the majority of the class remained strangled by that TU consciuosness - Fine says that the militant TU struggle simply acted like a lengthening rope around the class's neck.<br /><br />Hence the idea of the War of Position, of actually seizing territory for the purpose of holding on to it. hence the idea of Party as something wider than it is normally considered. hence the idea that the party acts in the way that Marx outlined, more as an educator than a leader. Rather like Rousseau's notion of the Law Giver, exemplified by the tutor in Camille.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-37279133539363847532010-08-16T02:32:14.611+01:002010-08-16T02:32:14.611+01:00Good stuff.
I have found reading Hal Draper and G...Good stuff.<br /><br />I have found reading Hal Draper and Gramsci together a useful way to think about the problems facing the left. Draper spent the last 30 or so years of his life trying to get the radical left to think in terms of cultivating a pluralistic socialist culture within the working class - instead of wasting their time building tiny sects that declare that they alone offer the only path to socialist salvation.<br /><br />Mass support for socialist politics is dependent on a complex mix of social, economic and cultural factors - few of which, at present, are capable of being shaped by tiny sects. Leadership, at present, is the least of the problems facing the Marxist left.Next Lefthttp://nextleft2010.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-26220683237457902392010-08-15T20:18:28.337+01:002010-08-15T20:18:28.337+01:00Phil,
Great exposition, and I think you know I wo...Phil,<br /><br />Great exposition, and I think you know I would agree with much of this. The importance of the Workers Party, and its role in uncovering what is really going on, and feeding that back to workers in this kind of context, was brought home to me today, reading an old copy of Capital & Class. It was a review of the book "The British Economic Disaster" (Andrew Glyn and John harrison) by Ben Fine, and in which he also draws on the work of Glyn & Sutcliffe "Workers & the Profits Squeeze". Fine makes the point, which flows ffrom these economic analyses, that in the 1960's the Trades Unions were able to limit the effects of the attack of Capital - I'd argue they were only able to do that due to the continuance of the Long Boom) - but, he says, the irony of that is that in limiting the attack of Capital, they made themselves worse off! They could only limit its attack by a form of collective Luddism that reduced labour productivity, and hence Capital Accumulation, which meant lower levels of unemployment, and less ability to pay higher wages. By comparison, in Germany those same moves by Capital were accomplished with a resultant higher level of productivity and growth, and higher living standards for workers. In hort he says they would have been better off not resisting!<br /><br />But, within the confines of TU consciousness that is not at all obvious. The further consequence, of course, was that ultimately Capital responded with Thatcher, and a wholesale decimation of all those TU practices exemplified by Fleet Street. But, without a Workers Party, and without marxists within it, there is no way for ordinary workers to see beyond what appears to be a normal response.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.com