To politically align oneself - in my case to the left - is, to my mind, really important. The reality is that what Gramsci called 'false consciousness' is an inherent feature of contemporary society. This false consciousness (ie false set of ideas and belief systems that we call 'ideology') is perpetuated and reinforced by a corporate media machine, which in turn serves to mutually sustain the economic interests of the most powerful in society.

It is my argument that false consciousness can only be overcome once the capitalist system, from which false consciousness arises, is broken. This means that in order for the working class majority to rid themselves of the ideas of the ruling class minority, the balance of power must be reversed so that working class interests are properly accounted for. At present the vast majority of the mainstream media represent corporate interests and the wealth that underpins it, not the interests of the workers whose labour power is responsible for creating that wealth.

So in order to shift the balance of power towards the working class, it is necessary that one in the first instance, recognises one's class position in society. This recognition of class position is crystallized in the political sphere as a result of workers organising and working collectively through the mechanism of a the 'party' where the interests of the class are forged and formed. To suggest, as Frodly did in a previous post, that a series of seemingly disparate events are unconnected and therefore unrelated as far as political affiliations are concerned, is wrong.

The reality is that all events, no matter how seemingly unconnected on the surface, are in essence dialectically inter-related. So for example, although there is a clear dialectical relationship between unemployment statistics that might be mentioned on page 3 of such and such a newspaper and a headline feature concerned with suicides on page 10 of that newspaper, we are encouraged to see them as two separate and unrelated aspects of society. More generally, we are encouraged to believe that the spheres of 'politics' and 'economics' are specialized fields of learning separated off from one another when in reality they too are dialectically inter-related.

This brings me back to the relationship between political affiliation and class recognition. It is only as a result of the latter that the former can be achieved. But in order to be fully class conscious one also has to be aware of the competing ideologies that underpin both class recognition and political affiliation. The notion of the 'Independent' political organisation would suggest that members of such an organisation have convinced themselves that they have thrown off their 'ideological baggage' and are therefore free of both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' ideology. But such organisations and the individuals who convince themselves of this are only fooling themselves.

The reality is that it is impossible for any of us to be ideologically neutral. In other words, we either belong to a minority class who own and control the means of production and distribution in society (the ruling class), or alternatively, we have to sell our labour power to the ruling class in order to survive (the working class). Ruling class interests are increasingly represented in liberal democracies like the US and the UK by a single ideological and political elite in the guise of Republicans/Democrats and Conservatives/Labour respectively, who compete against each other for power.

The ruling class have all the propaganda tools at their disposal (ie mainstream television and newspapers) with which to espouse their ideology. By contrast, the working class having nothing comparable with which to maintain a sustained challenge to ruling class hegemony other than their potential for collective activity in the form of a political organisation or organisations which represent their interests. To be ideologically neutral under these circumstances is not an option.

How is that the case? You said that there were two simple sets of beliefs, and then defined them! I said that neither set of beliefs is simple, and that your definition was incorrect! And my description was identical? You said one side wants freedom, I said both sides want freedom, just different freedoms! Then you said the other side want government control, I said both sides want government control, again just different types!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

ROFLMNAO... Confused? NOoooo... What they are, are intellectual halfwits and COWARDS... They aren't confused; they simply lack the courage to take a stand; they lack the intellectual means to understand that half measures lead only to failure...

The moderates see value in both evil and good... the perspective of the gutless.



Huh... My experience with you is that in all issues you inevitably fall to the left in the final analysis. This is the case with ALL moderates; to the individual, EVERY MODERATE will inevitably fall to the left because you lack they lack the means to reason valid principle.

You only claim to be a moderate to avoid the stigma associated with being a LEFTIST. In short, Moderates are leftists without the courage to commit.

I challenge you to state a position wherein you show distinction from the ideological left...

ROFLMNAO... SWEET RATIONALIZATION!

Once again friends, the left clambers on to find a way to defend its failure... Here they claim to not even really be leftists; because to be a leftist requires that they fall within the fabricated false reality... one created, naturally, by their opposition...

Of course the false-ness is attributed NOT to the incontestable failures inherent to their own leftist history... LOL... No NO! The falsity is associated to their opposition, who is responsible for their failures...

ROFL... Oh GOD that's precious...

At some point Scooter you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that the leaders of the so called leftist experiments WERE LEFTISTS... The governments established by them and the cultures resultant from their leadership IS WHAT RESULTS FROM LEFT-THINK! and that ALL that can EVER possibly result from left-think is catastrophe, calamity and CHAOS... and it’s just no more complex than that.

May I suggest you use your time in this thread wisely by engaging with the topic rather than using it to score cheap political points.

Be careful, hairy. Mr. Infinitum might confuse you with a leftist goon.

__________________
People are called "human beings" when somebody is trying to make a moral or emotional appeal to somebody else. Why are dead people not called "human beens"?

certainly a lot of politically "insolvent" wanna be Conservatives, personally I find that unacceptable and so should the majority of true Republicans

And that's what exactly? Pampering the lazy individuals who feel they should be able to live off another individual's labor? Our system is a Grade A example of the nature of humanity, and our version of welfare does not work. The people who are on them stay on them, not because they are looking for avenues to better themselves, but to stay on them to make their current lifestyle easier. I'd say it's about time to cut off the leeches.

More of you telling me what I believe! I was under the impression that I decided that! I guess not! Well Pubi, there is an election coming up, and I need to know who to vote for, can you help me? I wouldn't dare act without your telling me what I believe.

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

This is a terrific post, hairymarx, and I agree with the overall struggle you so aptly describe. But, while there are forces at work to impede progress toward a socialistic state, I don't think the "ruling class" is as good at organizing such a conspiracy as you suggest. One must remember that the inherent greed of capitalism pits one business interest against another, disallowing any real conspiratorial relationship to form between them. The "working class," is however, and as you correctly state, at a loss for representation against those who control the money supply.
Again, I don't completely agree. While corporate interests do control the ownership of the major media, they don't sacrifice their profits promoting their minority point of view. We on the left have worked hard for a complete generation to get our message out while stifling the message of the enemy, by nurturing our relationship with the media. Most journalists now admit to being on our side of the issues, to a point that one of our presidential candidates, Barak Obama, has been given a "pass" on his relationships with known terrorists, known corrupt characters, and known racists. He is leading in every poll despite never being questioned more than superficially on those relationships, or on specific political policies he supports. Additionally, any right wing rhetoric that gets through our safety nets is immediately disregared as "conservative extremism." No, I think we've dibe quite well at winning the hearts and minds through our friends in the media.
Now, here is where I really must part with you. With strong central planners in control of all businesses and workers, there is no need for any struggle to impede efficient productivity or fairness to workers. Whether terms like "liberalism." "socialism," "totatitarianism," or anything else is applied, the result is the same............a truely progressive society dedicated to fairness. The only price for this equality is some needless liberties currently clung to by out-dated, feet-dragging conservatives. Change is, however, on the horizon............we've been heading in this direction for at least 5 decades, and the election draweth neigh! [/quote]