[WS:] There is a misunderstanding here. What I was suggesting is a modest medium range plan that will allow left and other groups getting a better political representation. I do not believe in the changes that many radicals are talking about - like abolishing capitalism, and
the state, or fundamentally changing the way society works etc. Quite frankly, I think establishing a leftie colony on the Moon would be a more realistic plan than that.
I prefer a modest realistic solution to a grand unrealistic one. Which reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon: a doctor to a patient: "Before trying assisted suicide, let's give aspirin a chance. Likewise, before "the revolution finally comes" let's give reforming the political process a chance.
And one more thing - it was never possible to unite the masses when they shared nothing but rags and chains, so what makes you think that this even remotely possible in the era of individualized consumerism and identity politics? Regarding the supposed unity of the upper echelons - it appears so only for those who are outside such echelons - just like for an average Joe Schmoe all Muslims look the same.
Wojtek
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:22 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this argument. I do
> not believe that there is a unified "capitalist class" (other than a
> statistical construct) - let alone one that is acting as one and
> pulling all the strings, including alienating "the masses".
>
> ^^^^
> CB: The US ruling class is highly unified where it counts: on issues*
> of fundamental or strategic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and
> the working class. More specifically, the US ruing class is very
> effectively unified against changing away from the current electoral
> system. However, the response on this requires very little action by
> any ruling class members because there is so little movement to change
> the status quo. On most important issues of conflict between the
> classes with the ruling class advantage in the status quo this is the
> case. Very little active must be done to maintain the status quo. The
> US ruling class has the world on a string , sitting on a rainbow, got
> the string tied round its finger.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> For that matter, I do not believe that there are "the masses" either
> (other than an ideological agit-prop construct.)
>
> ^^^^
> CB: The masses or working class are an objective, not ideological
> construct. The concept of them is not false consciousness, but its
> opposite ,none other than , ta da ! working class consciousness,
> class consciousness The masses really do exist ( lol). They are
> wage-laborers, employed and the relative surplus population, and petit
> bourgeoisie. Many in the US call themselves the middle class. They are
> 90 percent of the population, the People.
>
> ^^^^^
>
>
> Instead, I believe that there are many different groups with fuzzy
> boundaries and multiple, ambiguously defined interests, groups that
> sometimes act together and sometimes against each other. Furthermore,
> there is no one master plan or oven one overall strategy for most of
> these groups - but at best interim short term goals as seizing
> opportunities as they emerge.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB; Yes the working class masses are not united. They have disdained
> Marx and Engels' urging to unite. They are a class-in-themselves (
> they exist objectively contra your first statement) , but not a
> class-for-themselves...yet...tick tock,tick tock, tick tock..... they
> are confused and unclass conscious. We are hoping that the vicious
> actions of the ruling class will drum dialectics into the heads of the
> masses.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> Some groups are better at setting these interim goals and seizing
> these opportunities than other - for a variety of reasons.
>
> In short, it is always muddling through, never following a master
> plan, ideological proclamations and ex post facto rationalizations
> notwithstanding. Nothing is preordained or predetermined, everything
> is possible given the circumstances and strategic skills of the
> players.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Til the final conflict, then let each stand in his place
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> So if you are telling me that the left cannot organize itself into an
> organized political force capable of pursuing interests of its
> constituents (which does not mean always winning) - what I see is a
> bunch of bush league players complaining that they cannot play in a
> major league because the rules as rigged against them. In a way, they
> are right - the major league rules require a certain level of skills
> that pretty much precludes those who do not have them from playing.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: I think _you_ are telling _me_ that they are not organized around
> a master plan that would make them competitive in the class struggle
> major leagues. Until they get conscious and a plan, they definitely
> won't change the electoral system in the way you want. Need a master
> plan to dry up the Atlantic Ocean.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
>
> PS. There is no capitalism either - only multiple institutional
> arrangements that vary within- and between- states, arrangements that
> have some things in common but other things substantially different.
>
> Wojtek
>
> PS There is no chaos either. What on the surface is an apparent
> random and chance concatenation of events has underlying laws
> organizing things which we as social and historical scientists, like
> Marx and Engels, have discovered. See _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End
> of Classical German Philosophy_ and _Anti-Duhring_ by Engels.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>