Class Consciousness and Our Finite Time
- This topic has 87 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 hours, 19 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Tsunamis from the sky are a new atmospheric phenomenon that is going to affect our society, and it might cause enormous destruction on Earth.
Ecological destruction is not a Chinese hoax, as some leaders are propagating it to distract the working class from the real cause of climate change, which is capitalism.
Climate disaster might end mankind and our civilisation; the historian Francis Jennings wrote that there is only one civilisation
PS: Roberto, there is a topic in the Events section that you should look at, which is about Puerto Rico, nationalism and independence
Many scientists have said that in 2100, most glaciers are going to melt and the sea level is going to increase, and many cities, islands and countries could be underwater
It might create a big emigration of human beings. Will walls and borders be able to stop that large emigration? They expect an emigration of millions, or probably billions, of human beings.
Are we going to understand that the cause of climate disaster and emigration is produced by capitalism?
The ex-president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, said at the United Nations that we are witnessing the elimination of the nation-states.
But awareness of history, never great, is at an all-time low. Many have no chronological sense of it at all, let alone any interest in or knowledge of working class history. Many even ridicule an interest in history and are actually proud of their ignorance of it. It is considered “dead and gone” and not worth thinking of.
Yes, I agree that ecological destruction reinforces the point that neither our individual future nor humanity’s collective future should be taken for granted. The future is a possibility, not a guarantee.
For me, this makes the question of our finite time even more important. It is not only about how capitalism organises the limited time of individual workers, but also about what kind of world we are producing and leaving behind. There is little meaning in talking about human emancipation without preserving the material conditions that make human life possible.
And thanks for pointing me to the discussion on Puerto Rico, nationalism and independence. I will take a look at it. Being Puerto Rican myself, that is obviously a subject of particular interest to me.
At present members of the working class do not care about their own history, and the real-history of mankind is unknown,
They are planning to close the museums of natural history and only a few people are complaining and they are saying that the middle age was dark age we are now really living the dark age
They care more about the history of their own rulers and leaders, there is a big obsession with leaders
In the USA the ruling class is propagating the idea that god created trump to save mankind, that is only a Christian crap
It would be better to worship the gods of the Greek society described by Homer, some of them had better human feelings including the goddess
Sinbad, Jason and his argonauts wanted to save mankind and they are mythological figures
In front of me a priest said; let’s pray for our leaders and I told him him , what about Marx, Stalin, Lenin and mao?
He said that the devil can not be included
I told him: they are leaders too
Religion and ruling class politic are partners
Thoughts of building a world that is radically different don’t feature much on people’s agendas because capitalism always throws other imperatives at them and there’s always another day to get through. I think I was lucky in that at the time I started to think about socialism I was unemployed, single and without any particular commitments. My dad had joined the SPGB and kept leaving ‘propaganda’ around the house to catch my attention. It irritated me at first. But most people don’t get this exposure and don’t seek it out. And for all that they may bewail their lot and want to see something done about the injustices in the world, people feel uncomfortable if anything threatens to disrupt their everyday routines and thought processes.
It’s easier to complain than to be constructive, and to blame greedy or outrageous individuals than to see the system behind them for what it is. It’s also quite a jolt to be told that we can scrap money, employment and governments. People think they are going to ‘lose all they’ve worked for’, to go back to a more primitive, barter-like existence. And unless world leaders and celebrities get behind some cause or other, it’s not regarded as important.
But we in the WSM are not alone – there are others publishing books, reviewed in the Standard from time to time, about broadly the same issues and seeing that the solution is global.
I think it was on this forum some time ago that I saw something about it taking only a relatively small minority to get a campaign seriously moving – so when socialists number only a few percent, there could be a snowball effect as people get the message.
I think with some people it’s just below the surface awaiting validation by others. I have had conversations recently with my Hindu next-door neighbour and with my sister-in-law, both of whom are very impressed with the idea of a borderless, moneyless world.
My dad used to say that he didn’t think socialism would happen in his lifetime – well, he was right, and I think I’m probably going to have to say the same. But you have to look forward – what’s the alternative? Doom and gloom and eating your heart out.
I think the story about your father illustrates something very important in this discussion.
He didn’t live to see socialism, just as many of us may not. But the ideas he left around the house outlived the moment in which he placed those books and pamphlets there. At first they irritated you, later they made you think, and now you are passing those ideas on to other people. That seems to me a very concrete example of how human understanding does not have to begin again with every generation.
I also think your point about everyday life is important. Perhaps many workers don’t consciously accept capitalism so much as they are constantly occupied with surviving within it. There is always another shift, another bill, another family responsibility, another problem demanding attention. Questioning the entire organisation of society requires something capitalism itself often leaves us very little of: time.
And this brings me back to the idea I raised earlier. Our time is our life. Capitalism doesn’t only organise production; to a remarkable extent it organises the time in which we live our finite lives.
Your father’s experience also reminds us why not seeing socialism within our own lifetime does not make communicating socialist ideas pointless. A finite life can contribute to something whose consequences extend beyond that life.
Perhaps none of us knows which conversation, book, pamphlet or seemingly insignificant encounter will cause somebody else to begin questioning what they previously regarded as natural.
Your father leaving those books around the house seems a rather good example.
You do not have to “attend Harvard” to become a socialist. I have known peasants, barbers, carpenters, factory workers and tailors who were teachers of socialism. Nobody was able to buy their class consciousness.
Exactly. Class consciousness is not an academic qualification.
A person may have an impressive education and never seriously question the social relationships around them, while a factory worker, carpenter, barber or farm worker may understand very clearly the position of workers within capitalism.
Education and access to knowledge certainly matter, but understanding society is not the private property of intellectuals. Workers are capable of examining their own experience, learning from the experience of others and questioning what they have been taught to regard as natural.
Perhaps that is another reason not to underestimate people. Socialist consciousness is not something an enlightened minority gives to workers. It is something workers themselves are capable of developing.
But the working class is not the same everywhere. I would say there is less class consciousness in places like Britain than there is in S. America and Africa, where the class struggle is more personal – as it was here in the days of the Chartists.
The poorest here in Britain are generally the most patriotic, reactionary, and punitive, and the most fawning and admiring of the bourgeoisie. Their communal sentiment is nationalism and pride in the military, macho, personality. The phenomenon of the autodidactic worker with his home library has mostly disappeared, and most people rely on the state for their education and on soundbite TV news programs and internet slop.The young and rebellious are drawn to crass conspiracism, and the young and conservative to the military or business.
If there is class consciousness, I think it more likely to be found in the so-called third world than here.
I think this raises an important distinction between being conscious of belonging to the working class and having socialist class consciousness.
A worker may strongly identify as working class, recognise inequality, distrust the rich and complain about wages and conditions, while at the same time supporting nationalism, borders, the military or political leaders. Class identity by itself is therefore not necessarily class consciousness in the socialist sense.
I also agree that consciousness does not develop uniformly everywhere. Different historical conditions, traditions of struggle and everyday experiences can make class relations more visible in one place or period than another.
But I would hesitate to conclude that workers in one part of the world are inherently more capable of developing class consciousness than workers elsewhere. Consciousness can retreat as well as advance.
Perhaps the important question is what causes workers to make the connection between their individual experiences and their common social position.
For me, that is where class consciousness begins: when what appears to be my individual struggle to survive becomes understood as part of a social relationship shared with other workers — and when changing that relationship is understood as something that can only be done collectively.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.