[Cromwell]

The recent bust-up within the 'third-position' group over in the private groups section led me to do some introspection. I'm still young, a little indecisive and haven't done as much research as I'd have liked nor read as broadly; so most inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies can probably tied to that.

Nonetheless, here's my ideology, as I see it now.

...

To sum it up; it might be described as National Communism, by way of Guild Socialism, realised through Italian Fascism. Feel free, of course, to tell me if I'm characterising any of these ideologies. Here goes:

Firs of all, I agree with the Marxist interpretation of history; that it is defined by class struggle and social revolution. Logically, I also believe that the Marxist criticism of the present epoch is valid; classes do, today, exist and we are not at the end of history. I reject economic determinism, however, and believe that the proletariat must be organised by a vanguard of some description in order for revolution to occur; it shall not be spontaneous, nor shall it flow organically from the intensification of ordinary protest.

The most critical aspect of Marxism for me is the analysis of society as the combination of base (political economy) and superstructure (culture). It makes sense to me to take this to its logical conclusion; I have no interest in the New Left, of the Frankfurt School, whose only concerns are cultural issues. Political action must focus on economic warfare.

To this end, I believe that the best way towards a communistic society is to create, by whatever means necessary, monopolies of labour power (syndicates or guilds); to use strike action, not as a means to achieve sectional goals, in order to cripple the functioning of capitalism and overthrow its leadership.

The political party, in association with the guilds, which does this successfully should thereafter establish a dictatorship. The executive should be made-up of a triumvirate of party, syndicate and military leadership, and the legislature should be constituted and elected in whatever way the public demanded. This government would be beholden to the trade syndicates, themselves democracies, not by constitution but by economic fact.

The constitution, written upon the assumption of power, would guarantee every citizen the right to a basic income, a home and freedom of expression. Otherwise, the particulars of the layout of the state (which would now be held in check by the guilds), would be left up to the general thoughts and feelings of the public.

To elaborate, though I find the present royal family distasteful and would favour a federalised republican Britain, so long as the bourgeoisie, as an economic class, were eliminated then my feelings are not so strong. To elaborate, as long as it was stripped of its property, the monarchy would be allowed to keep its social and political privileges (manifested in the crown) so long as public opinion was in its favour. The same would apply to the aristocracy.

All private property would be nationalised but, as stated before, the workplace would be under the firm control of the syndicates. All churches would, by definition, become guilds; free to preach as before, and associate in whatever way they saw fit. Eventually, I imagine, the creation of labour-saving technology (which would not be opposed, as all citizens would be guaranteed basic provision) would lead to the development of a leisure state; where each man, philosophical speaking, would be free to concern himself with whatever he saw fit.

...

As stated before, though my thoughts and feelings are subject to change as I read more, this is a fairly accurate description of my ideology as it now stands. I would have include my thoughts on race but they haven't really changed (I still believe that the white race is worthy of preservation and that ethnic diversity is only desirable on a global scale, cultures should be free to develop on their own and should not be thrown together, censored nor destroyed under the guise of 'anti-racism' or 'multiculturalism').

[slybaldguy]

Aren't you worried that you would erode the country's traditions by stripping away the class system? There is a theory that all tradition originates from the upper classes' attempts to reinforce the class system. If people no longer have to work for a living presumably they'll have more time to travel and engage in individualistic pursuits. I think the nationalist component would disappear and you would end up with multicultural socialism.

[Cromwell]

Aren't you worried that you would erode the country's traditions by stripping away the class system? There is a theory that all tradition originates from the upper classes' attempts to reinforce the class system. If people no longer have to work for a living presumably they'll have more time to travel and engage in individualistic pursuits. I think the nationalist component would disappear and you would end up with multicultural socialism.

Traditional culture would exist as long as the nation desired, and develop along whatever lines it desired. Modern Britain is controlled by men who are actively working to undermine any sense it has of racial-national identity (by persecuting any expression of such) and are completely unwilling to deal with its present cultural crisis (the result of mass immigration).

In my opinion, the people should have total democratic control of their borders and, like the Swiss, I imagine they'd chose to keep them closed.

I reject any suggestion that the upper class are at all concerned with English culture. It is the working class who cling desperately to a patriotic identity, despite constant ridicule and occasional violence.

[Rejn]

What is your opinion on the heritability of intelligence with reference to socio-economic classes?

[Cromwell]

Sorry for the belated response.

What is your opinion on the heritability of intelligence with reference to socio-economic classes?

I'm sure exactly what you mean. The abolition of the bourgeoisie does not entail the mass killing of its membership, it means its absorption into the proletariat. I envision a meritocratic system, along socialist lines. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The most intelligent individuals would do the work that suited them.

Unless, you are suggesting that heritable traits would, by some magic, cease to be inherited in a socialist system, I don't understand your question. I may be missing something though, and over-thinking this.

[Rejn]

You did overthink it.

It was a very general question, but I'll split it into two questions instead. Do you think that there is a relationship or correlation between intelligence and socio-economic classes, and to what degree do you think intelligence is inherited?

[Cromwell]

You did overthink it.

It was a very general question, but I'll split it into two questions instead. Do you think that there is a relationship or correlation between intelligence and socio-economic classes, and to what degree do you think intelligence is inherited?

I think there is a correlation but that intelligence is not inherited (though I've not read much on the subject). The upper classes can, of course, afford better education. Any argument that state education is just as good as private education is nonsense by its very definition; very few people would pay for something they could get for free.

[Cromwell]

Okay, it's been a number of months since I opened this thread and my thoughts (and feelings) have changed though not so considerably as to warrant a new thread altogether.

I'll go through my own ideological statements point-by-point, evaluating them before elucidating things I want to make clear. Here goes:

To sum it up; it might be described as National Communism, by way of Guild Socialism, realised through Italian Fascism. Feel free, of course, to tell me if I'm characterising any of these ideologies.

It might, now, be called Sorelian Marxism. I was hung up on the idea that there was an early phase (1914-1919) in fascist thinking that captured something of what I wanted to express but, upon reflection, I've come to the conclusion that it was only a transitional period in Italian thinking from the extreme left to the far-right; republican, anti-clerical and socialist but fascist only in name.

It was wrong-headed of me to identify with this obscure period in the development of the fascist heresy.

First of all, I agree with the Marxist interpretation of history; that it is defined by class struggle and social revolution. Logically, I also believe that the Marxist criticism of the present epoch is valid; classes do, today, exist and we are not at the end of history. I reject economic determinism, however, and believe that the proletariat must be organised by a vanguard of some description in order for revolution to occur; it shall not be spontaneous, nor shall it flow organically from the intensification of ordinary protest.

Yes, this is still a representation of my thinking.

The most critical aspect of Marxism for me is the analysis of society as the combination of base (political economy) and superstructure (culture). It makes sense to me to take this to its logical conclusion; I have no interest in the New Left, of the Frankfurt School, whose only concerns are cultural issues. Political action must focus on economic warfare.

It's important to note that I have, since, read some of Gramsci's work.

To this end, I believe that the best way towards a communistic society is to create, by whatever means necessary, monopolies of labour power (syndicates or guilds); to use strike action, not as a means to achieve sectional goals, in order to cripple the functioning of capitalism and overthrow its leadership.

Yes, this is accurate.

The political party, in association with the guilds, which does this successfully should thereafter establish a dictatorship. The executive should be made-up of a triumvirate of party, syndicate and military leadership, and the legislature should be constituted and elected in whatever way the public demanded. This government would be beholden to the trade syndicates, themselves democracies, not by constitution but by economic fact.

The constitution, written upon the assumption of power, would guarantee every citizen the right to a basic income, a home and freedom of expression. Otherwise, the particulars of the layout of the state (which would now be held in check by the guilds), would be left up to the general thoughts and feelings of the public.

Yes.

To elaborate, though I find the present royal family distasteful and would favour a federalised republican Britain, so long as the bourgeoisie, as an economic class, were eliminated then my feelings are not so strong. To elaborate, as long as it was stripped of its property, the monarchy would be allowed to keep its social and political privileges (manifested in the crown) so long as public opinion was in its favour. The same would apply to the aristocracy.

Again, this is basically accurate. I don't think the monarchy or the established church would pose any threat to socialism if they were subjugated by the revolutionary state. That is not to say, however, that I oppose their abolish but that I consider it a matter of little importance.

All private property would be nationalised but, as stated before, the workplace would be under the firm control of the syndicates. All churches would, by definition, become guilds; free to preach as before, and associate in whatever way they saw fit. Eventually, I imagine, the creation of labour-saving technology (which would not be opposed, as all citizens would be guaranteed basic provision) would lead to the development of a leisure state; where each man, philosophical speaking, would be free to concern himself with whatever he saw fit.

This is the important left-over in my thinking from my study of the Social Credit Theory of Money, which I still consider to be mechanically accurate. The philosophy is the important bit, the injection of a mythologised future into my thinking as a Marxist.

As stated before, though my thoughts and feelings are subject to change as I read more, this is a fairly accurate description of my ideology as it now stands. I would have include my thoughts on race but they haven't really changed (I still believe that the white race is worthy of preservation and that ethnic diversity is only desirable on a global scale, cultures should be free to develop on their own and should not be thrown together, censored nor destroyed under the guise of 'anti-racism' or 'multiculturalism').

This is wrong-headed. I have now, rightly, divorced the notion of race from culture. I am, on a sentimental level, attached to a love of my heritage and in, global, cultural diversity but it is, essentially, irrelevant. Communism does not pose any inherent threat to ethnic diversity.

Traditional culture would exist as long as the nation desired, and develop along whatever lines it desired. Modern Britain is controlled by men who are actively working to undermine any sense it has of racial-national identity (by persecuting any expression of such) and are completely unwilling to deal with its present cultural crisis (the result of mass immigration).

The first line is acceptable. The second is absurd and conspiratorial. The state's policy on immigration is informed, solely, by the necessity of the importation of cheap foreign labour in a capitalist economy.

Here are my thoughts:

On Culture and the Nation-State

Nationality, as a form of identity, is a social fact. Nationalism, as a form of ideology, is counter-productive.

The appreciation of national culture, and of national heritage, is not dependent upon the existence of a national government. Language and tradition will continue in its myriad forms without the need of state intervention; so long as socialism has been established. Immigration, too, will continue, under socialism, but only as a result of individual, or familial, want.

Mass immigration is the result of uneven global development. It is this, the latter, which must be addressed. My willingness to concede the opposite, to fascist ideology, was the result of ethnic chauvinism. Fascism, elucidated by Oswald Mosley himself (who ran for Parliament as a"social imperialist"), is a form of socialistic imperialism and must be fought.

On Reaction

Just as we witness the rise of the far-right in Europe, which is driven by a desire for the good old days and has no revolutionary aspirations whatsoever (its interests are in business as usual, which is capitalism minus immigration and social protection), we must acknowledge that the immigrant-descended population, especially in Britain, has the propensity for reactionary ideology.

The state, as it exists, has no interest in the integration, assimilation and harmonisation of the communities over which it governs; this would end under socialism. Rampant sexism and homophobia, in the immigrant-descended population, would be dealt with by a socialist state through effective education. Similarly, racism, in the host population, would be dealt with, thus ending taboos on inter-racial and inter-religious marriage, which prevents integration.

[ComradeTim]

A noble and intelligent analysis, comrade. I agree whole heartedly.

[Paul Sanderson]

The point about having a monopoly over the supply of labour is fairly interesting, but what methods do you think you could use to bring that about?

[Cromwell]

The point about having a monopoly over the supply of labour is fairly interesting, but what methods do you think you could use to bring that about?

This is where Sorelianism comes in. Georges Sorel made it clear that it is the idea of the purpose of strike-action which needs to change.

Revolutionary syndicalists need to infiltrate the Trade Union movement and start applying this new conception.

To a reformist, which is the ideology of the traditional unions, the purpose of strike-action is to achieve short-term goals, such as; higher wages, better job security, guaranteed pensions, whatever. This, also, means that strike-activity is conceived of in a very sectional way: a group of people want something, and other people may or may not sympathise.

The new conception is this: strike action, rather than a means to an end, is an end in and of itself. Demanding higher wages means consenting to the whole system of wage-slavery. The purpose is to strike, in concert with whole working class, and keep striking until the system collapses.

Several things are needed; a strong intellectual leadership (which is capable of broadcasting its message far and wide), the loyalty of the majority of trade unions and, most importantly of all, a powerful myth to motivate the masses.

An example of a very weak myth is the myth of "the ninety-nine percent", which has been harnessed by the liberal forces of pseudo-socialism. Its weaknesses are two-fold; it is self-evidently false and, more importantly, it leads to wrong-headed conclusions based on majoritarianism.

The working class is not in right simply because it happens to constitute a majority of the Earth's population but because it is the producer of all of Earth's wealth.

[Paul Sanderson]

Revolutionary syndicalists need to infiltrate the Trade Union movement and start applying this new conception.

The current Trade Union movement is fairly small (in Britain anyway) which is probably due to there not being many nationalised industries anymore. When I think of strike action I think of the London Underground and the fire service. Both of which are government funded. But as for the rest, do unions really exist for private industry? I guess the emphasis might need to be on getting people to form new unions in the private sector.

The new conception is this: strike action, rather than a means to an end, is an end in and of itself. Demanding higher wages means consenting to the whole system of wage-slavery. The purpose is to strike, in concert with whole working class, and keep striking until the system collapses.

I don’t know if you’ll get people to strike until the system collapses, I doubt that’s actually what they want if it would eventually lead to their impoverishment and/or civil strife. If they can keep pushing for higher wages and better working conditions that may eventually have the same desired effect of more even wealth distribution.

Several things are needed; a strong intellectual leadership (which is capable of broadcasting its message far and wide), the loyalty of the majority of trade unions and, most importantly of all, a powerful myth to motivate the masses. The working class is not in right simply because it happens to constitute a majority of the Earth's population but because it is the producer of all of Earth's wealth.

Yes I agree with this, the political right in this country especially has always lacked intellectual leadership. And true, the power of myth goes further than most people would imagine, even if it’s only because of the fact that it’s something that’s often repeated constantly. How much more influential a myth can be when no one can disprove what you’re saying and you’ve persuaded “experts” to publicly support your myths as well.

[Cromwell]

The current Trade Union movement is fairly small (in Britain anyway) which is probably due to there not being many nationalised industries anymore. When I think of strike action I think of the London Underground and the fire service. Both of which are government funded. But as for the rest, do unions really exist for private industry? I guess the emphasis might need to be on getting people to form new unions in the private sector.

Yes, it'll be a very arduous uphill battle. S.G. Hobson tried to accomplish this back when there were strong Trade Unions. His problem was that the alternative, social democracy, was still an appealing concept; even though he explained what was wrong with it. He was proved right by the Labour Government (1945-51) when they did exactly what he said they'd do, and the result has been a consistent rightward shift away from the social-democratic concession granted to the working class.

I don’t know if you’ll get people to strike until the system collapses, I doubt that’s actually what they want if it would eventually lead to their impoverishment and/or civil strife. If they can keep pushing for higher wages and better working conditions that may eventually have the same desired effect of more even wealth distribution.

I'll bring up something someone said in another thread, further down; but my response has a lot to down with the need for a powerful myth. Workers need to stop thinking in terms of "low wage are bad, high wages are good", and rather in terms of "wages, themselves, are the problem".

Yes I agree with this, the political right in this country especially has always lacked intellectual leadership. And true, the power of myth goes further than most people would imagine, even if it’s only because of the fact that it’s something that’s often repeated constantly. How much more influential a myth can be when no one can disprove what you’re saying and you've persuaded “experts” to publicly support your myths as well.

Well, yes, it's important for you to bring up the right. The fascist movement, initially, understood the power of myth and, amongst post-war fascist leaders, Oswald Mosley tried to carry on the tradition of proposing grand, sweeping, changes (with his "Europe A Nation" idea), but the rest of the British far-right broke from him and tried to present themselves as just another political party; the result was the National Front, an abysmal failure only good for exposing violent football hooligans to the police.

That's fine with me, however, because (as much as I appreciate Mosley's skill as an intellectual) they're my enemy.

...

Anyway, as for the need for a motivating myth. I made passing reference to the need for a mythologised future, but Varax sums up my thoughts here:

Being able to talk about socialism as a good thing in itself - beyond just "what's wrong with capitalism" being able to explain why socialism is actually desirable. There are some socialist, post-capitalist models that offer a lot and not just to proles but also to a whole range of people in professional fields such as engineers, scientists, teachers, etc. who might find socialism appealing or these who just want to remove the corrupting influence of capitalism from their daily lives.

The left has become, for lack of a better term, reactionary, in that it's only activity is in reaction to the neoliberal project and a desire to, simply, maintain what semblance of social democracy remains in Britain. People need a concrete vision of a brighter future.

My vision is, inspired by the Social Credit Theory, one where every man is free to choose his own destiny; where self-development is the ultimate good. "What we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own." - C.H. Douglas

Now the movement, which initially sprang up around the theory, had a considerable number of failings but I think the principal vision is still a powerful one.

The left is a crowded field and, though some might accuse me of treating it like a pix-and-mix, and want to become ultra-doctrinaire in my thinking; I want to be free to find the good in something and to appropriate it.

[quetzalcoatl]

A factor which you would need to account for is the long-term structural decline in the power of labor. Not just economic power, but actual power in numbers. Automation leads to a decreasing number of workers required for each unit of output. The remaining manufacturing workers have little leverage or incentive to strike.

Also the traditional Marxist analysis of economic class is problematic. A large proportion of the US economy is small businesses, characterized by high failure rates and slim margins. The risk for the small business owner is not passed off onto taxpayer and customers as is the case with large politically-connected corporations. Effectively what you have is a version of free-market capitalism for small business and mercantilism for the big gun corporations. An analysis that can't functionally distinguish between groups with real competing economic interests is suspect.

[Dagoth Ur]

I distinctly remember Marx referring to a Haute and Petite bourgeoisie. The Haute, due to their immense wealth, directly manipulate the MoP and thus State Power. While the Petite, due to their rather unstable lot, are rarely in connection with State Power (not counting passive connections like being actually protected by the police). The petite bourgeoisie have historically absorbed the brunt of capitalisms' viciousness (among the bourgeoisie that is) specifically because of this difference in actual ability to manipulate the State.

The values of the small bourgeoisie and the large coincide to a far greater degree than the values of the proletariat and the small bourgeoisie. That said because of hardships often small bourgeoisie are proletarianized. When they succeed they are nothing like us.