>> >Recognizing the essence of capitalism has one virtue among others:
>> >e.g., you'll see the material ground of the necessity of solidarity
>>>between "skilled" and "unskilled workers," both of whom suffer from
>>>exploitation by capital.
>>
>>Yes, of course. You know that, I know that. It's not as easy to
>>convince the workers involved of that.
>Even in the midst of socialist revolution, only a tiny minority of
>workers and peasants had ever read even a bit of Marxist theory.
It's not a matter of stupidity, or ignorance, or of reading marx. Why do you have to read marx to know that your boss is ripping you off? I don't know any wage-workers, including me, who lack this critical insight.
The real difficulty in organizing workers lies with the leadership. Serious political activism requires very painful sacrifices. Low-wage and unskilled workers feel these sacrifices more, much more, than the highly skilled professionals that make up much of the vanguardist left, hence workers' reluctance to get out of the bread line and into the street. If you want people to join your movements you've got to 1-treat them with some respect (duh) and 2-give them some indication that you can _win_, or that you even want to win.
>As for convincing workers and other classes, some of the workers (and
>peasants, too, in some nations) -- our main constituency -- will
>never be won over to the left of any sort, including but not at all
>limited to the Marxist left. If we get lucky, we'll get about a
>third of our potential constituency on our side. Just because
>medicine is good for you doesn't mean that you'll necessarily take
>it, especially when the medicine in question tastes bitter to some.
Taking their medicine? Please, let's not treat adult workers like children? Here's another reason the left can't get its shit together, you've got no respect for the "rank and file." What reason do they have to think that the vanguard will treat them any better post-revolution than their bosses do now?
>
>> > Other theories might (see Steve McGraw's opinions about
>>>"intellectuals" and longshoremen),
Aaaaand yoshie goes in for the cheap shot, kidney shot, kidney shot, low blow, rabbit punch!
I thought we had cleared this up, yoshie, you and I and catherine even had a few very civil and apparently reasonable exchanges about this, yet here you are misreprenting my position again. I am against allowing excessive privilege or disproportionate remuneration to accrue to _any_ part of society, _including_ professionals and "intellectual workers," which refers to those who increase their bargaining power in the economy by a monopoly on managerial and intellectual skills. Holding this position does not make me "anti-intellectual" nor does my position even address "intellectuals" except perhap as an inaccurately self-identifying professional class.
>in contrast to Marxism, tell you
>>>that "skilled" workers (or "professionals" or whatever) exploit
>>>"unskilled" ones, obscuring the fundamental relation between capital
>>>and labor.
I'm not going to get into another debate about whether the coordinator class actually exists. Everyone knows where to find all the arguments on both sides of that one.