Questions

[blindpig]

1) Who are we? What do we and don't we believe?

We are people who oppose Capitalism. We believe that Capitalism is unjust, oppressive, practically unsustainable and irredeemable. We believe that the workers should control the means of production. We believe that mass action on the part of the working class is the only means of replacing Capitalism. We do not believe that Capitalism can be softened, compromised with, 'third wayed' or in any way be allowed to continue, the possessers must be dispossessed.

=====================================================================================

Ok, that's just to get us started, I'm not sure if this is the right approach or not. Maybe we want to just tear this apart and keep doing so until we reach consensus
or perhaps we should each do the same, compare and contrast, and try to reach consensus that way. Or mebbe something completely different, I dunno, just trying to get the ball rolling.

[meganmonkey]

I think we should not start sentences with "We believe" eg the second sentence should start right with "Capitalism is unjust, oppressive..."

It sounds more authoritative (as opposed to authoritarian, ha) and it is the truth so it should be stated as such.

Just a thought at first glance.

[starry messenger]

There is nothing wrong with saying "We know____"...belief gets into squishy territory.


I might add that we are people who don't think that society can be "reformed from within" by using the current structure of politicians, elections, etc. Nor do we think that society can be changed by reforming lifestyles, consumer choices...I don't know how to boil those down though.

[Two Americas]

Who are we?

Nobodies. We are the people who showed up here and posted and read stuff.

What do we believe?

Nothing. You might say we are "from Missouri" in that regard.

Capitalism is unjust, oppressive, practically unsustainable and irredeemable, no matter what we believe.

Is the most important thing that we oppose Capitalism, or that we can see it? Very few will support it once they can see it. Those who can see it and yet who do support it are the investors. They know the score.

Saying that "mass action on the part of the working class is the only means of replacing Capitalism" is self-evident, no? Capitalism will inevitably lead to mass action on the part of the working class.

We know with certainty that Capitalism cannot be softened, compromised with, 'third wayed,' don't we?

It will not be allowed to continue, the possessors will be dispossessed.

[BitterLittleFlower]

when anyone else is hungry.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

fetishize "activism" to me. Who doesn't oppose capitalism if you zoom out far enough -- just debating degrees in that case which is precisely what the spectrum of "reform" encompasses.

Doesn't matter what we believe, or what capitalism "is". The bottom line is that we're going to fight because we have to and capitalism ain't gonna stop -- the engine's are gonna keep churning and the fuel is blood, flesh and marrow and the exhaust is immolated human beings.

What makes us distinct (not unique) is that our opposition (=Anax's fightback, not some kind of armchair reservations type deal) is SCIENTIFIC. Much as we can study the electromagnetic spectrum or the topography of the ocean floor, we can study our own social relations.

The object is to not only become self-conscious of those relations but parlay that consciousness into self-aware CONTROL of those relations. Otherwise we have merely supplanted the (semmingly) arbitrary whims of Nature for the (very truly) arbitrary and volatile whims of our own social interactions.

The only way to advance this control is to achieve it and demonstrate in the real world its superiority in practice to the completely unchecked relations that revolve around possession and access to congealed (dead) labor.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

Wanna greybeard a larger sector of "left" sites? Lets start with this one.

You're right -- we're nobodys. But..is what we're trying to say here about identity or "Us" (if so, in what sense Us)? You're right -- its not about beliefs either. But..is what we're trying to say here about the product of our thinking that we can believe in or is the meaningful kernel our method?

In larger measure, all of our thinking (wrangling, jostling, writhing, etc) is mostly an attempt to recapitulate/recapture things and ideas that were commonly known as late as a century ago (and perhaps they were forgotten only a generation ago)

[blindpig]

but we got the conversation started.

All grist for the mill.

Strike 'believe'

Gotta reread Kid's post, too much of a zombie now.

[blindpig]

I think that final paragraph is ready to go with the right stuff around it.

Funny, that old degenerate HS Thompson used to say that "Politics is the art of controlling one's environment." His politics sucked but broken clock and all.

Keep it up.

[Two Americas]

I get that all of our thinking is mostly an attempt to recapitulate/recapture things and ideas that were commonly known as late as a century ago (and perhaps they were forgotten only a generation ago).

What are you saying here? - But..is what we're trying to say here about the product of our thinking that we can believe in or is the meaningful kernel our method?

[Two Americas]

Saying you oppose Capitalism doesn't mean much. Sort of like saying "I lean into the wind" or "I struggle to get to the surface when I am under water."

Capitalism won't stop and we fight back because we have no other choice.

The distinction between us and others is that we are scientifically studying social relations.

The goal is to become aware of those relations and then to control those relations.

The only way to advance this control (the goal) is to achieve it and demonstrate in the real world its superiority in practice (the proof is in the pudding, not in the rhetoric or beliefs or feelings) to the completely unchecked relations that revolve around possession and access to congealed (dead) labor (the existing social arrangements and conventions, social relations.)

So...

Capitalism - and, important to remember: opposition to Capitalism - are what is happening: real, inevitable, unavoidable.

The first step in our work is to look at social relations - "keep it real" - not to learn a doctrine about social relations - "I believe Socialism is better than Capitalism" - but rather to use a scientific approach for the purpose of more clearly seeing and understanding social relations. We do need to learn and understand theory in order to apply it.

Then... converting people to the club, getting them to "share our beliefs," is of no value. Control over social relations is the goal, and that is advanced by doing - only advanced that way - so as to demonstrate in the real world the superiority of consciously controlling social relations rather than be directed by them. Social relations now revolve around possession and access to dead labor - as though the things were interacting with one another and telling us what to do.

[Dhalgren]

One question (the first of many, many), what does "control over social relations" mean in real, everyday terms?
If that is the goal, we need a clear, demonstrable explanation of what that goal is and means. How do we gain control over social relations? Are you speaking of that attainment as a group goal?

[Kid of the Black Hole]

except that the last part about control is kind of vague since the real question in front of us is HOW that happens. I think you also answered your own question to me above right? (because learning the theory first means being schooled in the approach that produces the theory -- and that is the kernel, the method we seek to apply. And for now that starts with critically analyzing and REJECTING much of the prsentday thinking that we are indoctrinated with -- and also understanding how doctrinaire much of that thinking actually is). Us "telling" people the answers ahead of time is kinda like me telling you the answer to a Diophantine equation and you're like "Dia-whaaaa?"

The added dimension is that while we're nobodies we're also workers. And that is the only axis we can come together on. Everything else is very particular to circumstance and personal perspective and so many other variables. Partially this is because work/labor is life and life is work but also because under the rule of capital (even more so than the rule of capitalISTS) that is the sole line of demarcation.

Always before this, the enforcement of the peculiar division of labor whereby some are assigned the "work" of maintaining themselves separate and apart from that very division -- always before, this was guised by social intermediaries and shrouded in tradition, norms, convention, etc. Always before it was mediated in some way -- the ruling class didn't directly confisccate labor but we're due a share of your yield or a tithe or whatever. Even despotism -- which Marx associated mostly with Asia -- was not a direct confiscation in the same sense I don't think.

Now the state of things lies completely exposed and raw and if you touch it you instantly hit the nerve. So there is no other classification than Worker except for remnants of the old order, and vestigial byproducts of the fact that capitalist relations incubated in the womb of FEUDal society (all the nobility existed to do was wage war and fight each other, remember)

[Kid of the Black Hole]

Much as we bend the vicissitudes of Nature to our will in an orderly manner that is unburdened by sentimental pangs except at the periphery, we are seeking to do the very same thing with our own society.

[Dhalgren]

the goal of a party or organization, right? And at this point we are neither. I may be completely wrong, but isn't a statement of goals on the level of control of social relations a bit beyond where we are? Or is it necessary to have such a long-term goal plainly in our sights to advance from wherever it is we are?

[Kid of the Black Hole]

but the way I think of it is more like this: the scientist studying whatever field (chemistry, physics, biology, and so on) wouldn't state "controlling Nature" as a goal per se but it is nevertheless implicit in the enterprise of scientific study. We should maybe talk about Freedom and Necessity sometime (but not now since it would be a tangent)

And if you mull it over you can see that scientific investigation has allowed us to subjugate Nature to a very high degree of proficiency and the question at hand is to apply that same creative and progressivizing/developmental force to our society (and contra Thatcher, there is nothing BUT society)

Its not the goal of a group or party but rather how human history advances (think of it in the sense of converting solar energy to mechanical activity is agriculture, converting mechanical energy into heat Fire, converting heat into mechanical energy Combustion, and so on)

But maybe I am zooming out too far here

[anaxarchos]

Is that classes? private property?

How does one "control" classes?

[Kid of the Black Hole]

Yes classes and private property are social relations and no, one doesn't control them which is perhaps the largest point to be made. The object then becomes to overthrow those relations and replace them with ones of oour own choosing and design.

I'm assuming you were calling me out to clarify -- if you were explicitly putting the question to Dhal, perdoneme (again)

[Two Americas]

Just teeing it up.

If "social relations now revolve around possession and access to dead labor" and if that is pervasive and all-encompassing, that means that opportunities to see and analyze that should present themselves continually. As Kid says, we are workers, and so are all of the people around us. That is the only meaningful line of demarcation and it is one that is forced on us. So, all are engaged in a struggle against Capitalism at all times and are running into the social arrangements that Capitalism dictates.

We are workers. That is objective reality. When you say you "are" a Socialist we are into the realm of the subjective. That places objective reality subordinate to individual consciousness.

Beyond that we are workers who know that we are, and know what that means.

How do we gain control over social relations? "We" is "workers," yes? (and then, workers who know that they are and who know what that means - are learning how that works and what that means.) Existing social relations are based on workers being controlled, owners being presumed to have a "right" to control and dominate others - do control and dominate others.

Workers are oppressed by Capitalism as a class, and are in opposition to the ruling class as a class. We are opposed to domination and control over us by the owners - as a class - yes? That is a given. That is true for all in the working class. We oppose Capitalism in practice - opposing the idea, the system, in theory is subordinate to that. The study of theory and history is for the purpose of understanding the practice. All working class people are already engaged in the struggle - no choice - and not all need know the theory. All do need to be clear about the conditions, and about the practice.

We, as individuals, and as the small group here have no business making grand plans. We are and always will be a small part of a much bigger picture. The task is to find where and how we can be useful.

[Kid of the Black Hole]

or else it becomes subjective as well. The domination lies in expropriation (which again, is a technically defined term) -- expropriation is the mechanism by which capitalists forcibly extract surplus value from workers (or at least, expropriation is the name for the extraction, in case it sounds too circular to say its the mechanism)

The task is to find where and how we can be useful.

I think the task is more like figuring out how to proceed. Not just Where Do We Go From Here but How Do We Move Forward? Sometimes there might not be clearcut answers (even in hindsight) and the inertia is almost always going to be against us, but we just keep plugging.