[lbo-talk] Re: boycotting the unorganized (middle class)

snit snat snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com
Sat Jan 22 10:45:00 PST 2005


At 01:20 PM 1/22/2005, Todd Archer wrote:
>kelley said:
>
>>and all this happens simply by verbalizing it, right? you just tell
>>people the truth of their condition and --voila!--revolution.this is what
>>I never get about Carrol's position.
>
>We've already talked about how Chomsky's been doing this sort of thing for
>some time now and not much (well, not much of what I think listmembers, in
>general, want) has happened directly because of it. But what else do you
>do? I don't think anyone's come up with a means to identify the people
>who will listen and (can) do some work on their own to see how things
>work; you just have to keep talking, persuading, arguing, and hoping.

LOL! that wasn't my point at all.


>There are, I think, other factors that can affect someone's "readiness" to
>hear what a left critique has to say, (eventually) agree with it, and help
>out practically (which is another matter entirely). But I don't think
>Turbulo or Carrol were leaving them out simply because they thought those
>factors were pointless, and all that was necessary was to shout The Truth
>from a mountaintop to the grateful masses below.
>
><snip>
>
>>there's people's _subjective_ perception, but as Marx showed, there is
>>also a way to look at the issue of _classes_ that really does have to do
>>with relation to the means of production.
>
>Subjective perception does matter and does act like a material force,
>sure, but does that put it on the same level of truth or falsity of the
>"actual situation" as, for example, a class analysis?

as I explained, that _is_ class analysis.


>Or a psychological analysis, or any other kind of scientific (broadly
>defined vs. simple subjective perception) observation? How does one go
>about trying to show what's really happening in the world (or at least the
>most likely reason(s) if you accept people's subjective perceptions as
>having about an equal "weight" as an analysis?
>
>>Even Marx didn't say it was simply as either you either own them or you
>>don't.
>
>But he did get into false consciousness (of the actual state of affairs)
>at some point, and that does have something to do with this discussion.

But? Again, you write as if the two approaches contradict one another.


>>Marx only said that, as crises advanced the world would eventually be
>>composed of two classes at a standoff, with the myriad classes eventually
>>taking one side or the other.
>
>And he also said that part of the task of communists (no reason other
>lefties can't do this too; it broadly serves their interests, I think) is
>to form the working class into a self-conscious proletariat. To do this
>you have to keep working to undermine what people have accepted as reality.
>
>Trick is to do this without getting snobby, lecturing, hectoring, etc.

good luck with that. ping me if you need any advice.


>And plenty of people (never mind lefties) need more work on this skill.

anytime, anywhere. just ping me! LOL

ta!

kelley

"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."

--Bruce Sterling



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list