Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class again

2000-05-29 Thread Socialist Party




  
Lo Again,

Not at all - who said 
anything about spontaneously revolutionary? What we have to do is 
conscientiously and consciously buoild a mass movement for 
revolution, it won't happen until the working class is willing and 
conscious for change. How could we have a succesful revolution with a 
vanguard? Make the programmers work at gun point? It 
would degenerate into tyranny, it cannot work. the only way the 
workers can be free is if we consciously free ourselves, not have 
someone lead us to it, or do it for us. Pace Trotsky, the revoluion is 
*not* made by teh minority.

Dread Lord Deathy.

This is just another way of 
saying that you dont want social revolution and will therefore doing nothing 
to advance it. Your peprspective is nothing but a disguised way of 
promoting capitalism and maintaining the working class in their present 
conditon.

Cobblers - I work hard enough 
towards social revolution, almost continually, and you won't find more 
vehemently anti-capitalist band than me and my comrades, we've only spent 
most of our political careers opposing attempts to reform capitalism - our 
one idea is, after Marx, that we believe that teh social revolution must be 
made by the workers themselves.

I'd prefer evidence advanced 
rather than ad hominem accusations, maligning my honesty and integrity - 
call me wrong, but do not call me a liar you fuck, ok?

Deathy.


Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class again

2000-05-25 Thread George Pennefather




Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather

Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/

Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community 
bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following 
address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: Socialist 
Party 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class again


  LO All,
  George: If the working class is, 
  as you claim, "potentially revolutionary" then there is no guarantee that it 
  can spontaneously turn revolutionary which is why a vanguard party is 
  necessary. You hoist yourself with your own petard.
  
  Not at all - who said anything 
  about spontaneously revolutionary? What we have to do is conscientiously 
  and consciously buoild a mass movement for revolution, it won't happen until 
  the working class is willing and conscious for change. How could we have 
  a succesful revolution with a vanguard? Make the programmers work at gun 
  point? It would degenerate into tyranny, it cannot work. the only 
  way the workers can be free is if we consciously free ourselves, not have 
  someone lead us to it, or do it for us. Pace Trotsky, the revoluion is 
  *not* made by teh minority.
  
  Dread Lord Deathy.
  
  This is just another way of 
  saying that you dont want social revolution and will therefore doing nothing 
  to advance it. Your peprspective is nothing but a disguised way of promoting 
  capitalism and maintaining the working class in their present 
  conditon.


Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class

2000-05-24 Thread Socialist Party



Lo Again,

  
They are condemned, then, to 
being revolutionary. 

We are condemned, King Lear like, to the duty 
and possiblity of revolution, it is something that is irrevomovable from our 
condition, but we have to choose to exorcise it.

Now in the north of Ireland there 
exists thousands upon thousand of workers who would describe themselves as 
Protestant Unionists and who actively support British imperialism together 
with the rampant and intense discrimination against Catholic workers from 
the same geographical location. Many of these Protestant workers are proud 
members of the reactionary Orange Order. These workers have adhered to this 
reactionary counter-revolutionary culture for over a hundred years. Such 
workers can hardly be described as inherently revolutionary.

Indeed, police officers are workers, but I 
wouldn't consider a police officer inherently revolution - its absurd as 
sayign all wopmen are inherently feminist. But, and I do have a big 
but, we are all potentially revolutionary, and this is why a vanguard is not 
only udnesirable, but also unnessary, when consciousness and necessity 
co-incide the revolution will happen - our job here and now is to promote 
consciousness as widely as possible.

Deathy



Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class

2000-05-24 Thread George Pennefather




Lo Again,

  
They are condemned, then, to 
being revolutionary. 

We are condemned, King Lear like, to the duty 
and possiblity of revolution, it is something that is irrevomovable from our 
condition, but we have to choose to exorcise it.

Now in the north of Ireland there 
exists thousands upon thousand of workers who would describe themselves as 
Protestant Unionists and who actively support British imperialism together 
with the rampant and intense discrimination against Catholic workers from 
the same geographical location. Many of these Protestant workers are proud 
members of the reactionary Orange Order. These workers have adhered to this 
reactionary counter-revolutionary culture for over a hundred years. Such 
workers can hardly be described as inherently revolutionary.

Indeed, police officers are workers, but I 
wouldn't consider a police officer inherently revolution - its absurd as 
sayign all wopmen are inherently feminist. But, and I do have a big 
but, we are all potentially revolutionary, and this is why a vanguard is not 
only udnesirable, but also unnessary, when consciousness and necessity 
co-incide the revolution will happen - our job here and now is to promote 
consciousness as widely as possible.

Deathy



Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class

2000-05-23 Thread Hugh Rodwell
Title: Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working
class



LO All,

Consequently it would
seem that Lenin's vanguardist elitism was a necessary
tool.

But the theory of the
vanguard is predicated on Lenin's (false) assumption of an inherently
revolutionary working class - i.e. that if the working class is
objectively revolutionary, then the actions of the vanguard on their
behalf - whether they consciously want it or not - is the fulfillment
of their historical role.

Strangely, this is also the
argument used by many rapists.



This wasn't just Lenin's assumption. It was Marx's and Engels's
too. The same way as the bourgeoisie was inherently revolutionary in
relation to feudalism. The historical role of the bourgeoisie was to
emancipate itself from the chains of feudal property relations. Which
it did.

Now it's the turn of the working class.

The bourgeoisie took centuries. We'll do it faster -- and we'll
damn well have to to prevent the bourgeoisie from destroying our
world.

The rapist comparison is stupid. If any social force can be
compared to a rapist today it's the imperialist bourgeoisie. The
violence of the working class should be aimed at dispossessing this
bourgeoisie, ie at stopping its depradations. This is pure
self-defence and what the feminist movement (or the more militant
wings of it) have been advocating for women for a long time. The role
of the working class is that of women in general compared to militant
feminists in this particular comparison. And who would argue against
the mass of women being empowered to defend themselves against the
gender enemy?

Cheers,

Hugh

PS It's enough to speak of Lenin's vanguardism. Elitism has
nothing to do with it.



Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class

2000-05-23 Thread George Pennefather




  But the theory of the vanguard is 
  predicated on Lenin's (false) assumption of an inherently revolutionary 
  working class - i.e. that if the working class is objectively revolutionary, 
  then the actions of the vanguard on their behalf - whether they consciously 
  want it or not - is the fulfillment of their historical role.
  
  Strangely, this is also the 
  argument used by many rapists.
  
  George: I agree that this this argument of 
  Hugh's does not hold any water which is just the point I have been seeking to 
  make. This thing of arguing that the working class is revolutionary whether it 
  knows it or not is illogical and amounts to saying that the prols are 
  revolutionary whether they like it or not or whether they want to be or not. 
  They are condemned, then, to being revolutionary. Now in the north of 
  Ireland there exists thousands upon thousand of workers who would describe 
  themselves as Protestant Unionists and who actively support British 
  imperialism together with the rampant and intense discrimination against 
  Catholic workers from the same geographical location. Many of these Protestant 
  workers are proud members of the reactionary Orange Order. These workers have 
  adhered to this reactionary counter-revolutionary culture for over a hundred 
  years. Such workers can hardly be described as inherently 
  revolutionary.
  
  Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather
  
  Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank 
  web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
  
  Be free to subscribe to our Communist 
  Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the 
  message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  


Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class

2000-05-23 Thread George Pennefather
Title: Re: M-TH: Lenin and the working class




  
Hugh Rodwell: If any social force can be compared to a rapist today it's 
the imperialist bourgeoisie. The violence of the working class should be aimed 
at dispossessing this bourgeoisie, ie at stopping its depradations. This is pure 
self-defence and what the feminist movement (or the more militant wings of it) 
have been advocating for women for a long time. The role of the working class is 
that of women in general compared to militant feminists in this particular 
comparison. And who would argue against the mass of women being empowered to 
defend themselves against the gender enemy?

George Pennefather: "...should be aimed at dispossessing this 
bourgeoisie,..." But if, as you claim, the working class is inherently 
revolutionary then there is no place for "should be". This presciptive ethics is 
superfluous. But its very use by you is tacit acknowledgement that the working 
class is not inherently revolutionary. If it were inherently revolutionary then 
then professional revolutionaries would be out of a job.

The issue of the political character of the working class and the character 
of its relationship to the working class is of central importance. Consequently 
the current debate of the issue can beof value in the efffort to clarify 
the issue. 

Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather

Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web 
site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/

Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank 
mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at 
the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]