What makes the working class revolutionary?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Red Saxon]

Could it be the feelings of oppression? While the bourgeois and the upper echelon of society don't have any reason or compulsion to spark revolution?

*I do realize that some people in the bourgeois class will occasionally see the fault of Capitalism, and Lenin did.

[SecondLife]

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

I theory this is consciousness, but in practice this is famine.


What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system?

I don't think workink-class can ever do that, in history this was done always by vanguard power. Except of course in Spain, but this wasn't long life. This is because before working-class becomes enough consciousness, there becomes first famine and hungry man can't learn.


That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?
I don't see difference. Tomorrow always may be too late.

[Decolonize The Left]

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

The unique feature of the working class is its relationship to the means of production.

The working class uses the means of production, produces all the goods and services which are needed to sustain society, and maintains these means of production as well. Yet they are not in possession of the means of production - the capitalist class owns the means of production and backs this ownership with the violence of the state.

This relationship also established another unique feature of the working class: it's universality. No matter the place, culture, political environment, etc... under capitalism there is always a working class.

Hence there are two main features which make the working class unique: the fact that it uses, but is not in possession of, the means of production; and the fact that this phenomenon is universal. This makes the working class revolutionary because the means and the numbers are present.


What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system? That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?

Assuming basic Marxism, upon conducting a successful revolution, the working class will not immediately establish a classless society. On the contrary, the working class will directly oppress and control the capitalist class (through what communists and Marxists call "the state" - that is, the organ of class oppression).

This is what is referred to as 'socialism,' i.e. the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Should socialism succeed, the state will whither away and communism will be established - a classless, stateless, society.

- August

[YKTMX]

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?


I'd say there is more than one feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class. As a start, the centrality of the working classes to the productive processes invests that class with tremendous (potential) power over those processes and the distributions (of goods and services) that follow from them. This is a quality that the other oppressed sections of the population (women, gays, immigrants, oppressed races etc.) don't neccessarily possess. Of course, what I'm saying is that women qua women don't have revolutionary power - women workers qua workers have tremendous power. The feminization of the working class as a whole being one of the most noticeable features of the development of capitalism recently.

Marxists would also tend to say that only the working class can pose a plausible solution to the crisis of capitalism. That is, whilst feminist movements or indigenous movements are opposed to particular aspects of bourgeois development, and can challenege particular bourgeois strategies of dominance, they can't, as such, offer alternatives to capitalism. The working class, however, poses, in-itself, an alternative mode of regulating society i.e. democratization of the workplace under socialist property systems.


What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system? That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?

The distinction between bourgeois and proletarian revolutions is that bourgeois revolutions lead to a generalization of the condition of the bourgeois. All are transformed into either bourgeois or proletarians (the proletarian is forced to view himself as a "mini-Capitalist", bartering over the price of his commodity, his labour-power).

The working class does not, obviously, seek to generalize the condition of wage-labour - although this is a condition for proletarian revolution. Rather, its class interests lie in the overthrow of all hierarchy (if it acts as a class) and the eradication of alienation from the means of production. That is, it seeks to put everyone in the same relationship to the means of production. Another way of expressing that would be to say that it seeks an abolition of class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Put simply:

All past (pre-socialist) revolutions were carried out by classes that did not make up the majority of the population and were not at the "bottom of the latter" so to speak.

The proletariat is the revolutionary class because it is exploited to creates surplus value.

The proletariat only needs state power to reorganize the economy and defend against counterrevolution. Once those tasks are no longer the order of the day, there will be no reason for a state to exist. The proletariat is the majority.

Where the bourgeois and feudal revolutions established a new system of exploitation of the majority by the minority, the socialist revolution ends the exploitation of the majority by a minority once and for all. Under socialism all will become workers. Class distinctions will disappear.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because the working class are completely separated from the means of production (as Marx put it, capitalism is founded upon “the complete separation of the producer from the means of production”), and are the first class to be as such.


This is what is referred to as 'socialism,' i.e. the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Should socialism succeed, the state will whither away and communism will be established - a classless, stateless, society.Technically, the period 'between capitalism and communism' (to which the DotP, that is, enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators by law, is the corresponding political stage) is the revolutionary process of transformation of one into the other. I don't really see how this would count as post-revolutionary.


Could it be the feelings of oppression? While the bourgeois and the upper echelon of society don't have any reason or compulsion to spark revolution?
And peasants didn't have feelings of oppression?

[Niccolò Rossi]

The unique feature of the working class is its relationship to the means of production.

The working class uses the means of production, produces all the goods and services which are needed to sustain society, and maintains these means of production as well. Yet they are not in possession of the means of production - the capitalist class owns the means of production and backs this ownership with the violence of the state.

August, whilst you are correct in identifying the proletariat’s relationship with the means of production and hence it’s place within the process of social production is its defining feature, this is not what makes the proletariat a revolutionary class. Serfs and slaves also had no (or limited) control over society’s means of production and hence were exploited, producing surplus value which was appropriated by the ruling class, however, neither serfs nor slaves where revolutionary classes. In all previous modes of production it was the exploiting classes which were revolutionary, that is, the bearers of new social relations which were to supersede these then decadent modes of production whose social relations had grown to fetter the development of the productive forces. Thus, the exploitation of the proletariat does not make the proletariat a revolutionary class - the only potential bearer of non-exploitative and libratory relations of production, yes - but not an inherent revolutionary one for this reason


This relationship also established another unique feature of the working class: it's universality. No matter the place, culture, political environment, etc... under capitalism there is always a working class.

This is once again close to answer but not complete. The proletariat are a unified and international class, one intrinsic to capitalism, a ‘universal’. This is important because of the class relations of capitalism. Capitalism is a mode of production defined by the dominant social relation – wage labour – into two diametrically opposed classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Other ‘middle’ or ‘third’ classes such as the petit-bourgeoisie proper, the peasantry and bureaucratic and professional layers unlike the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not form independent and unified classes with definite class interests and hence are unable to assert themselves as a class and as the bearer of new, revolutionary social relations. This means that the proletariat is the only class in capitalist society with the capacity to make revolution.

YKTMX elaborates correctly on this point also. However, there is still more than this.

@ Socialist – Me thinks maybe your participation in the “Decadence of Capitalism” study group has given impetus to your interest in this question. Is this correct? I think chapter one hints at this with respect to past modes of production.


What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system? That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes? I think I hint at answer in reply to August above, and YKTMX also deals with this question. The reason is ultimately that the proletariat is an exploited class, the first revolutionary and exploited class. For this reason it has no exploitative property forms or relations of production to defend and impose.

As Marx and Engels write:
“When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletariat as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need - the practical expression of necessity - is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself.” (The Holy Family)

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

This question and your other below are answered here (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_poc_03.html) (what I think is a brief but very good article). The conclusion of the article and the answer to your question is that it is because of the proletariat’s exploitation, its existence as a distinct and unified class inherent in capitalist relations of production and the objective possibility of the success of the proletariat’s historical mission that makes the proletariat the only communist and revolutionary class today.

Hope that helps :)

On an unrelated note to the OP;


Assuming basic Marxism, upon conducting a successful revolution, the working class will not immediately establish a classless society. On the contrary, the working class will directly oppress and control the capitalist class (through what communists and Marxists call "the state" - that is, the organ of class oppression).

This is what is referred to as 'socialism,' i.e. the transition stage between capitalism and communism.

You are mistaken here. Socialism is not merely any transitional phase, we need to be clear here. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the first ‘transitional’ phase, where the proletariat have captured political power but capitalism and class society persist. Socialism, and for that matter communism, can come only after the generalisation of the proletarian revolution, when society can consciously undertake the task of economic transformation of society.

EDIT: NHIA and Zero beat me. I think Zero makes some of the same points I do, and NHIA's post is addressed by my own as well.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think workink-class can ever do that, in history this was done always by vanguard power. Except of course in Spain, but this wasn't long life. This is because before working-class becomes enough consciousness, there becomes first famine and hungry man can't learn.



If the working class is not participating in the revolution then it is not a revolution my friend. No vanguard as you describe it will succeed in emancipating a group of people. If the working class has not achieved the stage where revolution is possible then the acts of a vanguard party will be futile. Only when the time is right and class consciousness is at it's peak can a revolution succeed. No vanguard party can do the work of the class on behalf of them.

[SecondLife]

No vanguard party can do the work of the class on behalf of them.

But why not?

[JimmyJazz]

From a world-historical angle, I think the major point in Marx is that the bourgeoisie, as it advances as the ruling economic and political class, "oppresses" all other classes; but it breaks up and shrinks most classes such as petty bourgeoisie, middle class, artisans, small farmers, and feudal landowners, whereas the proletariat it causes to increase in size, brings together into collective workplaces (which facilitates organization), and generally strengthens it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But why not?

Because if the class is not ready for the revolution and not in the position to do it themselves then the class will not automatically gain this consciousness thorugh the work of the vanguard. Class consciousness needs to be there for the working class revolution to occur and if power is not claimed by the working class themselves the revolution will not be successful in the transfer of power.

[SecondLife]

Because if the class is not ready for the revolution and not in the position to do it themselves then the class will not automatically gain this consciousness thorugh the work of the vanguard. Class consciousness needs to be there for the working class revolution to occur and if power is not claimed by the working class themselves the revolution will not be successful in the transfer of power.
Of course I agree with you. I was just want to draw attention that term "transfer of power" is not so hard today (as it was hundred years ago) and for this isn't needed revolution at all. But instead revolution itself is today more harder to do than it was hundred years ago.

[Bilan]

Because if the class is not ready for the revolution and not in the position to do it themselves then the class will not automatically gain this consciousness thorugh the work of the vanguard.

There is a fundamental problem with this presumption, in that, it presumes the vanguard to be something artificial rather than organic. It appears, furthermore, that is a blurring of i. the vanguard, ii. the vanguard party, iii. and the claim of being the vanguard party - something which some socialist parties claim to be, irrespective of whether this corresponds to reality.
It further negates the how and why the vanguard emerges, let alone how a vanguard party takes on that role. It is not something that is due to volunteerism, but due largely to the organic development of class struggle.

This, however, is going off topic.



Class consciousness needs to be there for the working class revolution to occur and if power is not claimed by the working class themselves the revolution will not be successful in the transfer of power.

And does this presume that class consciousness occurs on an equal scale, or that some attain it faster than others (hence, a logical birth of the vanguard)? This, however, does not equate to a domination of the vanguard over the masses, as that would negate the purpose of the vanguard in the first place - and would instead be a manifestation of hegemonic power.

[New Tet]

On this a few basic questions:

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system? That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?

I'm surprised that the other participants in this discussion missed the salient point of your questions, both of which ask for essentially the same answer
(August comes closest to answering your question, IMHO):

1. The "unique" feature that makes the WC revolutionary in the capitalist epoch is its propertylessness. IOW, it has no property and, as a class, no real stake in acquiring any if it intends to be a class unto itself.

2. A working class revolution is different from all other revolutions in that it aims not at achieving parity with its exploiter but in abolishing all conditions that make the existence of classes possible, i.e., private property and the arbitrary division of labor's product.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And does this presume that class consciousness occurs on an equal scale, or that some attain it faster than others (hence, a logical birth of the vanguard)? This, however, does not equate to a domination of the vanguard over the masses, as that would negate the purpose of the vanguard in the first place - and would instead be a manifestation of hegemonic power.

Of course, a vanguard will develop as I agree class consciousness does not occur equally everywhere. However it is important to differentiate between this vanguard which will form naturally and the vanguard which attempt to lead a class into revolution. This is what SecondLife was referring to.

[Kollentsky]

Any conception of a vanguardist revolution mistakes the essence of democracy;- the society we build will be forged by the mode in which we build it. The process of participation in government can't simply be superimposed upon a population recently 'liberated' by elite elements. In order for a new government to have true legitimacy it has to have been actively built and organised by those intending to run it. To undergo a revolution without this participation would fail to create the socialist ideal of true democracy and participation within society and government, as such, I'd hope most people here wouldn't want anything to do with it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is related to Lenin's definition of socialism as the transitory phase, which seems unnecessary IMHO.

I'm sure that's not what you mean exactly. I disagree with Lenin's transitory phase as I am of the opinion that if imposed this would lead to a bureaucratic class establishing itself as the social elite. So I want the government to be destroyed from the beginning. That does not mean I believe Communism will be established instantaneously. We still need to have a period where we are moving towards this stage, this will be our transition. However, this transition will be successful by dismantling the authoritarian hierarchial capitalist principles of government from the start so that we can move towards the libertarian goal.

[redarmyfaction38]

The working class was formed at the beginning of the capitalist era along with the then revolutionary bourgeois class. Socialism claims that, in the capitalist era, the working class is the revolutionary class that can bring about a world revolution to establish socialism. On this a few basic questions:

What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system? That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?
the working class is the majority class, most of the human population is working class, it will in the first instance be another revolution that places its own class above all others, but because it represents the majority, rather than a minority, the state it creates will serve rather than rule humanity, under the workers state, dictatorship and class interest will gradually dissolve, all will become working class as tasks are divided equally and rewards are divided equally (equally isn't the right word), and communism becomes the right description of our world wide society.
that's the difference between previous revolutions and the workers revolution, the majority seize control rather than a self interested political and economic elite.

[ZeroNowhere]

I guess you're talking about the transitory phase when you say all will become workers and when you say class distinctions will disappear, that means there will be no more workers, since there will be no wage labor.Not quite, because there still would be work. Thus, "With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute." There would, however, be no working class.

[Led Zeppelin]

Even though this has already been answered by some, I'll post my take on it:



What is the unique feature that makes the working class the revolutionary class in the capitalist epoch?

Put simply; its relationship to the means of production. Basically this means that workers are exploited, because they are workers. It means that they have the potential to become revolutionary, because the material conditions enable them to be.

By material conditions I'm referring to the totality of the term, so everything from economic conditions to social conditions in general.


What is the characteristic of the working class that enables it to establish a classless society in which the working class is itself "dissolved" into the classless system?

Given its relation to the means of production, when the class has taken it over and expanded it, and by doing so also develops the material conditions, a new type of society can exist, since the form of society is based in essence on the level of development of the material conditions.

Currently the development of the material conditions is being held back by capitalism, since it has become a "fetter on production" given the anarchy of production which reigns supreme in the economic system.

Buy why can only the working-class change this? Because it's the majority, exploited class, and because its in its interests to do this (to expand the means of production as much as possible and develop the material conditions of society as much as possible).


That is, why can't the working class revolution be another revolution on the lines of the bourgeois or feudal revolutions where there are ruling and ruled classes?

The above answers this question; because the material level of society has advanced to such a level that classes cease to exist.

The basis for feudalism, capitalism, slavery etc. was, in essence, scarcity. Scarcity is based on the means of production available, and the means of production available dictate the level of material conditions of society.

When there is no more scarcity, when society has advanced materially enough to "abolish" it, then classes and class-distinctions will cease to exist in their entirety and "equality will reign supreme".

The whole basis of the Marxist argument is economic in nature. This quote by Lenin explains this better than I could:


The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

[blackstone]

After reading all the responses, i'm convinced that most of you(including Moderators) do not know what the hell you are talking about.

All that jargon and you didn't say shit.

[Led Zeppelin]

If you are referring to my post; if there's something I wrote which you do not comprehend, like a concept which is very common in Marxist theory or a word which you do not know the definition of, feel free to ask for an elaboration or explanation of it.

If you prefer not to do this because you don't want to come over as a person who doesn't know shit, then feel free to use google or dictionary.com, but don't pretend like you actually know what you are talking about while everyone else doesn't because they use words or refer to concepts which you can't understand or comprehend.

The original poster, the member who asked the questions in the first place, seems to have understood it and considered our replies helpful (he's thanked most of our posts). And if he didn't I'm sure he would've asked us to elaborate or further explain what we wrote, instead of proclaiming from an ivory tower that we "didn't say shit".