Marx and Engels - bourgeois?

[Lolshevik]

I'm currently reading Lenin's What is to be Done?, finding it quite agreeable actually, until I stumbled upon a passage that went something like...

"By their social status, Marx and Engels, the founders of scientific socialism, were bourgeois intelligentsia."

What does this mean? Is Lenin actually putting forth that the founders of the proletarian movement for liberation were themselves not proletarians?

[ZeroNowhere]

Engels was petit-bourgeois, I think, though I'm not sure. Family business or something.
Marx was not bourgeois.

[Iowa656]

Whether they were or not why is it relevant?

If their whole life is spent producing the doctrine for the emancipation of the working class does it matter what social status they had?

I remind you that Guevara was born into a rich "middle" class family, that didn't prevent him fighting for the great Cuban revolution. He, inspired by Marx, saw the problems and acted on them. I'm not going to discount anyone's achievements because of their class.

Think about it, it's actually a lot more impressive if the were bourgeois. It takes courage to criticise yourself and improve the life of others at your expense.

[scarletghoul]

Well yeah, they weren't exactly workers were they. They are both from well off bourgeois backgrounds. I agree with Lenin.

[scarletghoul]

Also yeah, a lot of communist leaders are from bourgeois or non-proletarian backgrounds. Marx, Engels, Che, Mao (prosperous peasent family. enough to get a good education but still a man of the people), Castro. Was Lenin?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Back then, the only people well off enough to have educations like Marx and Engels were most likely petit-bourgeois, or bourgeois. So it wouldn't be surprising, nor do I think its relevant.

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, one's class is not determined by one's family. Marx did not own any means of production.

[Q]

What does this mean? Is Lenin actually putting forth that the founders of the proletarian movement for liberation were themselves not proletarians?

Exactly. But Marx and Engels (and Lenin by the way!) broke with their class background in favor of proletarian politics. That is what matters.

[Rjevan]

Yes, Engel's father was a wealthy textile manufacturer but Marx wasn't bourgeois. And Engels saw the bad conditions the workers had to face and decided to help them instead of enjoing his father's wealth and live the life of the burgeoisie.
So I agree with what was has been said before, it doesn't matter what their familiy background was, only their deeds matter.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Um, one's class is not determined by one's family. Marx did not own any means of production.
Right, but most people who are bourgeois, or petit-bourgeois are born into their class relations; as you said, Engels might have had a family business.

I wasn't claiming Marx was bourgeois, I was saying that most people who where able to go to universities and such were most likely bourgeois.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Exactly. But Marx and Engels (and Lenin by the way!) broke with their class background in favor of proletarian politics. That is what matters.

But, they did not completely break from the ruling-class ideas they had imbibed during their socialisation and education.

Marx was a de-classe intellectual and Engels a small capitalist, both of whom were given a petty-bourgeois education.

This predisposed them toward accepting ideas from Hegel, which virus they unfortunately passed on to the Marxist movement.

[Charles Xavier]

Chances are if you were of pure working class background in England/Germany, you wouldn't have hours to spend writing 300 page vols. of scientific works

[Lolshevik]

I suppose it really doesn't matter. After all, I can't imagine a more definitive break with the bourgeoisie than to advocate their revolutionary overthrow.

What are some prominent Marxist thinkers from purely working-class backgrounds, though?

[ZeroNowhere]

I suppose it really doesn't matter. After all, I can't imagine a more definitive break with the bourgeoisie than to advocate their revolutionary overthrow.

What are some prominent Marxist thinkers from purely working-class backgrounds, though?
Debs.
De Leon is somewhat borderline. His father was a physician and his mother was well off, but still working class. However, when he was a few years old, he was left in the care of his uncle, who was a slave-owner, so I dunno. Anyways.

[GPDP]

I suppose it really doesn't matter. After all, I can't imagine a more definitive break with the bourgeoisie than to advocate their revolutionary overthrow.

What are some prominent Marxist thinkers from purely working-class backgrounds, though?

Wasn't Stalin a peasant in his youth? I could be wrong.

Though I might as well throw in that even prominent anarchist thinkers were born into privilege, and thus were quite well off prior to their "conversion." Bakunin was born into a wealthy family, and Kropotkin was a fucking prince. Imagine that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, he was just from a rather poor family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Childhood_and_early_adult_crime

[Oneironaut]

So I agree with what was has been said before, it doesn't matter what their familiy background was, only their deeds matter.

What matters, in terms of class, is one's relationship to the means of production. This is not determined by your family, nor your deeds.

[black magick hustla]

Marx was poor as hell. He probably lived in worst conditions than people here. His sons were dying of hunger and he had boils everywhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact Marx was able to give his daughters an expensive private education.

He was just hopeless with money.

[cb9's_unity]

It is actually somewhat hard to find a communist leader who did come from the proletariat. As tupac already pointed out there's some decent reasons why and the fact they called for proletarian revolutions their whole life makes up for where or to whom they were born.

In fact Lenin was from a very low ranking noble family.

[BlackCapital]

Marx was extremely poor, and Engels was part of a wealthy family who owned textile factories. Engels saw the conditions and exploitative nature of the factories, took interest in Marx, and allegedly funded him.

This is according to my sociology professor from the other day, unfortunately don't have a source. But I remember hearing this somewhere else too.

[BobKKKindle$]

Interestingly, Kautsky went so far as to argue that the bourgeois intelligentsia would function as the "vehicle of science", responsible for developing socialist analysis, and then communicating that analysis to the working class. This conception suggests that workers are somehow incapable of understanding capitalism on the basis of their own experiences and struggles, and therefore need the help of those who come from outside the ranks of the working class in order to comprehend and eventually challenge the capitalist system. Needless to say, Lenin was totally oppossed to this fundamentally elitist conception - although his intellectual debt to Kautsky (as well as the internal divisions within the socialist movement at that time - in particular Bernstein's aversion to theory, and the resulting need to emphasize the role of theoretical debate) meant that his refutation was not as forceful as it should have been.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Interestingly, Kautsky went so far as to argue that the bourgeois intelligentsia would function as the "vehicle of science", responsible for developing socialist analysis, and then communicating that analysis to the working class. This conception suggests that workers are somehow incapable of understanding capitalism on the basis of their own experiences and struggles, and therefore need the help of those who come from outside the ranks of the working class in order to comprehend and eventually challenge the capitalist system. Needless to say, Lenin was totally oppossed to this fundamentally elitist conception - although his intellectual debt to Kautsky (as well as the internal divisions within the socialist movement at that time - in particular Bernstein's aversion to theory, and the resulting need to emphasize the role of theoretical debate) meant that his refutation was not as forceful as it should have been.

You fail to distinguish between class consciousness, revolutionary consciousness, and revolutionary theory. Read the whole Kautsky quote, not just the "bourgeois intelligentsia" sound bite. The true founder of "Marxism" never said that workers couldn't understand capitalism ("class consciousness" and perhaps "revolutionary consciousness," too), just that they needed help to understand revolutionary theory:

The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia; modern socialism arises among individual members of this stratum and then is communicated by them to proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring it into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow.


1) Only those workers who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of open class struggle), support radical or revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” leaving behind underclass or petit-bourgeois false consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”), according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless” through having little free time or through being unemployed.
2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of specifically revolutionary class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.”
3) When the process of introducing specifically revolutionary class consciousness to the proletarian masses and even radicalized workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians.”

Despite my harsh but realistic judgement of manual workers (as opposed to clerical and professional workers) and of ultra-activists like yourself (in the third point), I didn't mention revolutionary theory above, but let's just say that the bulk of theoretical development comes in large part from "individual members" of what pareconist Michael Albert calls "the coordinator class" (specifically, professors).

The highly technical language of mine that has been criticized by at least some RevLeft posters - transnationalism vs. inadequate internationalism, politico-ideological independence, information asymmetry, maximax/maximin/minimax/minimin, etc. - demonstrates the "profoundly true and important words of Karl Kautsky" on this subject - this coming from a clerical or professional worker "who stands out due to his intellectual development." ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

If workers need "help" to become good revolutionaries, then what form should this "help" actually assume? You seem to be suggesting that the most militant and politically advanced section of the working class (i.e. what is commonly described as the vanguard) is radicalized through intellectual contact with professors, in a university environment, and yet this entirely contradicts the actual course of political development - the development of class consciousness on an individual basis occurs first and foremost through participation in working-class struggle, as well as broader political movements - in other words, through practical activity, in the workplace, not passive contemplation. It is generally the case that this practical activity serves as an initial stimulus for workers to investigate theory, which is itself based on the historical experience of workers - and yet actual experience of working-class life remains vital, as the only way theories can be tested is in the heat of struggle. Your conception of political development, and the transmission of political ideas, is clearly self-serving, in that it places university-educated workers above the rest of the working class, and sees "un-educated" workers as simply being passive recipients of ideas that are handed down to them from above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If workers need "help" to become good revolutionaries, then what form should this "help" actually assume? You seem to be suggesting that the most militant and politically advanced section of the working class (i.e. what is commonly described as the vanguard) is radicalized through intellectual contact with professors, in a university environment, and yet this entirely contradicts the actual course of political development

Again, you confuse revolutionary consciousness with revolutionary theory. Already-radicalized workers still need "professorial" types to teach them directly or indirectly (not necessarily actual professors, but "professorial" folks like Kautsky and, in my case, Paul Cockshott and Mike Macnair).


The development of class consciousness on an individual basis occurs first and foremost through participation in working-class struggle, as well as broader political movements - in other words, through practical activity, in the workplace, not passive contemplation.

You're repeating Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" line here (first video, 29:25 onwards (http://csukblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/debating-the-marxist-programme-videos-from-communist-university-north/)), that the masses can gain consciousness only through action.

Some folks I know are class-conscious in spite of their lack of activism: one of them is a manual worker who combines US national chauvinism with pro-worker demands on the home front (living wages), while another is an IT worker who became a socialist through my work. The former has got class consciousness (no matter the nationalistic flaws), while the other has revolutionary class consciousness. Neither of them, however, have mastered revolutionary theory.


Your conception of political development, and the transmission of political ideas, is clearly self-serving, in that it places university-educated workers above the rest of the working class, and sees "un-educated" workers as simply being passive recipients of ideas that are handed down to them from above.

If that were the case, why am I not "reducing the political content [...] to the level at which the masses will move"? The only self-serving here belongs to fearful ultra-activist praktiki who are afraid of losing their "invisible dictatorship" positions and being subordinated to "proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development," acting like "socialist theoreticians."

[BobKKKindle$]

Again, you confuse revolutionary consciousness with revolutionary theory. Already-radicalized workers still need "professorial" types to teach them (not necessarily actual professors, but "professorial" folks like Kautsky).The point you seem to be missing here is that the theory workers come to investigate and discuss after being radicalized was (and is) not developed in isolation from workers, but instead represents the collective and historical experience of the working-class, and is only valid to the extent that it enables workers to understand their position under capitalism and fight for their class interests. If it turns out that a particular way of analyzing the world does not correspond to what workers actually experience in their workplaces, and in other aspects of their lives, and does not enable workers to win struggles, then a good socialist would conclude that there is something wrong with the theory, and change her theoretical understanding of capitalism accordingly, even if that involves rejecting theories that we may previously have seen as totally correct. In other words, theory arises from practice - both contemporary and historical - and exists in order to be applied, with the results of this application being the means by which we evaluate, and, if necessary, change, our theories. You entirely ignore the function of praxis, and the mutually-reinforcing relationship between praxis and theory, such is your desire to stress the role of "professorial types" in telling workers how they should fight. Even if we accept that intellectuals who were not part of the working class developed the basic principles of Marxist theory, including Marx himself, there is no reason to assume that only those in the same position (i.e. intellectuals) can play the same role today, and must continue to do so forever - why is it so impossible for workers who lack university education to study theory with their fellow workers (or party comrades) and then make their own contributions to theory on the basis of practical experience? Our local SWSS group, for example, routinely has meetings on important theoretical and historical issues, not only to win other people over to socialist ideas, but also to develop our own understanding - that is, to help the local SWSS group including myself analyze capitalism correctly and improve the way we engage in practical activity - but the people who open these meetings (which normally take the form of discussions) and answer our questions are only rarely academics, they are mostly people who were either workers in the past but have since become SWP full-timers, or are just ordinary workers who are also members of the SWP - and yet you (and Kautsky) seem to believe that a worker having detailed theoretical knowledge through their own experiences and efforts, and taking on an educational role towards other socialists (or potential socialists) is impossible, because, so your argument goes, revolutionary theory can only come from those who are not part of the working class - "professorial types".


Some folks I know are class-conscious in spite of their lack of activismI actually said activity, which is obviously not the same as activism. I accept that people can become socialists solely by reading books and watching the news - but speaking as someone who was inactive for a long time and then became involved in struggle, I would also argue that the only way to gain a thorough understanding of different theories and how they relate to the real world is to be engaged in practical struggle, because struggle offers opportunities for the application of theory. This affirms what I said above about the relationship between praxis and theory. You, for example, make a great deal of the fact that you are a sympathizer of the CPGB, doubtless because you enjoy reading their articles and debates, but if you were actually living in the UK you would know that they have no significant role in either the labour movement, or the student movement, and are generally seen as rather silly and useless.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's worth pointing out that however much he may have quoted from Kautsky in 'What Is To Be Done?', Lenin's conception of the party was always fundamentally different from the elitist conception put forward by Kautsky. Whereas Kautsky (as quoted by JR) argued that intellectuals from outside the ranks of the working-class were responsible for developing socialist theory, and that workers could only enhance their theoretical knowledge through contact with these intellectuals, Lenin acknowledged that workers had developed theory independently, and would always be capable of doing so, in a footnote directly following a quote from Kautsky - in fact, the same quote that is being discussed in this thread. Here's the footnote, which Draper also cites as evidence that Lenin did not advocate a party dominated by intellectuals:

"This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings"

Lenin seems to have deliberately tried to avoid being too critical of Kautsky in this case, despite the fact that his footnote directly contradicts Kautsky's central argument. He had to confuse the issue by suggesting that when Kautsky spoke about the role of intellectuals, he was not excluding workers, because workers who contributed to theory did so in their capacity as intellectuals, even though they remained workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production, and class interests. But if we look at what Kautsky actually believed, we find no such progressive position - Kautsky was clear that he was talking about the bourgeois intelligentsia. Thankfully, JR is also clear about this - as we can see from his assumption that only members of the "coordinator" class can bring revolutionary theory to radicalized workers. There is, then, a clear division between Lenin and Kautsky, which reflects a more fundamental divide between those who have advocated socialism imposed from above, and those who have seen the working class as an independent agent of social change and emancipation. Whereas Kautsky regarded the working class as passively receiving ideas from intellectuals, Lenin looked towards workers for inspiration, and always remained conscious of the role of working-class praxis in evaluating theory.

[JimFar]

Engels came from a textile manufacturing family that owned factories both in Germany and Britain. As part of his business training the young Engels was sent to Manchester where he first became interested in the conditions of workers, leading him to write his first major work,The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England_in_1 844), so he can certainly be regarded as having been a bourgeois. He left the business for some years to participate in the political agitation of the late 1840s leading up to the revolutionary uprisings of 1848. He spent time in France and Belgium with his friend, Karl Marx. When the revolutionary uprisings of 1848 broke out both men returned to Prussia, where they edited the newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rheinische_Zeitung). Eventually, the Prussian government was able to stamp out the revolutionary unrest that had broken out and the newspaper was suppressed. Engels then took part in an armed uprising in South Germany as an aide-de-camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide-de-camp) in the volunteer corps of August Willich, a radical Prussian army officer. (Later on, Willich would renounce his title of nobility and emigrate to the United States, where during the American Civil War he became a general in the Union Army). That uprising was crushed and Engels had to flee from Germany, eventually joining Marx in exile in Britain. There, he resume work in the family textile business. At first he had little money, but over time he became fairly wealthy and was able to support not only his own family but also Marx's too.

Marx was born into the petit bourgeoisie. His father, Heinrich, was a lawyer who descended from a long line of rabbis. In order to keep his license to practice law, he converted to Lutheranism, although he was actually a deist who admired both Voltaire and Rousseau. Heinrich was very well connected. One of his closest friends was the Prussian aristocrat Johann Ludwig von Westphalen who was a government official and a professor at Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin, who would become a mentor to Heinrich's son, the young Karl Marx. Later on, Karl would mary Westphalen's daughter, Jenny.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The point you seem to be missing here is that the theory workers come to investigate and discuss after being radicalized was (and is) not developed in isolation from workers

You're confusing workers with the worker movement:

"In every country there has been a period in which the working-class movement existed apart from socialism, each going its own way; and in every country this isolation has weakened both socialism and the working-class movement. Only the fusion of socialism with the working-class movement has in all countries created a durable basis for both." (Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/nov/tasks.htm))

Besides, socialism was originally conceptualized apart from workers (British utopian socialism, for example).


You entirely ignore the function of praxis, and the mutually-reinforcing relationship between praxis and theory, such is your desire to stress the role of "professorial types" in telling workers how they should fight. Even if we accept that intellectuals who were not part of the working class developed the basic principles of Marxist theory, including Marx himself, there is no reason to assume that only those in the same position (i.e. intellectuals) can play the same role today, and must continue to do so forever - why is it so impossible for workers who lack university education to study theory with their fellow workers (or party comrades) and then make their own contributions to theory on the basis of practical experience?

I take it you've already re-read at least Chapter 1 of the "controversial" work by Lars Lih available on Google Books? You quote Lenin's mention of Weitling, and so I thought this quote is appropriate:

Kautsky lays great stress on this kind of hostility toward militant labour on the part of the early socialists. Even worker socialists shared this hostility. The point of Kautsky's narrative is not that socialism was originally separate from the workers as such but that it was originally separate from the worker movement. Individual workers such as Wilhelm Weitling could and did become socialists - but that very fact alienated them from the worker movement and kept them apart from the militant day-to-day struggle. An "elemental" class instinct of hatred for the bourgeoisie made early worker socialists reject any doctrine from it. As a result, their own rough-hewn theories were crude and violent.

[...]

This kind of "elemental" revolutionary militancy is one of the growing pains of a genuinely socialist worker movement, since it tends to crop up whenever recent backward recruits to the proletariat still lack "clear insight" into social relations. The paradoxical conclusion of this discussion is that even a socialism that grew directly out of proletarian soil failed to overcome the gap between socialism and the worker movement.

[...]

The heroic contribution of Marx and Engels could only have come from people who had mastered all of modern "scientific" political economy and extended it further - in other words, bourgeois intellectuals (albeit very exceptional ones).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Marx was born into the petit bourgeoisie.

Thanks for that Jim; many of the younger comrades here seem not to be aware of all this (or can't be bothered to Google it!).

However, Marx also remained a petty-bourgeois itinerant journalist for much of his life -- as I am sure you are aware.

[Lolshevik]

I'd like the opinion of the people on this thread...

Do you think that the fact that socialist theory originated from outside the proletariat weakens its credibility as a proletarian ideology?

[Das war einmal]

The most controversial people of the communist movement, were also the only ones that really were people from the working class: Mao and Stalin. However this does not matter, what matters is what somebody does for class struggle, not what her or his background is. Making final judgments about someone's background is not wise

[Die Neue Zeit]

The most controversial people of the communist movement, were also the only ones that really were people from the working class: Mao and Stalin. However this does not matter, what matters is what somebody does for class struggle, not what her or his background is. Making final judgments about someone's background is not wise

Stalin was born into an artisan family, while Mao into a peasant family. I don't think any of the major leaders of the CCP had a proletarian background whatsoever. In the case of the Bolsheviks, there's one Tomsky (though I don't know who else).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like the opinion of the people on this thread...

Do you think that the fact that socialist theory originated from outside the proletariat weakens its credibility as a proletarian ideology?

I started a History thread on an earlier precedent:

Capitalist consciousness from feudal intelligentsia? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalist-consciousness-feudal-t91804/index.html)

If the answer to the above question is yes, then the credibility of capitalism being a bourgeois ideology isn't weakened, in spite of its inability to complete the anti-feudal revolution (inheritance, "wealthy dead" estates in perpetual existence, economic rent, socialized finance, etc.).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can someone please move the dialectics posts into the dialectics thread? Thanks.

[Random Precision]

I split the posts dealing with dialectics. I think it would be confusing to lump it in with the other thread, though.