The Importance of Class Consciousness

[Decolonize The Left]

After reading about various leftist organizations, parties, and theories, I have made several conclusions which are by no means absolute, but I believe are fairly accurate:

1) Absolutely every single revolutionary leftist organization/party is dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist system and the implementation of a classless, stateless (in the anarchist sense of the term: an institution possessing the legitimate use of force. Not in the Marxist sense: the organ of class rule), society.

2) Absolutely every single revolutionary leftist organization/party is dedicated to this future society being controlled by the working class.

3) All organizations/parties possess a theory of practice, yet most differ on these means.

4) All agree that in order for 1, 2, and 3, to succeed, a vast consciousness of class is required within the working class.

It is the fourth point which I wish to highlight. Whether or not you are an anarchist, anarchist-communist, or any variety of communist, you agree that the working class must possess a heightened consciousness of their class. This, therefore, is of primary importance. Your differences regarding the organization of said class, the implementation of socialist ideals, the most effective route to the revolution are irrelevant without class consciousness.

I would therefore like to request that members of the CC, and if this post is received well here, members of this forum, make the raising of class consciousness their primary goal. The reason for this being the primary goal is simple: it is the fundamental base for any revolutionary theory and hence it is the fundamental practice.

Discuss.

- August

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree that the raising of class consciousness should be the primary goal of all revolutionary socialists, and that the lack of uniform consciousness within the working class is what creates the need for those who are already committed to the overthrow of capitalism to come together and form their own organizations, based on the most militant and politically advanced section of the proletariat, so as to engage with the rest of the working class in an effective way. That is what the revolutionary party basically is - an organization of revolutionary workers, who orientate their activity towards the overthrow of capitalism and the attainment of a socialist society based on democratic and egalitarian principles. In this respect, a revolutionary party differ from trade unions and mainstream parties, as the latter draw their members and supporters from every section of the proletariat, and so are liable to contain a mixture of progressive and reactionary ideas, as well as a mixture of different strategies. However, it's also important to understand the form that this process of raising consciousness should assume, as well as the relationship between organization and spontaneity. The revolutionary party does not go about raising consciousness by making posts on an internet forum (I don't know if this is what you were suggesting - but it has been suggested that Revleft should be a "consciousness raising" tool by other members, which is not something I agree with) or even by holding paper sales every weekend, but ultimately by showing leadership in struggle. By this I mean that when workers are debating whether to go on strike, or to hold an occupation, socialists need to be ready to argue in favor of progressive and revolutionary strategies that strike at the heart of the capitalist system, by drawing on the historic experience of the proletariat, and pointing the way forward. It's by having that crucial element of leadership that workers struggles can win, giving the workers who are involved greater confidence in their own abilities, breaking down barriers that turn workers against each other, and encouraging workers to become engaged in political activity.

In sum, organization is key, but what really counts is having comrades in factories and other workplaces as part of an organized network of militants. It's all very well having people who know a lot about Lenin and the history of the Russian Revolution, but if there's no organic connection with the class, revolutionaries are of no use at all - in fact, they're not even revolutionaries.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All three points above require a revolutionary programme. To quote Lenin, "Without a revolutionary programme there can be no revolutionary movement."

Such revolutionary programmatic formulation must be humble in terms of everyone learning from each other, including Marxists humbly learning from radical non-Marxists (Gorz and Hahnel come to mind) and vice versa, but at the end of the day there should be a clear programme.

[Q]

I agree with what JR said above on the need of a programme, although we disagree on the nature of this programme (i.e. a min/max approach vs a transitional approach). The program is much more then a mere collection of stances on "hot topics" but should explain our method, our goals and our principles aswell. I furthermore think a few more points should be considered which, while different points, are very much linked to the goal of raising class consciousness:

1. Principled unity among communists - which differs from theoretical or methodological unity.
2. Debate the dangers of reformism in its many forms, most obviously in the form of (broad) economism among revolutionary ranks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree with what JR said above on the need of a programme, although we disagree on the nature of this programme (i.e. a min/max approach vs a transitional approach). The program is much more then a mere collection of stances on "hot topics" but should explain our method, our goals and our principles as well. I furthermore think a few more points should be considered which, while different points, are very much linked to the goal of raising class consciousness:

1. Principled unity among communists - which differs from theoretical or methodological unity.
2. Debate the dangers of reformism in its many forms, most obviously in the form of (broad) economism among revolutionary ranks.

And to complement what Q said above:

1) Our min/max vs. transitional difference pertains to programmatic method, based on differing historical precedents (i.e., defining the parameters of a "minimum program" in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_programme), from the coalitionist Common Minimum Programmes in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Minimum_Programme) to the radical minimum program of the CPGB (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm)). On the other hand, something like Tony Cliff's hollow musings on "state capitalism" is theoretical or, should I say, hypothetical (since the words "theoretical" and "theory" tend to be conflated in popular culture with "hypothetical" and "hypothesis").

2) While narrow economism is definitely reformist, broad economism isn't necessarily so. Lots of rev-leftists have "good intentions" when trying to link immediate economic struggles with the higher economic struggle for "revolutionary socialism."

[BobKKKindle$]

It's not enough simply to say that socialists need to have a "programme" in order to raise consciousness - what form should this programme assume? The SWP is frequently criticized for refusing to adopt Trotsky's "transitional method" because we don't have a fixed set of demands that we include in all our party literature and promote at every possible opportunity like other leftist organizations, but this is not to say that we are oppossed to the basic concept of having a programme, or that we don't see immediate demands as having an important role to play in exposing the failures of capitalism. Instead, we think that socialists should develop programmes that are orientated towards specific struggles, instead of having a general and abstract programme that we apply under all circumstances. This approach is much more concrete and flexible because it accounts for the fact that capitalism in a constant state of flux and so what might be a good or appropriate demand today may not have the same positive features a month or even a week later, especially if the intensity of class struggle has changed, as is often the case during a period of economic crisis. To understand the superiority of the SWP's approach, we only have to look at the set of demands Trotsky developed in response to the threat of fascism and growing industrial unrest in France during the 1930s, and contrast these demands with the transitional programme, as the former are closely linked with the political situation in France at that time, whereas the latter are far too abstract.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wasn't talking about Trotsky, though. The SWP has no program, period. Developing programs that are "oriented towards specific struggles" ignores broader struggles for measures that affect society as a whole, such as: public officials on workers wages; universal cost of living adjustments ("sliding scale of wages" but for every non-executive job); abolition of inheritance in the means of production and related financial securities; land value taxation replacing indirect and other regressive taxation, property taxes, and lower income tax rates (Henry George, RenegadeEconomist.com, etc.); shorter workweeks without loss of pay or benefits; etc.

[BobKKKindle$]

Developing programs that are "oriented towards specific struggles" ignores broader struggles for measures that affect society as a whole, such as: public officials on workers wages; universal cost of living adjustments ("sliding scale of wages" but for every non-executive job); land value taxation replacing indirect and other regressive taxation, property taxes, and lower income tax rates (Henry George, RenegadeEconomist.com, etc.); shorter workweeks without loss of pay or benefits; etc.The specific approach that I described above doesn't mean that we only put forward demands within the confines of one struggle, such as the struggle to end the occupation of Iraq, as there's an obvious need to put forward general demands, and to show how a specific campaign such as StWC ties in with other campaigns as well as the struggle to overthrow capitalism. However, our approach to general demands is still of a specific nature in that we do not tie our organization to a fixed set of demands that we continue to push for regardless of changes in the economic or political situation - instead, we always try and make sure that our demands are concretely linked to the current state of class struggle to ensure that we don't become isolated from the class. You seem to be arguing that there should be a fixed set of demands, and the dangers of this approach are evident from some of the ideas you put forward in your last post. To take one example, arguing that wages should be linked to the cost of living might seem like a good idea during a period of economic prosperity or immediately after a sudden decrease in the supply of an important product when prices are rapidly rising, but during a period of downturn - when the danger of deflation presents itself, something that could happen in the near future - that demand would not only be useless, it would be downright reactionary, because it would, if implemented, lead to workers having lower wages. This is why it's always necessary to tailor our demands to reality, which isn't something you and most leftist organizations do.

Not only that, you haven't clarified what exactly a programme is for, in your opinion. How should a programme be used on a picket line, for instance?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The specific approach that I described above doesn't mean that we only put forward demands within the confines of one struggle, such as the struggle to end the occupation of Iraq, as there's an obvious need to put forward general demands, and to show how a specific campaign such as StWC ties in with other campaigns as well as the struggle to overthrow capitalism. However, our approach to general demands is still of a specific nature in that we do not tie our organization to a fixed set of demands that we continue to push for regardless of changes in the economic or political situation - instead, we always try and make sure that our demands are concretely linked to the current state of class struggle to ensure that we don't become isolated from the class.

And just how many demands have been compromised throughout the history of the entire workers' movement because of this so-called "flexibility"? :glare:


You seem to be arguing that there should be a fixed set of demands, and the dangers of this approach are evident from some of the ideas you put forward in your last post. To take one example, arguing that wages should be linked to the cost of living might seem like a good idea during a period of economic prosperity or immediately after a sudden decrease in the supply of an important product when prices are rapidly rising, but during a period of downturn - when the danger of deflation presents itself, something that could happen in the near future - that demand would not only be useless, it would be downright reactionary, because it would, if implemented, lead to workers having lower wages.

You're beating a strawman:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-wages-t98609/index.html


Direct guarantees of a real livelihood to all workers, including unemployment and work incapacitation provisions – all based on a participatory-democratic normal workweek, all beyond bare subsistence minimums, and all before any indirect considerations like public health insurance – and including the universalization of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive remunerations, pensions, and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living (not notorious government underestimations due to faulty measures like chain weighting, or even underhanded selections of the lower of core inflation and general inflation)

That's the difference between a programmatic demand and mere agitational (and typically Trotskyist) sloganeering (no offense to comrade Q, as per our prior discussion on formal programs vs. action "programs"/sloganeering).

[BobKKKindle$]

And just how many demands have been compromised over time because of this so-called "flexibility"?

I don't know, you tell me. I don't think there's anything wrong with dropping or placing less emphasis on a given demand if it doesn't make much sense in the context of the current economic and political situation. More broadly, being able to change strategies and tactics in response to a change in circumstances is always the sign of a good revolutionary organization, whereas sects are isolated from the class struggle and therefore refuse to acknowledge the need to change and be dynamic, even when the need is clearly there. I think the SWP's approach is much more effective than having a fixed programme, and it's also linked to the approach that was adopted by the Bolsheviks. who demonstrated the same kind of flexibility that I've been advocating, in their demands and policies. You haven't yet explained what you think a programme should actually be used for, and how it relates to workers struggles such as strikes and factory occupations.


You're beating a strawman:

I don't read your articles becuase they do not interest me. Why not just explain your point instead of linking to an article that consists mostly of quotes from Kautsky all the time?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know, you tell me. I don't think there's anything wrong with dropping or placing less emphasis on a given demand if it doesn't make much sense in the context of the current economic and political situation.

The demands outlined in Post #7 are examples of demands raised before but never raised again because of social-democratic compromises.


I don't read your articles because they do not interest me. Why not just explain your point instead of linking to an article that consists mostly of quotes from Kautsky all the time?

Your ignorance is not surprising in the least. I'm not arguing for a "fixed set of demands," but the way I worded the SSW and "living wage" measures covers a whole lot more than cheap slogans do, which the bourgeois authorities will then say that the slogans have been achieved. I mean, "progressive" income taxation and "free education for all" are achieved with all those loopholes and university costs, eh? :glare:

A programmatic demand popularizes revolutionary analyses and conclusions pertaining to that demand. It can agitate like anarchist, SWP, and ortho-Trotskyist slogans - but its main purposes are to educate (because workers are much smarter than ever-condescending slogan-isms would suggest) and especially organize. In the example above, I talked about pensions, benefits, general inflation, and core inflation.

[BobKKKindle$]

The demands outlined in Post #7 are examples of demands raised before but never raised again because of social-democratic compromises.I don't see how that relates to the need to remain flexible. The SWP has never made any compromises with a social-democratic party. In fact, the need for the working class to have its own independent organization in the form of a revolutionary party that takes up a position of leadership in workers struggles is one of our most basic principles. We don't see entryism as a viable tactic, because trying to change the orientation of an organization from the inside always leads to the group that is carrying out entryism internalizing some of the values of the entered organization, as we saw from the relationship between Militant and the Labour Party, and being forced to accept limitations on their political independence. In those cases where a section of the IST does become part of a larger organization, as with Die Linke in Germany, it always does so in a way that allows it to retain political independence.


Your ignorance is not surprising in the least. I don't think not wanting to read your articles is really a sign of ignorance. I also don't yet see the importance of having the kind of programme that you advocate, because workers don't actually need to be told how to fight back against capitalism. When workers are faced with the threat of having to accept reductions in pay, lower working conditions, or even losing their jobs then there's always going to be an instinct to resist by any means possible because even the most alienated and disorientated workers have a basic understanding of how capitalism works as a result of their experiences in the workplace, and the way they interact with the bourgeoisie through the labour market. What allows that instinct to be transformed into militant action is the presence of organized socialists who can show the way forward by pointing to the right strategies and combating pessimism - and that's not something you ever talk about, despite the fact that it's by far the most important function of a revolutionary organization. It doesn't matter if a party has the greatest programme in the world if there aren't socialists in the workplaces. Look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRNpSMnsik) video as an example. It's a video that shows workers at a car plant about ten minutes from where I live getting sacked at short notice with no compensation. You can tell simply from watching that clip that if there had been a single organized socialist in that meeting who had argued in favour of an occupation they would instantly have received the support of every single worker and an occupation would probably have taken place that evening, because the mood was so angry. If a socialist had stood up and called for occupation, that would have been great, it would encourage other workers around the country to do the same thing, it would increase the militancy of the class, if the workers who were involved won it would create a basis for further struggle - and that wouldn't have a damn thing to do with any programme or any of your essays. Conversely, every time workers get fired then that undermines the confidence of the class and causes workers to turn in on themselves or look towards reactionary ideas for answers - regardless of whether the left has a good or bad programme. Do any of the organizations you "sympathize" with participate in strikes and occupations, Jacob? The CPGB certainly doesn't.

[piet11111]

http://www.marxist.com/consciousness-of-masses.htm

the above article is about this issue and its something i agree with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see how that relates to the need to remain flexible. The SWP has never made any compromises with a social-democratic party.

I was referring to compromises in the broader sense. The suppression of the public debt was no longer in the Erfurt Program or in other Marxist-inspired reform platforms since the 1890s. The replacement of the standing army by militias became absent later on.


I also don't yet see the importance of having the kind of programme that you advocate, because workers don't actually need to be told how to fight back against capitalism. When workers are faced with the threat of having to accept reductions in pay, lower working conditions, or even losing their jobs then there's always going to be an instinct to resist by any means possible because even the most alienated and disorientated workers have a basic understanding of how capitalism works as a result of their experiences in the workplace, and the way they interact with the bourgeoisie through the labour market. What allows that instinct to be transformed into militant action is the presence of organized socialists who can show the way forward by pointing to the right strategies

You're right in one way, but you're missing the point. Because capitalism is global, workers worldwide must somehow know about the recovered factories in South America, about local American alternatives to government money, and so on. The minimum oppositionist program identifies only the most radical measures of the various struggles and puts them together.

[BobKKKindle$]

I was referring to compromises in the broader sense. The suppression of the public debt was no longer in the Erfurt Program or in other Marxist programs since the 1890s. The replacement of the standing army by militias became absent later on.I don't see how that's relevant though. I argued at the beginning of this discussion that it's better to change demands in response to shifts in political and economic circumstances so as to ensure that we remain in touch with the class, whereas a fixed and abstract programme can rapidly become irrelevant. You argued in response to this that there have been historic cases of progressive demands being rejected or otherwise modified when organizations like the SPD turn towards revisionism. This has nothing to do with the SWP because we are not becoming a mainstream social-democratic party and have maintained a consistently revolutionary and progressive line on all issues for the duration of our existence.


You're right in one way, but you're missing the point. Because capitalism is global, workers worldwide must somehow know about the recovered factories in South America, about local American alternatives to government money, and so onIt's obviously important for revolutionaries to draw from the historic and ongoing experience of the proletariat because that's what serves as the basis of our theories, but at the moment you're not explaining how you understand the relationship between demands and workers struggles. How do you actually see this programme being used? Why is a programme so important that you choose to sympathize with organizations that have almost no connection whatsoever with class struggle on the basis that they have a good understanding of the need for a programme - whatever that's supposed to mean? As I've consistently said, the SWP doesn't disregard programmes as such, but having an organic connection with the class and being able to take on a leading role when workers fight back is at the forefront of our concerns, as should be the case for any revolutionary organization, because without that leadership role it's impossible for revolutionaries to introduce progressive strategies into the class struggle that allow workers to win when they resist the bourgeoisie, and break down the barriers to class consciousness.

[Niccolò Rossi]

1) Absolutely every single revolutionary leftist organization/party is dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist system and the implementation of a classless, stateless (in the anarchist sense of the term: an institution possessing the legitimate use of force. Not in the Marxist sense: the organ of class rule), society.

2) Absolutely every single revolutionary leftist organization/party is dedicated to this future society being controlled by the working class.

Well I think this is a matter of how you define a 'revolutionary leftist organisation'. If you are suggesting that every single communist, socialist and anarchist organisation et al. is committed to the overthrow of capitalism globally, the political power of the working class and the construction of communism, I would have to disagree. But this is an aside.


I would therefore like to request that members of the CC, and if this post is received well here, members of this forum, make the raising of class consciousness their primary goal.As hinted to by Bob above, what does this actually mean? If are you suggesting that as an individual I should be constructing my posts to make them all hypothetically inducive to the raising of consciousness amongst the working class, you must be kidding. Class consciousness isn't generalised through the internet, this can only be done in and through the class struggle as Bob notes.


Discuss.Why is this in the CC?

[Vanguard1917]

As hinted to by Bob above, what does this actually mean? Are you suggesting that as an individual I should be constructing my posts to make them all hypothetically inducive to the raising of consciousness amongst the working class, you must be kidding. Class consciousness isn't generalised through the internet, this can only be done in and through the class struggle as Bob notes.


That needs to be pointed out: class consciousness is raised through engagement in the real life class struggle, i.e. in the labour movement. But at a time when the labour movement is pretty much non-existent, what meaing can 'raising class consciousness' have in practical, materialist terms?

[piet11111]

i would like this moved to the theory forum because its a very important topic and has nothing in it that involves administering the forums.

also i consider the working class already is conscious enough to realize that capitalism=shit but they have no political organizations that make an issue out of finding alternatives to capitalism.
as such its not a crisis of consciousness but one of leftist leadership/organisation

[BobKKKindle$]

I will move this to Theory. I know this is technically modding the CC, but I'm sure no-one will find it too objectionable.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That needs to be pointed out: class consciousness is raised through engagement in the real life class struggle, i.e. in the labour movement. But at a time when the labour movement is pretty much non-existent, what meaing can 'raising class consciousness' have in practical, materialist terms?

These are good thoughts. Firstly, I don't think it's correct to equate the class struggle with the labour movement (or atleast the connotations that the word carries with it). This itself has a few implications. For one, whilst we can speak of the death of the labour movement, the class struggle and the development of class consciousness is something continuous and ongoing, even when hidden or 'subterranian'. In addition to this I think there are certain connotations about what the engagement of revolutionaries in the labour movement actually constitutes, something that isn't common to all those who would call themselves revolutionaries.

Secondly, it is important to realised that the reflux of the class struggle and the defeat of the proletariat historically has carried with it important implications for political militants. Thes most important of these is the fact that the vanguard of the class can no longer intervene as an independant and unified force with real strength and significance within the class struggle. At these times the role of the communist minorities within the class must be to step-back, review, and draw up the 'balance sheet', taking from the past struggle real experiences and lessons for the future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

These are good thoughts. Firstly, I don't think it's correct to equate the class struggle with the labour movement (or atleast the connotations that the word carries with it). This itself has a few implications. For one, whilst we can speak of the death of the labour movement, the class struggle and the development of class consciousness is something continuous and ongoing, even when hidden or 'subterranian'. In addition to this I think there are certain connotations about what the engagement of revolutionaries in the labour movement actually constitutes, something that isn't common to all those who would call themselves revolutionaries.

Alright, labour movements or mere "worker movements" should not indeed be confused with worker-class movements, wherein class consciousness is imported into worker movements from elsewhere in the class (and perhaps even outside the class altogether if one speaks of revolutionary consciousness).


Secondly, it is important to realised that the reflux of the class struggle and the defeat of the proletariat historically has carried with it important implications for political militants. Thes most important of these is the fact that the vanguard of the class can no longer intervene as an independent and unified force with real strength and significance within the class struggle. At these times the role of the communist minorities within the class must be to step-back, review, and draw up the 'balance sheet', taking from the past struggle real experiences and lessons for the future.

Gotta disagree there:

http://communiststudents.org.uk/files/Chapter-3-Notes-TB.pdf


Rosa Luxemburg’s The Mass Strike (strategy of the mass strike). The class, once liberated, will look after itself. In chapter 2, Mike touched on the limited nature of workers’ council and soviets arising out of mass strikes - which cannot solve the problem of decision making-authority and simply evades problem of state authority or any other authority)

[...]

“For centre tendency, the strength of proletariat and its revolutionary capacity flows not from the employed workers’ power to withdraw their labour, but from the power of the proletariat as a class to organise.”

[...]

Organise also in cooperatives, reading circles, newspapers, bicycle clubs etc. And standing in elections to test our strength and increase our sense of solidarity (Rather than trying to manage capitalism). And build of confidence, of course.

Centre tendency: build up the strength of the party everywhere. Both in mass strikes and in struggle for reforms (in and outside parliament), the strength of the party reflected in class solidarity and ability to impose our agenda on the state.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Alright, labour movements or mere "worker movements" should not indeed be confused with worker-class movements, wherein class consciousness is imported into worker movements from elsewhere in the class (and perhaps even outside the class altogether if one speaks of revolutionary consciousness).

That's not what I am saying at all and I think the distinction you are drawing is completely incorrect. However, we both know this already.


Gotta disagree there:

http://communiststudents.org.uk/files/Chapter-3-Notes-TB.pdf

I think this has very little relevance to my quoted post (certainly no more than if you would have said it without the quotation), despite this I understand the point you are making. I would disagree. I don't think it's possible to constitute and sustain the life of the class party, let alone build said party at a time of reflux and defeat in the class struggle. The defeat of the class (even if always temporary) necessarily means the defeat of the efforts of revolutionaries in times when the class struggle is at it's pitch. However, this should not be taken to mean that revolutionaries can or should simply 'pack up and go home'. On the contrary it means that they must continue there work albeit on a different level and of a different nature.

[davidasearles]

the importance of "class consciousness"?

For myself I have adopted the following schema:

nothing is important if it doesn't effectively lead to the overwhelming population, worker or not, agreeing that workers ought to be in collective control of most of the industrial means of production and distribution.

Has "class consciousness" AS A CONCEPT effectively led even those who identify themselves as being class conscious to agreeing that our main goal ought to be collective worker control of most or even any of the industrial means of production and distribution?

I think it hasn't although I would like to be shown where I am wrong.