Correspondingly my point is that the finer points of “scientific” or “religious” argumentation, when measured on the macro scale, matters relatively little – they aren’t aimed at a mass audience and don’t achieve one anyway. And by mass, I am not referring to the class that makes up the majority, the working class; only a minority of EACH class will bother paying any attention.

More fundamental are power relations, which sustain capitalist ideological hegemony as manifested in political attitudes. Once we begin to challenge those, we achieve more than “education” alone ever could.

Extreme religion, anti-statism and even fascism are motivated by the lumpenization of the working class. At that point, it doesn’t matter who is objectively “correct” and who is objectively wrong, any more than it matters when armies meet on a battlefield who has the better ideological justification. But the further this process of lumpenization goes on, the more shrill the liberal denunciations of the unthinking masses. Which is counterproductive and, yes, patronizing.

“…we cannot reduce ourselves to pretty patronising arguments over this or that finer point of the empirical evidence.”

So what, arguments about what’s actually true and false are just too difficult for the poor working class? I’d far prefer challenging people to actually think about things rather than smugly letting them stay ignorant while organising them ‘in their best interests’.

“It bears pointing out that anti-statism is embryonic class struggle to begin with: the state is the tool of capitalism. People who want a small state and correlate a big state with oppression can be right – we can provide the corresponding critique of ‘the market’ too.”

I just think this is naive. A lot of anti-statism is nothing to do with class consciousness at all – it’s only superficially similar. You can tell by how much of it is directly inspired by self-serving middle class pundits who just don’t want to pay tax.

Honestly, I’m confused what message you’re trying to get across. Presumably it’s aimed at middle class socialists, and it seems to say this: Stop trying to educate working class people and start organising them. But surely the big advantage of the middle class is their education? People who know things educating people who don’t isn’t patronising. What’s patronising is thinking that working class people need middle class people to hold their hand at every step of the way.

a. that they have their own snobberies and prejudices ;

b. that they are where they are as a result of social advantage just as much as ability ;

c. that the economics they propound favour (and are seen as favouring) them, not everybody ;

d. that there is a huge link between social division and prejudice, which their economics foster rather than ameliorate ;

e. that if you weaken labour organsiation and socialist politics, it’s not liberalism which fills the gap ;

f. that if progressive social ideas are linked to fuck-you economics, and are seen as being propounded by a superior elite, then you are asking for what you get, which is an alliance between the resentful proletariat and the cynical wealthy.

That they can’t grasp any of these is precisely because of their monumental self-regard and sense of superiority.