The counterpart to this is you can't make open class conflict out of ideas by themselves - it's not a matter of 'converting people to libertarian communism' (and I really wish that was a straw-man but it's been said enough times on here) so they get all revolutionary and kick off, and if there was just enough people who were revolutionary then we'd get bigger and bigger and bigger until....
No, you have to vindicate the potency of those ideas through direct action applied to preexisting and nascent struggles. The education happens by example.
I also think it's quite fair to say that many people will return to normal life (and more or less the same general political outlook) when things die down. Of course not everyone does necessarily but those who continue with active communist politics will be a small number. Rather than psychologising it, we can say that organisations which are built up during these periods have invariably been crushed,
By force.
recuperated,
By unions and political parties.
or shrunk down to a much smaller size when the events that led to their growth have died down.
Because the energy is no longer there, And that has nothing to do with ideology.
I've posted this basic points a few times now when this has come up, and no-one who disagrees with me has posted anything serious in response as far as I can remember, and certainly no counter-examples. Hence the new thread.
What exactly are these mythical 'revolutionary times'? Are they the times when working class people happen to be blessed with the same arcane knowledge, the same theoretical understanding as the 'revolutionaries'?
If you look at any of the major insurrections - there was also some very rapid self-education that went along alongside them and because of them. This also happens on a much smaller scale as wellA very, very small example - some refuse workers on strike in Tottenham a year or two ago found a couple of articles on here about a bin men's strike in Brighton from a few years ago. They printed this off and handed it around at the picket line (we found out, I think, because someone who knows about this site visited the picket line and heard about it - otherwise we wouldn't have). Now I think it's far more likely that people will go on strike, then decide to read about the wider history of class struggle as a result of that, than vice-versa. Obviously some people come to communist ideas as a result of reading theory or history - I did, I'd imagine the bulk of posters on here did (especially those of us under 50). I also think the numbers of those people could be far, far higher than they are now - many many multiples, and that relatively large number of 'pro-revolutionaries' can help to tip the balance in favour of revolutionary positions in particular situations.
I would tend to agree....tho the very concept of the revolutionary current being 'separate' from the whole of working class life- which is riddled with forms of subversion that we simply don't know about - is scary to me and squints towards vanguardism. Also, in no way do i see any sort of energetic plain language propagandizing towards the dissemination of a revolutionary critique. In no way.
The idea of this seperation can only survive on stereotypes-- the blinkered, ignorant and passive worker and the 'pure' revolutionary. We all have tendencies, we are mixed creatures. People have the capacity for rebellion at all points, and the desire, if it does not come packaged in terms of 'communism' and such then who gives a fuck.
The idea as that there is a clear path or set of channels thru which all of those private and 'open' forms of class conflict can converge and truly catalyze the utter destruction of the capitalist system....so that there is no normal life to go back to. I think if 'revolutionaries' are to organize and educate themselves, it means developing real empathy with the broader working class and learning from 'them' rather than trying to preach to 'them'.
However, pro-revolutionaries should be organising themselves, not trying to organise the working class - and certainly shouldn't be getting themselves into situations where they're negotiating the price of labour power etc. with bosses.
Agreed, then what the hell is so 'science fiction' about the folowing assertion, according to pghwob:
The Alliance is not interested in negotiating with bosses, or organizing labor in submission to laws set by any government. We hold that labor is a law unto itself. The Alliance sees as central to its task the complete control of industry by the working class on a directly democratic basis, and nothing less.
You'll pardon my lack of articulation, i am just trying to feel things out here. I am not hard and fast about a lot of things.
split from: http://libcom.org/forums/organise/no-strike-clauses-iww-16122007?page=12
Well revol's at best greatly oversimplifying what me and John have argued.
The main point for me, is that people's ideas often change during periods of open class conflict - this could be anything from workers co-operating across race and gender boundaries when confronted with a common class enemy during a relatively localised strike - when those boundaries are far more impermeable otherwise - to confronting the entire nature of work, politics etc. which has clearly happened during mass strikes and insurrections in the past.
The counterpart to this is you can't make open class conflict out of ideas by themselves - it's not a matter of 'converting people to libertarian communism' (and I really wish that was a straw-man but it's been said enough times on here) so they get all revolutionary and kick off, and if there was just enough people who were revolutionary then we'd get bigger and bigger and bigger until....
I also think it's quite fair to say that many people will return to normal life (and more or less the same general political outlook) when things die down. Of course not everyone does necessarily but those who continue with active communist politics will be a small number. Rather than psychologising it, we can say that organisations which are built up during these periods have invariably been crushed, recuperated, or shrunk down to a much smaller size when the events that led to their growth have died down.
I've posted this basic points a few times now when this has come up, and no-one who disagrees with me has posted anything serious in response as far as I can remember, and certainly no counter-examples. Hence the new thread.
If you look at any of the major insurrections - there was also some very rapid self-education that went along alongside them and because of them. This also happens on a much smaller scale as well.
A very, very small example - some refuse workers on strike in Tottenham a year or two ago found a couple of articles on here about a bin men's strike in Brighton from a few years ago. They printed this off and handed it around at the picket line (we found out, I think, because someone who knows about this site visited the picket line and heard about it - otherwise we wouldn't have). Now I think it's far more likely that people will go on strike, then decide to read about the wider history of class struggle as a result of that, than vice-versa. Obviously some people come to communist ideas as a result of reading theory or history - I did, I'd imagine the bulk of posters on here did (especially those of us under 50). I also think the numbers of those people could be far, far higher than they are now - many many multiples, and that relatively large number of 'pro-revolutionaries' can help to tip the balance in favour of revolutionary positions in particular situations. However, pro-revolutionaries should be organising themselves, not trying to organise the working class - and certainly shouldn't be getting themselves into situations where they're negotiating the price of labour power etc. with bosses.