It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.”
Honestly, I don't know who or what you are replying to but if by human nature you mean how people act and what thoughts and ideas they have then it is not innate at all.
Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I haven't been to a 'meeting' with the ICC so I can only offer an opinion on that basis. It does sound odd to be a member of an organisation (they're not a Party but a 'current' hence International Communist Current - sorry to be pedantic) and not speak on behalf of it. However, it is not uncommon for members to speak as minorities within an organisation and not represent the majority position i.e they're not speaking on behalf of the organisation on a particular question - because they're opinion is in opposition to the majority or 'official' position.
In regards to comparison with the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) I don't think there are many similarities. I think they are two completely different animals. For a start the ICC explicitly seeks to educate its militants and provoke intellectual debate and discussion, the advancement of theory within and in its press and literature. I am not a member myself so this is purely my reflection of them and taking them at face value on what they say themselves. I don't know much about their internal organisation but apparently you don't have to agree with their 'secondary' programmatic declarations and whole international sections reject particular thesis etc. As I'm sure you're aware the SWP has been criticised by about every far leftist, communist and anarchist for being completely un-democratic, beauracratic, and more Stalinist than Trotskyist. i.e the Central Committee come up with all the theory and have all control, no internal factions are allowed except for a limited time then they must dissolve. They take control/stifle (of) struggles, make reactionary alliances, are class collaborationist etc etc.
I think you're saying the SWP gaining power rather than the ICC - who make it clear that is not their aim or desire. They don't even seek to 'organise the class' like other organisations may seek to do. For anyone interested in what the ICC are about, their aims etc check out what they say themselves:
International Communist Current
As for the ICC being old fashioned, they do use a lot of language associated with revolutionary currents from the last centuries and take a certain amount of pride in their historical origins and workers movements traditions so I can see what you're saying. But personally I don't see it as a criticism. It's up to people to educate themselves in the rich history of the workers movement and its traditions not to be dumbed down or reject the history in its entirety. After all words do have meaning.
To be fair I saw quite a few Anarchists all dressed in black at the anarchist bookfair in London a couple of years ago, and people wearing fair trade slippers, shoulder bags and whatnot ; ). Though I don't think that's the end of the world, it certainly can be a route for more radical politics. But to highlight how silly it can be for a brief moment I actually thought #! I'm wearing Nike trainers! Later I realised not buying certain commodities wasn't a form of struggle....though I'm not sure I ever did, probably thought it was just 'the thing to do' once you were aware of how these products were produced etc. What it turned out I was actually doing was buying more expensive commodities which I didn't need anyway. I think 'fair trade' ideology is much the same as the ideology of 'green' commodities.
As for punk rock etc a lot of it is utter # but to be fair a lot of it was 'political' and introduced a lot of people to new ideas and a lot of it was also honest etc something which is lacking in a lot of todays music. I'm in my late twenties so I missed punk at the time but a post-punk outfit like Gang of Four got a hell of a lot of Marx into their songs and produced some good tunes at the same time. I'm not aware of anything like that today. Though I hear they were actually anarcho-sydicalists? But anyway you see my point.
Just a short point on Iran as you mention it, according to Iranian socialist Torab Soleth the state militias which number in their millions are made up of heavily 'brainwashed' youngsters, lumpen proletariat and so forth. In his opinion the vastness and depth of the Iranian state is quite a thing to overcome. But despite this he looks back on the Shah's regime which at the time was one of the most feared and vicious states, machine gunning crowds from helicopters etc and was thought could never be overthrown, but it was. For anyone interested on Iran he gives a very interesting perspective which can be found on Google Videos.
About the working class/proletariat it's not that I idealise this class (not sure if you are saying I do) it's that what you refer to as middle class I see as part of the proletariat. Just as students are a section of the working class so are the unemployed, because they are simply unemployed workers.
I don't think we can really blue print or imagine what an "advanced Communist society" would be. But I certainly don't think it would be run by 'educated classes' - as I've already tried to explain I don't think there is such a thing.
Going back to Iran, maybe what you experienced was what Soleth refers to as "Out of Bounds People"? People beyond city limits who aren't eligible for state benefits, neglected, ostracised and so forth.
Marx explained that once the state and classes disappeared it would be the start of human history and the end of the stage of pre-history if I have that correct. If there is no class, there is no state and no ownership. People will work (as part of ones life) but they will not be a class of workers. One cannot imagine a classless society within todays socio-economic organisation. When you do you can often end up thinking all that will change in a communist society will be the goods and how they are distributed. Many anarchists seem to fall into this trap. (I'm not saying you do, many on Libcom seem to take this approach). Marx did not even see communism as the final stage of society or human history, he saw it as the beginning. Essentially that human society will progress further, beyond communism.
I take your point about consumerism, but it's not 'natural' your girlfriend wants loads of pairs of shoes, even when she already has lots of pairs. There is the heavy weight of constant propaganda and alienation at work. The situationists were especially good on Marx's theory of alienation for anyone interested.
I broadly agree about the lack of working class/socialist consciousness. The result of many things I think. The legacy of Stalinism, the lack of a break with the Labour Party by many organisations, consumerism, increasing isolation within society and individualism, anti-strike legislation, destruction and break down of communities, massive defeats of workers struggle, and so on.
Honestly I don't have any knowledge on co-ops and collectives but I am aware a lot of it was critiqued in the 19th and 20th century before and after it was attempted in places like Scotland and America. It's something I should read about.
I don't think we can really blue print or imagine what an "advanced Communist society" would be.
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
Damn, I must have cooties or somethin'.....
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
Simple: An advanced Communist society would render money obsolete.
Money is a control mechanism.. the barter system was fine for HONEST living.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
"The Communist Manifesto."
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
...........
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
..................
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. combination of education with industrial production.
"Communist Manifesto"
Originally posted by YourPopRock
And one again, no proof.
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Lucifer777
Yet if we are meaningless as you suggest, why do we bother you so? Do we get under your scaly skin?
If we are evil baby-eating McCarthyist neo-capitalicists then aren't we playing for your team?
Also, playing devil's advocate, did you consider the possibility that we masons are manipulating you by NOT manipulating you?
You may be the first entity in a billion years to commit a felony against the law "Do What Thou Wilt".
Surely masonic zealotry would validate your points, but rational responses to your accusations only serve to infuriate you and make you look silly.
You may be right,
I may be crazy...
Originally posted by YourPopRock
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
OP makes silly and unsubstantiated claimes with no evidence, and for some reason I have to prove his B as in B and S as in S to be false.
You have it backwards sponge-bob satan-pants.
YOU have the burden of proof for your claims... otherwise, you are simply a wordy wacko!
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by Desired1
Honestly, I don't know who or what you are replying to but if by human nature you mean how people act and what thoughts and ideas they have then it is not innate at all.
What I am describing is the human capacity for both creation and destruction, preservation and defilement, love and fear/hate. Even a young child can express these notions.
History shows that humans tend to be schizophrenic, probably due to our higher faculties conflicting with mammalian tendencies.edit on 9-5-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: typo
Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
"Real Democracy" to me says we want capitalism run better, more in the mass interest and more participation at a local level.