So, I left the Party...

[chequita guevara]

That's unfortunate that they've degenerated to such BS as pulling the activisim card. It's symptomatic of the times.

Have you already resigned? I think if you're going to leave, you should fight your way out instead of let them drive you out slinking. Hell, who knows. Maybe you'll win. You probably aren't the only comrade who feels this way.

I should warn you that once you leave the group, it's unlikely you'll remain political.




Two in one day. Dracon II was an USecer too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIU Marx correctly, he understood quite well that feudalism was not overhrown by the class it exploited. He posited that the case of capitalism would be different because A: the working class would be by its nature more class conscious and more revolutionary thant the peasants B: The nature of capitilist economy would mean a kind of impoverishment that would make revolution inevitable and C: the nature of capitalist economy would reduce the distinctions within the working class, making revolution more likely

The mistake that he made was B. The economy has changed, like you say, in ways that Marxs didn't envision. But the Marxist theory (post Marx especially) on financial markets is accurate. Capitalism still needs capital accumulation to survive, and capital can not continue to accumulate indefinitely. The error is a timing error.

[Zoid]

Re: Re: So, I left the Party...

Originally posted by MrFun


This happens on Apolyton Off-Topic too, with just about any issue. But I'm glad you haven't decided to leave us because of this.

Well, I don´t discuss that much politics anymore. I´ve stopped trying to analyse things, now I just have opinions

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The error is a timing error.

Actually Marx's error was in omission, which Gramsci analyzed: the role of ideology in the continued submission of the proletariat. He also failed to correctly see the evolution of imperialism, and how it would impact the ability of the working clases to sustain themselves at better than minimum levels.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's unfortunate that they've degenerated to such BS as pulling the activisim card. It's symptomatic of the times.

Have you already resigned? I think if you're going to leave, you should fight your way out instead of let them drive you out slinking. Hell, who knows. Maybe you'll win. You probably aren't the only comrade who feels this way.

I should warn you that once you leave the group, it's unlikely you'll remain political.

Two in one day. Dracon II was an USecer too.

The comrade in question isn´t representative for the party as a whole. But he´s very outspoken and energetic... But I have other issues as well regarding strategies, our place in the swedish left and our identity.

And I haven´t formally resigned. We have the last meeting before the summer break next week. I thought I´ll hand in my formal resignation there.

As far as political activity goes, I haven´t really been that active for the last year and a half. So I guess it won´t be much of a difference...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually Marx's error was in omission, which Gramsci analyzed: the role of ideology in the continued submission of the proletariat. He also failed to correctly see the evolution of imperialism, and how it would impact the ability of the working clases to sustain themselves at better than minimum levels.

I think the first one is due to the continued success of capitalism, and the second one is a way that capitalism has been able to be successfull. In whole he missed timed the failure of capitalism. As soon as capitalism fails the working class will form a cohesive.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is there a working class per se? I'm not so sure. I think there are gradations that divide workers in discrete levels that are lumped together to form a 'working class'.

I can see much more cohesion among workers in one industry than among workers across different ones.

[chequita guevara]

The fact that there are different layers and sectors in the working class doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that simple catagories, while helping us approach understanding, do not correctly model the dynamics and complexities of reality. One of the traps that many Marxists have fallen into is mistaking simple models for complex reality, a vey unMarxist mistake.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
The comrade in question isn´t representative for the party as a whole. But he´s very outspoken and energetic... But I have other issues as well regarding strategies, our place in the swedish left and our identity.

And I haven´t formally resigned. We have the last meeting before the summer break next week. I thought I´ll hand in my formal resignation there.

As far as political activity goes, I haven´t really been that active for the last year and a half. So I guess it won´t be much of a difference...

Comrade, don't let depression dictate your decision. The fact that you have disagreements isn't the sign of a problem, but the sign of a healthy organization. Vive la difference! If we never disagreed, we'd all be in cults, not parties.

You should try and articulate your differences, what you think the problems are. You don't have to come up with solutions or even a perfect formulation of the problem if you can start a discussion.

Don't let *******s drive you away from politics.

I've gone through periods where I couldn't be active because it took all my energy just to get out of bed and go to work. Don't give up your connection to poltiical life, even such as it is, because once severed, it is nearly always permanent.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It seems that the far right in Sweden is much lefter than what passes for the left in the US.

It's worth noting that the Swedish far right is way left of the moderate right.

[chequita guevara]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that there are different layers and sectors in the working class doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that simple catagories, while helping us approach understanding, do not correctly model the dynamics and complexities of reality. One of the traps that many Marxists have fallen into is mistaking simple models for complex reality, a vey unMarxist mistake.

On the whole I would agree with this.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is there a working class per se? I'm not so sure. I think there are gradations that divide workers in discrete levels that are lumped together to form a 'working class'.

I can see much more cohesion among workers in one industry than among workers across different ones.

The working class is segmented because of different political and economic interests. Political and economic reality must change in order for the whole working class to have similar political and economic interests.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that there are different layers and sectors in the working class doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that simple catagories, while helping us approach understanding, do not correctly model the dynamics and complexities of reality. One of the traps that many Marxists have fallen into is mistaking simple models for complex reality, a vey unMarxist mistake.

How do you define working class, just people who work, or people with similar political interests, because people who work have different political interests.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The mainstream, moderate right is basically your standard European liberals, with a smattering of consies and hoary agrarians thrown in. They want to scale down the welfare state.

The far right (=neonazis, nationalist populists, etc) generally wants to maintain or even extend the welfare state, except they want it only to help native-born Swedes. They're unconcerned with or hostile to most forms of economic liberalization.

The right's also got a tiny libertarian fringe, but no-one cares about them (when the left decries "neoliberals", they usually mean the moderate right, or even the social democrats), and no-one would refer to them as "far right".