Eminem's anti-Bush video

[duko]

p076.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm34.showMessage?topicID=1156.topic its pretty good too bad about the voting part thou

[OneLoudCrow]

His video was really good! It connected so many parts of people's lives to the system. I think it showed his potential, and that he's maturing. Also, I noticed in the context of the video that the voting seemed really added on, as if by concession and not as part of the video. it doesn't match the lyrics or the animation at all, its definately not the logical conclusion of it all.

[ShineThePath]

I think this video is ok; however I rather think that this is Eminem's way of latching on to the movement and taking advantage. He is a good businessmen, and he sees a way to promote himself and possibly make his image a little better. But I still remember all of his Sexist, Homophobic assualts, and I can't consider this one sort of progressive video to erase all of his reactionary degrading shit in the past.

[Maz no log]

Shine the Path's view on this strikes me as a little weird. It's a common view "leftists" sometimes get that rev politics is 'our' thing, and anybody that gets down with it is just a poseur, or fake - which, when you think of it, is pretty fucked up. I mean, don't we want to build the biggest movement possible? Don't we want to draw as many people as we can into rev politics? And shouldn't we reach out to intellectuals and artists to help build the culture of resistance that we need?

I mean, how do you know eminem is merely promoting himself for money? Are you a mind reader?

You say you remember his sexist homophobic assaults, fine, but does that invalidate any art he does in the future? I don't think we should look at art like that video as part of a report card on artists, in order to judge them as good or bad, as you imply. We need to look at these things, and these artists, more deeply to understand what kind of impact their work is going to have and how we can promote the correct and unite with good art to further our struggle overall.

We really shouldn't sum up people, or artists, for some shit they did when they were really young and condemn them forever. We wouldn't treat the masses like that, why should eminem be held to a higher weird standard of purity?

Besides, i like eminem, I think his stuff gets to te truth of a lot of things, even though it is clearly highly contradictory and certainly not 'pc'.

[flyby]

i agree with maz here.

two points:

1) There are political forces whose approach can be called "101 sour reasons to say all people suck."

Their approach to the masses, and to figures like eminem or anyone really, is to find ways to paint them as corrupted and reactionary (despite all evidence to the contrary.)

And a particular method is what i call "the taint" -- if someone makes money off of something, if someone is not totally destitute, if someone can be seen to have a life that is somewhat elevated fro mthe horrific conditions of the third world, then that person is assumed (by this mechanical and idealist method) to be benefitting from the system. Then (supposedly, by this illogical "logic") they can't really be progressive, or won over or united with -- they are probably pigs.

2) The whole method of analyzing people mainly by their (supposed) motives (as was done in this post on eminem by Shine the Path) is riddled with problems.

First, how the fuck do you know what his motives are? "I rather think this is Eminem's way of latching on to the movement and taking advantage." Well you are free (of course) to invent and speculate... but why should anyone take this serious. What is this but a confession that you have no facts or evidence, and you simply choose to assume that eminem (and everyone, frankly) is a reactionary asshole.

It is subjective prejudices mascarading as a pseudo-mateialist assessment. ("He is a good businessman.")

Though, in case you haven't noticed, most of the "good business men" in the culture and mass media are trying to get in good with the republican right... Are you really going to argue that challenging this government, and mocking them looks like a good business decision?

There is a saying among death penalty opponents that you can't simply encapsule someone by one act -- even a terrible one.

But some people are eager for reasons and excuses to write anyone (and everyone) off -- and so if eminem made a questionable video with incorrect and provocative references to gay people, well that just condemns him for life.

As i said, the real theme here is "everyone sux, except me-and-mine of course, and we can't really do anything to actually mobilize millions of people to overthrow u.s. imperialism."

[RedWinter]

ShineThePath said:

I think this video is ok; however I rather think that this is Eminem's way of latching on to the movement and taking advantage. He is a good businessmen, and he sees a way to promote himself and possibly make his image a little better. But I still remember all of his Sexist, Homophobic assualts, and I can't consider this one sort of progressive video to erase all of his reactionary degrading shit in the past.

If I was trying to make money, the last people I'd try to exploit for money through music are Bush opponents and people upset with the imperialist system. I'd start a boy band or any kind of music with meaningless lyrics. Touching politics makes you less marketable in the capitalist system and that's part of the reason the US is such an apolitical society.

[ShineThePath]

Maz: "I mean, how do you know eminem is merely promoting himself for money? Are you a mind reader?"

How do you know it as the contrary? I would ask the same thing if you feel his feelings of "anti-bush" are legitimate. Knowing his history of the past, it is hard for me to all of sudden to take the position that he has all of a sudden turn "leftist," or what not. He has for a long time produced only the most reactionary sexist and homophobic songs, has he all of sudden turn "progressive," I think not. What can really be said, a good thing, is that Anti-Bush sentiment is actually becoming popular, and despite what you believe, there is a large population in this country that has said "No to the Bush Agenda." Let us remeber, Kerry had the second most votes for a reason, People hate Bush!!! And there are many out there that take advantage of the sentiment, and produce what can make money. Really the only thing Eminem's video show us is that the Culture and Sentiment in this country is turning to say "No!."

Maz: "You say you remember his sexist homophobic assaults, fine, but does that invalidate any art he does in the future?"

No; however he is not saying anything new that has not been said by any other Artist...Eminem has not broke out from the mainstream, it is the acceptable opposition. Is an Artist to be treated differently just because now there an Artist? Pat Buchannan says some of the same reactionary shit Eminem has said in the past, yet he took some "good" positions recently against Bush recently, do you want to unite with him as well, or re-analyse all his other Reactionary positions because of his few "good" things that were said. We're not going to praise Pat Buchannan, now why do the same with Eminem?

"We wouldn't treat the masses like that, why should eminem be held to a higher weird standard of purity?"

Eminem is still promoting the same reactionary shit to this day, it is still the same shit. Whether or not he is saying it, or whether it is someone who is being produced by him. I am not holding Eminem to some "weird standard of purity," for what he has done to the past, because he is still doing it!!!

"Besides, i like eminem, I think his stuff gets to te truth of a lot of things, even though it is clearly highly contradictory and certainly not 'pc'. "

Which non-pc song really gets to the truth of the matter, songs like "Kim," in which he kills his wife, or maybe songs like "Drips," were he talks about getting STDs from "hos?"

Flyboy: "1) There are political forces whose approach can be called '101 sour reasons to say all people suck.' "

And I did not take that approach, You guys seem to be the "mind readers" at the moment.

"Their approach to the masses, and to figures like eminem or anyone really, is to find ways to paint them as corrupted and reactionary (despite all evidence to the contrary.)"

What evidence to the contrary, the evidence is all out there about Eminem! Just listen to his lyrics, it is the classic "Hos get down" bullshit, with Hyper-Masculine assults on Gays...Eminem's lyrics reak of Super-Chauvinism, and the same is true in the so-called "Art" produced for consumption.

"And a particular method is what i call "the taint" -- if someone makes money off of something, if someone is not totally destitute, if someone can be seen to have a life that is somewhat elevated fro mthe horrific conditions of the third world, then that person is assumed (by this mechanical and idealist method) to be benefitting from the system."

When that person lives beyond his labor, and makes tens of millions of more than the Proletariat, I tend to agree that person IS benefitting from the system of Capitalism. Especially, when they as produce music listen to by the masses in this country. Eminem is not even close to being "destitute," he comes no where near the horrific conditions of even this country, and he certainly has not expressed any anger against this System, except that you should vote for Bush. Now, seeing as Eminem is a multimillionaire, puts music out there that degrades Women, Homosexuals, and in the process endorses a destructive lifestyle, I can't hardly see how this is "Idealism," nor "Mechanical" to assume he benefits from this system and upholds its brutality. I think actually you committ Idealism by saying that this one Video, this one song, has some how manifested itself to make Eminem more than he is.

"First, how the fuck do you know what his motives are?"

As if you do? You attack me for "subjective prejudices mascarading as a pseudo-mateialist assessment." However did I present my OPINION (which by definition is subjective) as anything as a "Materialist Analyse?" I am sorry to say Flyboy, but you are committing a Strawman Fallacy, I never presented such an argument. So your whole attack against me is fallacious.

"Though, in case you haven't noticed, most of the "good business men" in the culture and mass media are trying to get in good with the republican right."

So your telling me that the Major Record Labels, MTV, and the whole music Industry stood up against the Republican Right, and said were saying "No!" to the Bush agenda? Are you claiming the Indusrty from Clear Channel to Viacomm defied Bush and Company? I thought I not see the day that Corporations would take a "Revolutionary Stance." Ultimately your forgetting there is still a market for this kind of sentiment in music, and it is growing larger, looking at the trends. I hardly think Interscope is making the decision to defy the Republicans.

"and so if eminem made a questionable video with incorrect and provocative references to gay people, well that just condemns him for life."

Which he still does, and has yet to relent...lastly your just forgetting the most important part of what I said "I can't consider this one sort of progressive video to erase all of his reactionary degrading shit in the past." I am not attacking what Eminem has done with this video, though I do question his motives (judging from all the other reactionary ideology he has upheld in the past). If Eminem begins to do some new progressive things that challenge this system, I see no problem here (there still needs to be struggle). However he still upholds the brutalities of this system, and the Reactionary ways it has brough about, yeah he may now be "anti-bush," but so is George Soros.

[ShineThePath]

"Touching politics makes you less marketable in the capitalist system and that's part of the reason the US is such an apolitical society."

There is a more than profitable market for this "political music," and the trends show it to be more profitable. But that is a good thing!!!

[Maz no log]

I never claimed to have a direct pipeline into eminem's brain, that is part of the point. We have to look at art for what it is and what it's impact will be, and not waste our time doing idle speculation about what a whole whack of people may or may not think.

And when an artist does produce something of worth we have to uphold that and defend that, not allow them to come under attack and inadverdently unite with the enemy *against them* because some things they used to do (or still do!) are reactionary.

I think your view of eminem is pretty one-sided. it seems to me that in much of his work he is presenting a very dark side of the system, but often in an expository way, and not really as a way of defending it. for example, you'll notice that on a lot of his songs he uses more than one voice, and he uses a different voice when he raps the reactionary stuff. Almost as a way of saying, 'hey this isn't me, just a dark side of me, or even a dark side of society'. And, of course, further to this point, much of his material is released under his other pseudonym, "Slim Shady", (like his evil twin) which seems like an explicit point on the part of eminem to distance himself from a personal approval of the content. (And no, I'm not saying eminem is 'all good', there obviously is a lot of fucked up stuff there)

And despite what you claim, there is much interesting good stuff in eminem. Listen to 'white america' for just one example.

One point should be made clearly. In this time, our side needs artists, and it needs them quite badly. And we need big-time artists very very badly. Winning them over has the capability to send massive shockwaves through the system all over the world. Millions of kids listen to eminem, and that's a microphone we need to have on our side. If our method towards prominent artists is to write them off instead of refusing to struggle with them in a comradely way to bring them forward, or if we take the view that anyone who makes millions is shit and therefore can't be united with, then we will be doing the people a great disservice, and it would have very serious negative consequences for the whole struggle.

P.S. Shine the path, you wrote "despite what you believe, there is a large population in this country that has said "No to the Bush Agenda."". Actually, I agree with you here, which just goes to show how silly it is to assume you're correct when you try to read my, or any other person's mind, without investigating.

[redstar2000GUEST]

flyby wrote: There are political forces whose approach can be called "101 sour reasons to say all people suck."

Their approach to the masses, and to figures like eminem or anyone really, is to find ways to paint them as corrupted and reactionary (despite all evidence to the contrary.)

I can sort of guess whom you're talking about when you say that there are "forces" that view the (American) masses as "corrupted and reactionary"...and we both dismiss them as politically irrelevant.

The question of celebrities is a different one, I think. Can you be a celebrity in capitalist society and not be "corrupted and reactionary"?

Think about that. "Celebrity-hood" is capitalism's "highest award" to anyone not born into the ruling class; it's a kind of "knighthood" given to those who've shown that they are willing and eager to successfully divert the masses from their real class interests.

In exchange for entertaining the masses, the celebrity becomes a kind of "demi-god"...the wealth and life-style that is normally available only to the really successful capitalist is made available to the celebrity.

Particularly useful to the ruling class is the kind of celebrity that can be marketed as a "rebel" or "maverick". Someone who can articulate and represent the rebelliousness of the masses in such a way as not to endanger the system itself is worth every penny of those millions.

I, of course, have no more insight into the inner thoughts of any given celebrity than Shine the Path or you. What I think is that it doesn't matter what the celebrity "really thinks". Their social role is what really counts...to pass on ruling class ideology in "palatable" ways.

My favorite example of this is Jane Fonda (or "Hanoi Jane" as some of the reactionaries still refer to her). She really tried to break out of the limits of "celebrity-hood"...meeting with ordinary people, trying not to "queen it" over others, donating substantial amounts of cash as well as time and energy to radical politics (or at least quasi-radical politics).

And she just couldn't do it...she'd grown up around celebrities, she'd lived that life herself, and, in the end, it sucked her right back in.

When you are a "demi-god" (or "demi-goddess"), you can't go back to being an ordinary mortal. You psychologically need that constant re-affirmation of your "special-ness" and you'll do whatever it takes to keep that.

And, in a capitalist society, that means re-affirming the system that "raised you up".

flyby wrote: And a particular method is what i call "the taint" -- if someone makes money off of something, if someone is not totally destitute, if someone can be seen to have a life that is somewhat elevated from the horrific conditions of the third world, then that person is assumed (by this mechanical and idealist method) to be benefiting from the system. Then (supposedly, by this illogical "logic") they can't really be progressive, or won over or united with -- they are probably pigs.

As a materialist, I don't see how you could deny the effects of "elevation".

But when you say "somewhat", I think that's misleading. What the celebrity learns to accept as "basic necessities" is so far beyond what you or I have ever seen that words are inadequate to express the differences.

In a very important sense, they live on another planet. The world that you and I encounter on a daily basis bears almost no resemblance to the "special world" that they live in...where everything is arranged to suit their personal whimsy, where an army of (probably third world) servants remove all forms of "unpleasantness" before the celebrity can notice them, where you are surrounded by flatterers who constantly tell you how "special" you are.

Tell me, do you think that you can be seriously angry about a system that has done this "for" you? That you would even contemplate the overthrow of such a system and your subsequent demotion to ordinary human again?

It's not just a little "taint" -- a small "character flaw" or something like that.

"Celebrity-hood" is utterly different from normal humanity...and any sensible person shuns it like the plague.

flyby wrote: There is a saying among death penalty opponents that you can't simply encapsule someone by one act -- even a terrible one.

I disagree with that position. We could argue the question of "how terrible" an act must be to make a decisive judgment...but I do think that such acts can be demonstrated to exist.

When Friederich Ebert called in the German army to suppress the Spartakist Bund uprising in Berlin (January 1919), that was the definitive act of his life...so terrible that he will "go down in history" as the contemptible murderer of Luxemburg and Liebknecht.

[flyby2]

redstar, you touch on some important issues.

You ask: "Can you be a celebrity in capitalist society and not be "corrupted and reactionary"?

My answer is "of course!" Which is obviously a little different from yours.

First, on the simple level of "just look around" -- there are all kinds of people (considered "celebrities") who are far from corrupted and reactionary. Many people with money and fame have risked it all (at various times) to stand with the people. I think of Leonard Bernstein and Marlon Brando with the Panthers. Or several people with Mumia. Or the stand of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon or Janin Garafalo on the war on Iraq.

Second: I don't think we should embrace or repeat the system's talk about "celebrity." There are some people whose ONLY feature is manufactured fame (i.e. the Paris Hiltons), but the people we are talking about here are actors, intellectuals and musicians, directors and even some scientists who are "household names."

And many of them are looking for ways to make a possibive impace. Some of them are even consciously revolutionary minded -- and many more are potentially important allies of the revolutionary process.

Third: There is much that you seem to assume that I don't think is accurate here. Is "celebrity" (i.e. fame) only given to those who ""are willing and eager to successfully divert the masses from their real class interests"? Does this really describe Springsteen or Chuck d? Is Meryl Streep a conscious enemy of the people and their interests? What about Goldie Hawn?

I don't think actors and musicians are only successful and known if they are "willing and eager" in that way. What about Bob Dylan? or John Mellenkamp? Or Willie Nelson.

The people I mention have very different politics (from each other, and from me) but they are certainly not "bought and paid for" agents of the system -- the way you seem to imply.

Look at little steven and his album about apartheid.... or Spike Lee and "Do the right thing." Even Clint Eastwood and "Million Dollar Baby" -- is that work of art simply a work of "diverting the masses from their real class interests" -- gee, i don't think so. And that, of course, is why Clint was under such attack from the religious right, and part of why Hollywood gave him another oscar. His film was (among other things) a beautiful and artful "fuck you" to the religious right.

fourth: In a sweeping and ultimate sense "social being determines consciousness." (as marx wrote.) But that is not true if you apply it in a mechanical and linear way. Working and oppressed people are not automatically progressive (or revolutionary or communist), and wealthy-famous people are not automatically corrupt and reactionary.

And to view social status and wealth as a kind of "taint" that automatically and inherently and universally corrupts -- is to fall exactly into the rather bizarre-cardboard mechanical thinking that MIM rides out to lunch.

In fact, the revolution will find supporters and allies throughout society. Revolution is not "class against class." It is a sweeping movement, growing out of a dynamic and broad repolarization, that draws many different kinds of people into a radical transformation of society and themselves. It needs a backbone force, a class conscoius force, rooted in the oppressed (i.e. in a truly class coinscious section of the proletariat).

But while there is a link between class and conscousness -- it is very far from automatic, or direct, or linear, or determined.

In the shantytowns of Latin America there is a pentacostalist revival, and not yet a communist one. This shows the relative independence of the superstructure -- and the relative independence of ideas from historic interests.

Similarly, there are many people in the artistic and intellectual world of the u.s. (including people who have attained both wealth and fame) who are deeply opposed to this society, and its rulers, and its direction, and its wars.

I don't agree with you that "Particularly useful to the ruling class is the kind of celebrity that can be marketed as a "rebel" or "maverick". Someone who can articulate and represent the rebelliousness of the masses in such a way as not to endanger the system itself is worth every penny of those millions." Or at least, i disagree if you mean that all famous mavericks are just some kind of marketing ploy. (Dylan? Hendrix? Brando? The Clash? I don't think that describes them.)

You raise the issue of Jane Fonda. I think your summation is rather mechanical too: "And she just couldn't do it...she'd grown up around celebrities, she'd lived that life herself, and, in the end, it sucked her right back in."

First: she made a huge contribution in one situation, and then as the movement faded her political clarity suffered. But are you arguing that this is inevitable -- that some "inexorable laws" meant that she could not have gone some other way?

Surely you don't want us to adopt some Calvinist rejection of "free will" -- and put forward that we are all slaves to our class!

I don't believe that. And I think even the most superficial view of politics and history confirms that.

You write: "In a very important sense, they live on another planet. The world that you and I encounter on a daily basis bears almost no resemblance to the "special world" that they live in...where everything is arranged to suit their personal whimsy, where an army of (probably third world) servants remove all forms of "unpleasantness" before the celebrity can notice them, where you are surrounded by flatterers who constantly tell you how "special" you are."

Perhaps, but again: they are not necessarily or inherently imprisoned by that.

For example, read how Springsteen wrote "the rising" and how he investigated. Or check out other techniques of some people to "stay in touch" with reality. It is hard (and this is, as you say, a process of disconnecting artists that serves the system) but it is not unbeatable. And we communists can even play a role in helping progressive artists maintain such connections in a living way (and we do!)

I won't beat your example of Ebert to death.... But let me say this: Ebert organized a bloody counterrevolution. It was the extension of, and climax of, his whole political life and carerr and political trajectory.

Do you really want to compare Ebert to Eminem, and suggest that because he dissed women and gay people in some earlier songs that we should condemn him forever? I think that is way harsh, and in practice would deny the real trasformative nature of life and struggle.

We have very important work to do with all kinds of people -- in the proletariat, on campuses, in the sciences, in the arts, in hollywood, in the military -- and it doesn't do any good if we start (in some mechanical deterministic and reductionist way) by writing off people who are important potential allies (and even who are already obviously and actively allies!)

I don't think the masses are automatically revolutionary -- that is why I see that we need a revolutionary vanguard party doing intense and craetive prepariatory work. And I also don't think that the middle classes (and even more privileged artistic and intellectual people) are automatically corrupt and reactionary.

I just dont think life and society are that rigidly determined.

[redstar2000GUEST]

Rather than debate the hypothetical merits of this or that individual celebrity and their social role vs. "what they really think", I'd rather discuss the "inevitability" of class determination.

flyby wrote: In a sweeping and ultimate sense "social being determines consciousness." (as Marx wrote). But that is not true if you apply it in a mechanical and linear way. Working and oppressed people are not automatically progressive (or revolutionary or communist), and wealthy-famous people are not automatically corrupt and reactionary.

There's not much in history or even nature that's "100% automatic"...so your statement is technically a correct one.

Yet if we are to make a coherent analysis of any phenomenon, we perforce must rely on probability and, where numbers are unavailable, on plausibility.

Marx was the son of a successful attorney and Engels spent a large part of his life as a medium-sized capitalist; their life-long efforts on behalf of proletarian revolution are, in my view, wildly implausible.

Yet it happened...and what has happened can certainly happen again.

But would you want to bet the rent money on it? Would you want to assume that people from such a background could be relied upon...in a serious way?

flyby wrote: In fact, the revolution will find supporters and allies throughout society. Revolution is not "class against class."

Yes, at such time as revolution looms on the immediate horizon, desertions from the old ruling class will undoubtedly rise sharply. No one with any sense wants to be caught on "the losing side" -- and those who have a great deal to lose may well be especially attentive to the near-term possibilities.

But, IF Marx was right, then in a fundamental sense it will be "class against class". A proletarian revolution, by definition, is necessarily carried out by the proletariat.

Will celebrities be among those "supporters and allies"? Perhaps a few...but I frankly expect most of them to go into exile in countries that are still capitalist and where they can live as they always have (or as close to that as can be managed).

flyby wrote: But while there is a link between class and consciousness -- it is very far from automatic, or direct, or linear, or determined.

In periods of reaction (like this one), I agree. But I think in periods of upheaval, the link approaches "automatic, direct, linear, and determined" -- though it never reaches 100% of those characteristics, of course.

In reactionary periods, the link between class and consciousness seems to be feeble and tenuous; in revolutionary periods, the link is robust and plain for all to see.

flyby wrote: In the shantytowns of Latin America there is a pentacostalist revival, and not yet a communist one. This shows the relative independence of the superstructure -- and the relative independence of ideas from historic interests.

I would say "temporary" or "apparent" independence of ideas from historic interests. I think that what some have called "false consciousness" is a transient phenomenon -- it may last one or two or even three centuries, but sooner or later, material class interests prevail.

flyby wrote: Similarly, there are many people in the artistic and intellectual world of the U.S. (including people who have attained both wealth and fame) who are deeply opposed to this society, and its rulers, and its direction, and its wars.

Some of the people of whom you speak might be "opposed"...but I seriously doubt if any of them are "deeply opposed".

More likely, some celebrities may strongly dislike particular features of modern capitalism...and may lend their names and "influence" to stop this or that particular atrocity or at least ameliorate some of its worse features.

In other words, some may become outspoken reformists.

flyby wrote: Or at least, I disagree if you mean that all famous mavericks are just some kind of marketing ploy.

I'm inclined to think that, yes. Not because famous mavericks were not "sincere" but rather because their "maverick qualities" were not actually threatening to the system itself -- and thus could be successfully marketed.

Capitalists are not "gods" and thus not omniscient -- once in a while, something that is "threatening" slips through...but it's a rare occurrence and it wouldn't surprise me if the celebrity responsible is not "called on the carpet" and firmly instructed not to do that again, ever.

flyby wrote: But are you arguing that this is inevitable -- that some "inexorable laws" meant that she could not have gone some other way?

Pretty much. Once you've lived on Mount Olympus, even Athens seems like a shithole. Perhaps you can come up with an example of some celebrity that permanently deserted Olympus in favor of the working class...none occurs to me.

flyby wrote: Surely you don't want us to adopt some Calvinist rejection of "free will" -- and put forward that we are all slaves to our class!

In Calvinist theology, one was "pre-destined" by "God" to be among the saved or the damned at birth.

You were supposed to "try" to live a "sinless life" anyway -- but if you were a "born sinner", then sin you would and end up in the "fiery pit".

In the real world, the class we grow up in constrains our outlook...it predisposes us towards certain ideas and against other ideas. That doesn't mean we are "slaves" in an "absolute sense" to our class -- it just means that all other things being equal, we will incline towards the general outlook of one class or another.

All other things are never equal, of course...and there are many "weak determinants" that can "pull" or "push" us in unexpected directions.

A person of working class origins who "succeeds" in capitalism is still going to retain some working class attitudes -- you don't just "add money and stir" to turn a worker into a capitalist. (Hence, by the way, the resentment of "old money" towards "new money" -- the newly rich are "unwelcome interlopers" who "don't understand proper behavior" in the eyes of the established ruling class.)

But the ex-working class celebrity is curiously deferential to established wealth...they want to "fit in" very much. They have a whole new set of attitudes to learn...and learn them they do. Their kids, of course, learn them even better.

People in the traditional professions are pulled in both directions...and a few of them do "walk away" from the "middle class" and consciously "proletarianize themselves". Others are proletarianized whether they like it or not (and they usually don't -- and often take their revenge by becoming fascists).

So the connection between class and behavior is "tricky" when considering any single individual...but once you have a statistically significant sample, then I think you can make some pretty obvious predictions and be almost always right.

I think we have "apparent free will" -- because we simply cannot identify all the "micro-causes" that govern the choices we make...there are too many of them.

flyby wrote: Do you really want to compare Ebert to Eminem, and suggest that because he dissed women and gay people in some earlier songs that we should condemn him forever?

Many working people have a bad habit of emotionally identifying with celebrities of various kinds...as both an escape from the alienation of their own daily lives and as a kind of hopeful projection -- this or that celebrity, in some sense, "speaks for me".

Thus, when someone says, "hey, this celebrity's actually an asshole" -- I think of it as an act of public service to the working class.

The smashing of icons is a revolutionary act.

[flyby]

I'm rather excited about this thread -- cuz I think it gets into very central (cardinal) issues of revolution, and opens the door to discuss some rather pathbreaking things that our main man has been fighting for. I hope I can do it all justice.

Redstar writes: "Rather than debate the hypothetical merits of this or that individual celebrity and their social role vs. "what they really think", I'd rather discuss the "inevitability" of class determination."

I agree. However let me just say, that the historical fact that leading artists, scientists, and other intellectuals in bourgeois society have been favorably inclinded toward progressive struggle (and even revolution) is relevant to this discussion. Especially if you are inclined to deny that.

Redstar agrees that there may be some forces from privileged and intellectual circles who play a positive role. But he wants to talk on the "probability and, where numbers are unavailable, on plausibility."

He then notes that both Marx and Engels came from privileged strate and then says "their life-long efforts on behalf of proletarian revolution are, in my view, wildly implausible. Yet it happened...and what has happened can certainly happen again. But would you want to bet the rent money on it? Would you want to assume that people from such a background could be relied upon...in a serious way?"

Let me say, in a friendly way, we must live in different worlds.

Not only does it happen, it happens constantly.

Many (or most?) communists and revolutionaries (leaders and activists) don't come from the poorest strata, but from those strata who have access to intellectual skills. Who have the opportunity to learn how to handle abstract thought, research, history and analysis.

That is because communist consciousness does not arise simply (or even mainly) from personal experience as a proletarian -- but from a sweeping understanding of how history and society work, and how it is possible to forge a new world out of this shitty one.

I wrote: "In fact, the revolution will find supporters and allies throughout society. Revolution is not "class against class."

And redstar answered: "Yes, at such time as revolution looms on the immediate horizon, desertions from the old ruling class will undoubtedly rise sharply. No one with any sense wants to be caught on "the losing side" -- and those who have a great deal to lose may well be especially attentive to the near-term possibilities."

This garbles different contradictions.

First of all, there is all along great potential for winning over and uniting with and struggling with many different forces outside the proletariat.

In another forum (revolutionaryleft.com) redstar and I discussed the history of SDS -- here was a significant mass student movement that turned in revolutionary directions. It wasn't made up of proletarians (in the main). But of students overwhelmingly drawn from the middle classes (with some from the bourgeoisie and some from the working class.)

Was that so implausible? nope.

Second, to get where we are going -- to a transitional society that revolutionizes our life into communism -- we will need the work, vision, contributions, invention, effort, support and criticism of intellectual strata.

Socialism has to be a society of creativity and culture. Of great invention and experiment. Is there some law that says only proletarians want that? I don't think so.

Is there some law that says proletarians can learn much from the political thoughts and creative work of middle class strata? I don't think so.

Is it really the case that all these forces will only "work for the working class" due to threats. That they will hate socialism, that they will want exile, or be determined to overthrow socialism?

Let me put it this way, if revolutionary support is limited to a hard core movement in the proletariat it can't succeed -- even if the proletarian forces seize power, they won't be able to hold it. Even if they hold it, the society this creates won't be worth living in, and won't develop toward communism.

Redstar writes: "But, IF Marx was right, then in a fundamental sense it will be "class against class". A proletarian revolution, by definition, is necessarily carried out by the proletariat."

I don't agree at all. Marx's concept was nothing like "class against class" -- he had a broad vision of alliances, and many different forces "playing their role."

He believed in broad connections with intellectual currents, with progressive bourgeois democrats, with peasant rebels. (His own vision of revolution was "a new Paris commune backed by a second edition of the German peasant wars" -- which is an interesting vision, especially if you grasp what both the Commune and the peasant wars were like.)

It is mechanical logic to argue "proletarian revolution must mean something carried out by the proletariat."

This is not what it means to me, or to MLM.

Proletarian revolution is carried out by the "United Front under Proletarian leadership."

Marxism makes a distinction between "leading force" and "main force." Proletarian revolutino does not fundamentally means that proletarians do it, but that the historic and sweeping interests and vision of the proletariat guide the direction of this revolution.

In practical struggle there needs to be a partisan "revplutionary people" -- with a backbone force of proletarians. But the revolution itself is the work of many forces, many rivulets of struggle, and many people from non-proletarian strata. And if it isn't, then it won't happen.

[flyby]

part 2

Redstar writes: "Will celebrities be among those "supporters and allies"? Perhaps a few...but I frankly expect most of them to go into exile in countries that are still capitalist and where they can live as they always have (or as close to that as can be managed)."

This (to me) is a strange and very determinist view. How many promient artists, intelectuals, actors, scientists, professors and directors etc. wil support the revolution? My answer is: it depends on many things, including what we do, and how well we do it.

I know this, however: If we don't have such forces, if we don't have a living relationship of unity and struggle with them (over a long period of time, starting now) then it will be hard to make revolution, and even harder to make a decent socialist struggle for communism.

This is an important part of what Avakian means by "solid core with a lot of elasticity." We need the elasticity. We don't want a society where every discontent element helps bring down the old system, and then the proletariat beats everyone into line. Who wants that?

Who wants a revolution or a society where "celebrities" are declared suspect or problem-people, before things have even started, before they have even been approached?

And the whole negative assessment contradicts real-history and real current-politics.

If our revolutionary movement is broad enough to bring over a Bruce Springsteen -- won't it be more likely to win than if it so narrow that a Springsteen is on the outside?

Can we carry out the socialist transformation of education, production, and culture (for example) if our most radical and proletarian revolution doesn't inspire, win over, influence and lead broad strata outside the most poor? Teachers, filmmakers, TV producers, book writers, novelists, painters?

Redstar writes: I think in periods of upheaval, the link approaches "automatic, direct, linear, and determined" -- though it never reaches 100% of those characteristics, of course. In reactionary periods, the link between class and consciousness seems to be feeble and tenuous; in revolutionary periods, the link is robust and plain for all to see."

Once again, I think that what happens in "period of upheaval" depend sharply on what we, the communists, do. We can build this struggle in ways that repell middle forces, and isolate us from them. We can focus only on our hard core base of support, and plan to batter everyone else with a big stick if we get the chance....

But (to repeat an important point) if we have that approach we are unlikely to get the chance to wield real power. And if we did get that chance, we are unlikely to do anything good with it.

We would be dogmat-tyrants (like East German Eric Honecker or the pro-Soviet thugs who ran Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s or like the Tienanmen pig Li Peng.) The kind that WWP wants to emulate (for example).

No it is not automatic, and what we do has a huge impact on who gets influenced by what.

And they also have a choice in the matter.

As revolution approaches, we hope for a repolarization of society that is favorable -- that makes it possible for the most radical and far seeing forces to rise to the leadership of society. But for that to happen the influence of those communist forces has to go far beyond just a growing and powerful partican force of proletarians.

We have a lot of work to do, and i think there are some fertile fields to do it with -- despite the fact that the Christian Fascists are on a role, and in some ways exactly because of that fact.

This argument, by the way, is an important part of what avakian is fighting for in his essay "On Truth... On Knowing and Changing the World -- A Discussion with Comrades on Episemology" rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm

He argues against a view of intellectuals as a "problem for us," against instrumentalism toward culture and artists, for enlisting scientists and others in a fight against the "faith-based" fascists who are threatening us all. And he is fighting for a new imagining of socialism and communism -- based on an understanding of what that transition will take and the role of intellectuals in that.

He ends with this:

"if we don’t understand what we are trying to take on with this method and approach I’m struggling for—if we don’t grasp the principles involved in "solid core with a lot of elasticity" and related things—we will be drawn and quartered. It is going to be messy and difficult. It is going to be messy. It is also going to be exhilarating. It is going to mean that we really have to be communists and apply this on the highest level. I want to make very clear that if this other kind of line holds sway and people come to power with that line, it is going to be very bad. You are right that strategically this is not frightening. ... We shouldn’t underestimate the difficulties. Within this is going to be a lot of tumult. The argument that you can’t do this [the way I am proposing] is not without any basis in material reality.

"But the more powerful material reality is that this can be done—this method and approach of solid core with a lot of elasticity, as I have been developing and fighting for it, can be carried out—and in fact this is the only way to do it, the only way we can get to communism."

That is the point I am trying to bring out: not only is it possible, it is the only way we can get to communism.

[redstar2000GUEST]

Part One

flyby wrote: However let me just say, that the historical fact that leading artists, scientists, and other intellectuals in bourgeois society have been favorably inclined toward progressive struggle (and even revolution) is relevant to this discussion.

One distinction that ought to be made here is between artists and scientists. The latter are very rarely elevated to "celebrity status" in capitalist society and accordingly little subject to the kinds of determinants that I brought up in my earlier posts.

I would be inclined to "trust" a prominent and reputable scientist much more readily than a celebrity. During the upheaval of May 1968 in France, even the particle physicists at CERN drafted a manifesto demanding research controlled by scientists rather than bureaucratic mandarins...their version of "workers' control".

When I spoke of celebrities, I had in mind a particular group -- those whose "lives" are "celebrated" in the media because of their demonstrated ability to distract the working class from reality.

I think such people may entertain, from time to time, vaguely "progressive" sentiments...but I don't think any of them are likely to be "on our side" now or in the future. Indeed, I think the careers of guys like Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger show what happens when these folks get "interested" in politics.

flyby wrote: Not only does it happen, it happens constantly.

Many (or most?) communists and revolutionaries (leaders and activists) don't come from the poorest strata, but from those strata who have access to intellectual skills. Who have the opportunity to learn how to handle abstract thought, research, history and analysis.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Down at the "bottom" of the working class -- where people live on a mixture of temporary employment, welfare, and petty crime -- the opportunity to come into contact with revolutionary ideas is very rare. Sheer survival is problematic and demands all their attention.

But as soon as you get into that part of the working class where stable work is the "norm", then time becomes available for the exploration of revolutionary ideas...if they are available in the environment.

It's harder, in some ways, for a working class kid (or adult) to learn a lot of this stuff...often because it is (unconsciously) written in a style that originated (in part) in an explicit desire to be inaccessible to "the lower orders". Writing was a class privilege in origin and we suffer from that to this very day.

Not to mention the class distinctions in education itself.

But you seem to imply that in order to be a conscious communist, one almost needs a degree from Harvard...and that's not true. One doesn't need a degree at all...or even a high school diploma.

The recipe for a conscious communist in my book begins with a deep hatred of life as it is currently lived and a burning curiosity to find out how we landed in the shit.

Where are these attributes most likely to be found if not among the working class?

It's true that when the communist movement is small and weak, there is a disproportionate number of petty (or not so petty) "bourgeois intellectuals" involved...but as a portion of intellectuals as a whole, the percentage represented among communists is still very small.

I don't think communism will have significant "appeal" to the bourgeois intelligentsia until a few days before the barricades go up.

flyby wrote: First of all, there is all along great potential for winning over and uniting with and struggling with many different forces outside the proletariat.

I don't see a materialist basis for this approach...at least as you phrase it abstractly. Certainly, I can't even imagine "winning over" a contemporary celebrity...at least not for any significant period of time.

There was a famous British actress (I can't remember her name now) who became a life-long Trotskyist.

If you did it, it would be akin to winning the lottery.

flyby wrote: In another forum (revolutionaryleft.com) redstar and I discussed the history of SDS -- here was a significant mass student movement that turned in revolutionary directions. It wasn't made up of proletarians (in the main). But of students overwhelmingly drawn from the middle classes (with some from the bourgeoisie and some from the working class.)

No one ever did (as far as I know) a real class analysis of SDS based on actual evidence...it "seemed" to be mostly "middle class", but who really knows?

Another consideration: at that time, higher education was still mostly limited to the middle class...and SDS simply reflected the class bias of its constituency.

But most importantly, SDS arose at a time when there was no adult revolutionary movement. We had no domestic proletarian communists to learn from (hence the fascination with China, the NLF, Cuba, etc.). As you know, the "old left" was thoroughly saturated with reformism, parliamentary cretinism, etc.

Second, to get where we are going -- to a transitional society that revolutionizes our life into communism -- we will need the work, vision, contributions, invention, effort, support and criticism of intellectual strata.

I don't dispute that; I do dispute that celebrities will likely be in those numbers. They are not going to like the things that we want to do...particularly that stuff about no one making more than an average working class wage.

flyby wrote: Is there some law that says proletarians [can't] learn much from the political thoughts and creative work of middle class strata? I don't think so.

It's not a "law"...but rather, as I noted earlier, a "pre-disposition". I would not argue that the "middle class" has "nothing" useful to contribute; but I think that most of what they will say will sound very familiar to us -- as they say it to us now at interminable length.

Don't forget how important status stability is to the "middle class"...and how resistant they are to being "proletarianized".

flyby wrote: Let me put it this way, if revolutionary support is limited to a hard core movement in the proletariat it can't succeed -- even if the proletarian forces seize power, they won't be able to hold it. Even if they hold it, the society this creates won't be worth living in, and won't develop toward communism.

Why do you say this? That seems to me to be extraordinarily pessimistic...especially the part about "not developing toward communism".

When I'm speaking of a proletarian revolution, I'm speaking of something that would necessarily involve the direct participation of tens of millions of working class revolutionaries with support from tens of millions of working class sympathizers...nearly all of the working class.

If you mean something much more limited by the phrase (proletarian revolution), then that might be the source of our disagreement in this thread.