yogthos

Sometimes they mean that someone knows theory, sometimes they mean that someone has talked to someone else about how the boss is annohying, sometimes they mean you’re planning a violent wildcat labor action.

It's like you're unable to comprehend the concept of degrees. All of these things work together in practice. People who know theory help educate others, and people talk to each other at the level they are able. Trying to see this as black and white is absurd.

The whole point is that when you’re cornered you rely entirely on quoting and throwing theory at people without explaining how that theory practically applies to the modern day.

Another weird straw man. What theory means practically in modern day has been explained by me and many other people on this very site. I even explained that in this very thread earlier, and you promptly ignored that.

Name one. Literally name one.

Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Chris Smalls, Michael Hudson, Claudia De la Cruz, just off top of my head

Hmm… It’s almost like uhh they’d rather watch Mr Beast on YouTube which is quite literally my point.

And my point is that these people don't matter. They're not the demographic that's going to drive any change.

In that order, as it’s more difficult to actually win gains through “polite” society shit like voting and negotiations, you have to do things that require more sacrifice.

And how are you going to convince them to show up to that union meeting exactly. Perhaps you might even have to talk to them, to have a conversation where you convince them that showing up for a union meeting is in fact in their interest. That's what debate, discussion, and education means.

If you are in any way thinking that the conditions in the 21st century US are equivalent rather that merely rhyme with the conditions in the 19th and 20th in Russia as much as you can take “What is to be Done?” off the shelf and use it as a playbook then there’s really no point in this discussion.

Weird straw man since nowhere did I say that. What I said is that there is real poverty in the US, and people are struggling to make ends meet. Nowhere did I suggest there's going to be some sort of a proletarian revolution in the US as there was in Russia at the start of the 20th century.

Also, there are plenty of highly intelligent and articulate people in US who explain the problems in clear terms. Russia doesn't have some unique tradition of grand political theorists. The problem in US is that most people don't think they need to be educated, and want quick and easy solutions to difficult problems.

I'm going to stop here because it's clear that we're not getting anywhere convincing each other of anything. I've said all needed to say here.

This is completely untrue because union participation rate went down in the 1920’s. If what you’re saying is true then unions went into firefights intentionally on the back foot.

Where do you think unions come from, they just appear fully formed out of thin air in your mind? Unions are a product of people talking to each other, sharing grievances and deciding on collective action as the solution.

You’re conflating, we have to fight the boss for our freedom with we have to create a glorious workers movement to build communism. The former requires no education if you’re paid in scrip and working at the end of a bayonette. That’s literally what the history says.

Yes, the former absolutely requires education. People need to understand how class relationships work, how collective bargaining works, how effective organization works. Modern leftists who want to skip all that are deeply unserious.

Yeah I agree, and I can assure you that those people aren’t going to be able to tell you what the Parenti Yellow Lecture is, or what What Is To Be Done? is or who wrote it.

I can assure you that they will just like people such as Fred Hampton, who did actual real world organizing instead of online trolling could.

Yeah it appeared specifically because the 1920’s was the most violent decade of labor action.

And the violent labor action in 1920s wasn't some spontaneous event that happened out of the blue. It was a product of many years of organizing which started with having public discussions about the conditions the workers were experiencing.

If we woke up tomorrow and everyone understood Parenti, nothing would actually change until there was a demonstration of the willingness to truly fight, and the fruits of truly fighting.

One thing is a prerequisite for the other. You can't put the cart before the horse here. Without general public understanding, no organized resistence to oppression is possible.

The idea of education and vanguardism as a solution is kinda silly because. we’re still just playing a game of prisoners dilemma and in the US, why bother with that and instead just watch Mr Beast. You’re not a Russian peasant dirt farming for a share cropper, you’re a modern subject of capital with access to youtube.

The fundamental problem is exactly the same, and education and vanguardism remains the solution. The mechanics of organization may be different, but the underlying principles remain the same. Movements need leaders, organization, and a common set of ideas that people rally behind.

I can assure you that people who are going to be radicalized and who will organize aren't the ones sitting watching youtube. They're the people who are feeling the exploitation through their personal lived experience.

Getting them to show up for what specifically?

Again, people need to understand what it is that's being proposed and why it's in their interest to participate. If you can't even articulate that here, whom are you going to convince exactly. And yes, you are very much dealing with real genuine poverty and overwork in 21st century. Millions of people are struggling to make ends meet, working multiple jobs, and being stuck in debt.

We're talking about voting being seen as a primary way for the working masses to engage politically.

Once again, worker power in 1930s didn't just magically appear out of nowhere. Seriously, read up a bit of history on how the US labor movement actually originated. Also, still waiting to hear what specifically you're proposing here aside from whinging.

You've written walls of text in this thread, yet it's not clear what it is you're actually proposing. How exactly are you planning to reach people if not by talking with them?

What do you think was happening in union meetings exactly?

The social contract that you exists under derives its legitimacy from bourgeoisie elections not labor voluntarism. There has never been a long lived stable society in the modern era that has derived its legitimacy from labor voluntarism. You are arguing about fiction.

Nowhere did I talk about any labour voluntarism. You're misrepresenting what I'm actually saying.

Your own link to the Parenti lecture disproves this. There was never “public debate” at the comparable time in history. There was underground education and labor actions. Public debate was quashed.

There was plenty of public debate in 1930s. Perhaps you have a different definition for public debate that you're using?

You are conflating the world which you live in, the world you want to live in, and how you think we can get there into one mess that doesn’t actually explain any of the 3 concepts well.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You're just putting words in my mouth here instead of engaging with what's actually being said to you.

Public debate has meaning, it’s not “people be talking”.

No, public debate means people discussing problems to gain common understanding of what the issues are and how to address them. If you think this step can be skipped somehow before any meaningful action can be taken then you're frankly delusional.

Parenti is describing what effective political action and organizing look like. I'm going to repeat this again, since you continue to ignore my point, public debate serves as a way to educate people. Education does not happen magically out of the blue.

stay mad