The Problem with Revolution (an essay)

[synthesis]

The Problem with Revolution:

Let me begin this post by reasserting that we need a revolution. Not in some theoretical sense; I don't even necessarily mean a revolution that establishes a socialist state.

I don't know about anywhere else in the world, but where I’m from, things need to get shook up before any real progress can be achieved. If nothing else, Obama's election has proven that the American people's demand for "change" has greatly exceeded the capacity of bourgeois democracy to supply it.

The world has problems that clearly result from capitalism in the most specific sense of the word. You'd think we'd be more prominent in the public mind. But we're not. I think I can show you where we have gone astray.

For starters, there is doubtlessly an idiosyncratic strain of perfectionism among leftists today - the bad kind of perfectionism. In this line of thinking, there are no acceptable solutions to the world's problems which don't involve a revolution that immediately transmogrifies into a "classless, stateless society." If this ideal is not achieved, the participants are dismissed as "reformists" or worse.

If they don't call themselves Marxists, they are considered "class enemies" and treated accordingly. We extend the concept of "solidarity" only to those who think like us.

Now, every political ideology shares these concerns. It's not like we're the only people who act dickishly to those who don't share our point of view.

But it doesn't have to be like this.

Organic versus man-made

We’ve lost track of the foundations of our ideology. Remember that Marx, as a materialist, saw capitalism as something that could be either progressive or reactionary, depending on economic and social realities.

Therefore, property rights were initially progressive, as they protected non-hereditary property against the monarchy, while at the same time, freedom of speech is really only freedom for those who can afford the ink.

Keep in mind that Marx directly based his theory of proletarian revolution on the various bourgeois revolutions against monarchies and aristocracies. These movements were not led by a vanguard espousing the primacy of the bourgeoisie; they were propagated through ideals like freedom of speech and property rights.

Capitalism, in turn, was supposed to facilitate its own demise, and everyday that's looking more and more like the case.

Again, bourgeois revolutions were not a concerted effort on the part of the bourgeoisie; they were against the monarchy more than they were for bourgeois democracy.

It wasn't strictly defined as a "revolution" until after it had taken place - at the time, it was just a bunch of people saying "fuck this shit" and then doing something about it. It was as organic and natural as the salad greens in a hippie's fridge.

It must be understood that the "revolutionary fetish" of 20th century Marxists did not manifest until after Marx was dead.

Adaptation - pros and cons

Marxists in pre-industrial countries like China and Russia knew that their proletariats were too weak for sustained revolution, so they brought in the peasantry and elevated the revolution to an immediate necessity instead of something organic and defensible on authentically Marxist terms.

The "hammer & sickle" was a Russian invention. Marx never included the sickle, because he understood that serfs don't necessarily want public control of the means of production; in general, they just want land, or more of it.

So here we arrive at Leninism - the apotheosis of the revolution above all other forms of class struggle. It certainly evolved from material necessity, but also as a result of the dialogue - the dialectic, if you will - between communists and anarchists; remember that the latter has always been possessed of the same fetish for revolution.

It was exactly this line of thinking - this "revolutionary phrase-mongering", the refusal to collaborate with reformists - that caused Marx to say, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

Of course, you say, this is no longer the 19th century. Marx has been dead for a long time.

True, manual proletarian labor has largely been shifted to “the Third World” and most Western proletarians probably identify more with Office Space than with any sort of communist propaganda.

But how many other qualitative differences exist - at least, any of substance? The fundamental contradictions of global society remain the same - the only difference is that it's more global, more inter-connected. Strategically, all the better for us. Easier to topple a One-World Government than two hundred governments.

A Holistic Approach

Finally, by refusing to engage in pro-proletarian activity outside of revolution, we look lazy and disconnected. By rejecting the struggle in the legal and mainstream political sectors, we come across as inept - unwilling to use every tool at our advantage to truly democratize our society.

We need to accept that real revolution always happens for reasons beyond our direct control. Of course, when revolutionary currents run through society, we must be able to harness them and direct them to the right destination.

If history is any indicator, that time might be soon - within the next ten years. Remember that "the Sixties," as imagined by popular culture, really started around the middle of the decade and extended well into the next one; it was precipitated by the election of Kennedy, who harnessed the progressive hopes of many idealistic young Americans but was ultimately regarded as a "glorious sell-out."

In other words, it was at that point where people understood that their aspirations could not be realized by a charismatic bourgeois reformist; the matter then had to be taken into their own hands.

True, the Sixties didn’t bring revolution, but the West has shifted to the left since then. Most of us are too young to remember a time when “racist” wasn’t strictly pejorative or when hitting women and children was considered acceptable and even encouraged as a means of “instilling discipline.”

But until we reach that point of revolutionary discontent again, we shouldn't shy away from participating in progressive politics of all kinds. It's not "un-socialist" to work for nationalism on the part of oppressed peoples, and it's not "un-socialist" to do what we can with bourgeois democracy so as to make a positive difference in people's lives.

We just can't forget that the system is fundamentally broken; we have to remind people that, in the words of a character from one of my favorite television shows, "for the price it takes to fix it, might as well throw it out and get a new one."

[RGacky3]

If they don't call themselves Marxists, they are considered "class enemies" and treated accordingly. We extend the concept of "solidarity" only to those who think like us.

Very very good point, this is a problmen in my opinion with much of the radical left.


Marxists in pre-industrial countries like China and Russia knew that their proletariats were too weak for sustained revolution, so they brought in the peasantry and elevated the revolution to an immediate necessity instead of something organic and defensible on authentically Marxist terms.

The "hammer & sickle" was a Russian invention. Marx never included the sickle, because he understood that serfs don't necessarily want public control of the means of production; in general, they just want land, or more of it.

A very chauvanistic way of looking at things, and also very specific, things change, ideas change, principles stay the same, once you start trying to make specific setinstone rules and stray away from principles you run into problems.


So here we arrive at Leninism - the apotheosis of the revolution above all other forms of class struggle. It certainly evolved from material necessity, but also as a result of the dialogue - the dialectic, if you will - between communists and anarchists; remember that the latter has always been possessed of the same fetish for revolution.

Nice wordplay, why not say exactly what you mean. Also remember Lenin KILLED a lot of Anarchists.


But until we reach that point of revolutionary discontent again, we shouldn't shy away from participating in progressive politics of all kinds. It's not "un-socialist" to work for nationalism on the part of oppressed peoples, and it's not "un-socialist" to do what we can with bourgeois democracy so as to make a positive difference in people's lives.

We just can't forget that the system is fundamentally broken; we have to remind people that, in the words of a character from one of my favorite television shows, "for the price it takes to fix it, might as well throw it out and get a new one."

I agree, however I believe, (not that its contradicting you), that workplace organizing is MUCH more effective that political organizing. Because as we know, real power lays in the hands of the rich and the Capitalists.

I am personally not a fan perse of Marxist language, because it over simplifies and applies specific concepts/rules to broad issues that have different causes, and treats society as if it were a machine. However I have to say that overall its a pretty good essay, and even using Marxist language makes good applicable points.

[Pogue]

Interesting points.

[Robert]

Kun, how are you different from a reformist?

[Random Precision]

I see what you are trying to say. However, I'm not sure that your concerns that revolutionaries are refusing to participate in mass struggles and "progressive politics of all kinds" are valid. Any sincerely revolutionary group is already out there, fighting against the war, for gay rights, for abortion rights, etc. etc. Those that aren't are on the fringe of the movement, and will remain there.

You seem to cast Leninism as "the apotheosis of revolution above other forms of class struggle", but I don't think that's it by half. Lenin, like Marx, saw revolution as the final event in a continuum of the class struggle under capitalism. You're not really attacking Lenin but the ultra-left adventurism that infected the Comintern early on and again in the third period- which is very far from Lenin indeed, and I don't think any groups on the left today are infected by it except for sectarian groupuscles like the Spartacist League.

Also, bourgeois revolutions are very different than proletarian revolutions. The purpose of the one is to advance the productive forces by establishing a new system of coercion and exploitation, the purpose of the other is to abolish all exploitation and oppression, and to usher in an era that will ensure the free development of every human being. This is what we're talking about when we say that the workers develop consciousness of their historical role, whereas bourgeois revolutionaries are the blind tools of history.

So revolution is not "just a bunch of people saying "fuck this shit". Consciousness of the proletariat's role in history is something that was recognized by Marx as well as Lenin. I would recommend taking a read of the essays in Georg Lukács' History and Class Consciousness for the best presentation of the concept. For Marx's views on the subject, I'd take a read of The German Ideology, particularly this chapter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm).

[Random Precision]

Nice wordplay, why not say exactly what you mean. Also remember Lenin KILLED a lot of Anarchists.

Of course. There was the infamous Vyborg episode of 1920 where he spent all night doing it. The anarchists were walked in and he shot them each in the back of the head. I believe he was up to 500 or so by dawn. Which is impressive, considering he took time to make every one of them beg for mercy and after it was done he urinated on each corpse. :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

So revolution is not "just a bunch of people saying "fuck this shit".
While I take your point re the difference bt a bourgeois and proletarian revolution, I frankly would be happy the day workers all collectively said "fuck this shit" sans class consciousness. Isn't this what happened in the Paris unrisings in 1968? To the Cuban people who welcomed Castro and the fall of Baptista? The masses who joined the Communist Party in Russia after the Bolsheviks took over state power? They all have probably had ittle knowledge of Marxism and the historical role of the proletariate.

[RGacky3]

Of course. There was the infamous Vyborg episode of 1920 where he spent all night doing it. The anarchists were walked in and he shot them each in the back of the head. I believe he was up to 500 or so by dawn. Which is impressive, considering he took time to make every one of them beg for mercy and after it was done he urinated on each corpse. http://www.revleft.com/vb/problem-revolution-essay-t110213/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

umm, I don't think he did that. Saying something rediculous does'nt negate my point. The fact is, the Bolsheviks killed many Anarchists.


They all have probably had ittle knowledge of Marxism and the historical role of the proletariate.

You don't need to have knowledge of Marxism to have class consiousness.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The Problem with Revolution:

Let me begin this post by reasserting that we need a revolution. Not in some theoretical sense; I don't even necessarily mean a revolution that establishes a socialist state.
If not a socialist state, then what do you propose to establish to develop socialism?


I don't know about anywhere else in the world, but where I’m from, things need to get shook up before any real progress can be achieved. If nothing else, Obama's election has proven that the American people's demand for "change" has greatly exceeded the capacity of bourgeois democracy to supply it.
I live in a place like this too, filled with apathetic idiots, filthy rich tourists and property owners, violently anti-communist Cuban exiles, and stupid liberals of course; things really need to shake up here, I definitely understand where your coming from. However this call to "shake things up" isn't exactly a call for revolution, or class consciousness; rather it sounds like your advocating wanton chaos. I know your not, but when "shaking things up" is your goal, plenty or problems can come of it.


The world has problems that clearly result from capitalism in the most specific sense of the word. You'd think we'd be more prominent in the public mind. But we're not. I think I can show you where we have gone astray.
Well how prominent the left among the masses varies wherever you go, but in a lot of cases 'we' have "gone astray" and lost relevance. This however, again, does not mean "shaking things up" will improve our relevance as a valid alternative.


For starters, there is doubtlessly an idiosyncratic strain of perfectionism among leftists today - the bad kind of perfectionism. In this line of thinking, there are no acceptable solutions to the world's problems which don't involve a revolution that immediately transmogrifies into a "classless, stateless society." If this ideal is not achieved, the participants are dismissed as "reformists" or worse.
Except the notion that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism is necessary in order to fundamentally change society towards a progressive, democratic state is exactly correct. While some on the left are more dogmatic and narrow than others, this doesn't make your rejection of "perfectionism" any more valid because its just irrelevant; if movements/organizations are too "perfectionist" than they simply won't achieve their goals.


If they don't call themselves Marxists, they are considered "class enemies" and treated accordingly. We extend the concept of "solidarity" only to those who think like us.

This is just a misleading generalization.


Now, every political ideology shares these concerns. It's not like we're the only people who act dickishly to those who don't share our point of view.

But it doesn't have to be like this.
Except people will always disagree, and people have emotions, so there is no stopping this, and you should stop trying now.


Organic versus man-made

We’ve lost track of the foundations of our ideology. Remember that Marx, as a materialist, saw capitalism as something that could be either progressive or reactionary, depending on economic and social realities.

Wrong, this is a gross misunderstanding of materialism and how Marx viewed capitalism, and whether or not it can be "progressive". Well, during Marx's time, capitalism was still relatively infantile in it's development of imperialism, where as today its much more developed; so this may account for any notion of Marx's hinting at capitalism's "progressiveness", but I don't recall Marx ever stating that capitalism can be either "progressive" or reactionary in such a narrow, black-and-white comparison anyways.

As an economic system, capitalism has definitely run out its potential to substantially develop into a higher stage of development, in fact the early 20th century saw the first signs of capitalist decadence and it's emphasis on it's own stagnation for ability to advance productive forces and technology.
Therefore, property rights were initially progressive, as they protected non-hereditary property against the monarchy, while at the same time, freedom of speech is really only freedom for those who can afford the ink.


Keep in mind that Marx directly based his theory of proletarian revolution on the various bourgeois revolutions against monarchies and aristocracies. These movements were not led by a vanguard espousing the primacy of the bourgeoisie; they were propagated through ideals like freedom of speech and property rights.
While Marx observed many revolutions which were fundamentally (more or less) bourgeois in character, that does not mean the bourgeoisie were the only class involved in said revolutions; revolutions such as the ones in 1848, or Paris in 1871 led to important lessons for the working classes in their struggle for power. For example, IIRC, the revolution of 1848 led Marx to speculate on combining the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, with that of the peasantry; this would later lead actual successes of this strategy in Russia, China, etc.



Capitalism, in turn, was supposed to facilitate its own demise, and everyday that's looking more and more like the case.
In a way, capitalism does facilitate its own demise, by creating it's own grave diggers. However, the ability of these grave diggers to overthrow capitalism, is questionable; so its not as simple as "capitalism will create it's own demise".


Again, bourgeois revolutions were not a concerted effort on the part of the bourgeoisie; they were against the monarchy more than they were for bourgeois democracy.
What evidence or reasoning do you have for this? There were plenty of revolutionaires from the so called "Enlightenment era" and the later 19th century who strongly advocated bourgeois republicanism/democracy.


It wasn't strictly defined as a "revolution" until after it had taken place - at the time, it was just a bunch of people saying "fuck this shit" and then doing something about it. It was as organic and natural as the salad greens in a hippie's fridge.
This shows your lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of revolution. Revolution is a much more concious effort than you think; its not like one day people said "fuck this shit" and went out to abolish monarchies; if that were the case then how come we aren't seeing the same for capitalism? This is such an idealistic view thats so detatched from reality in its advocation of sponteneity that it doesn't have any real substance or actual defined program for posing the question of power, and the ability of the working classes to overthrow capitalism; I really don't see how your for revolution at all. You seem to be more about fucking shit up, and staying as unorganized for the sake of being "organic".


It must be understood that the "revolutionary fetish" of 20th century Marxists did not manifest until after Marx was dead.
What the fuck does this even mean?

Adaptation - pros and cons

Marxists in pre-industrial countries like China and Russia knew that their proletariats were too weak for sustained revolution, so they brought in the peasantry and elevated the revolution to an immediate necessity instead of something organic and defensible on authentically Marxist terms.

Wow, this is new twist on a very old perception, that somehow Marxist's literally imposed revolution unto the masses. I won't even waste time refuting this.


The "hammer & sickle" was a Russian invention. Marx never included the sickle, because he understood that serfs don't necessarily want public control of the means of production; in general, they just want land, or more of it.
Another false generalization based on nothing. Who cares if the hammer and sickle was a Russian invention?

Again, you have completely misrepresented the complex relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry.


So here we arrive at Leninism - the apotheosis of the revolution above all other forms of class struggle. It certainly evolved from material necessity, but also as a result of the dialogue - the dialectic, if you will - between communists and anarchists; remember that the latter has always been possessed of the same fetish for revolution.
Um, what does anarchism have to do with any of this? It wasn't relevant in any of your arguments until now, I don't see how this follows...

What you are most likely referring to as "Leninism" is most likely the product of the conflcit between revolutionary socialist internationalism, and reformist tendencies who supported their respective governments during the First World War.


It was exactly this line of thinking - this "revolutionary phrase-mongering", the refusal to collaborate with reformists - that caused Marx to say, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."
I don't see how this follows either, but I'm beginning to expect this.

Revolutionaries can't work with reformists, its just that simple. We can't make the same mistakes over and over again.


Of course, you say, this is no longer the 19th century. Marx has been dead for a long time.
Yes it has been a long time.


True, manual proletarian labor has largely been shifted to “the Third World” and most Western proletarians probably identify more with Office Space than with any sort of communist propaganda.
And?


But how many other qualitative differences exist - at least, any of substance? The fundamental contradictions of global society remain the same - the only difference is that it's more global, more inter-connected. Strategically, all the better for us. Easier to topple a One-World Government than two hundred governments.

Well when you can organize everyone to topple the entirety of capitalist hegemony in this world with one, fell swoop; give me a call. Until then, we'll do it a one or two at a time, which is more reasonable given historical examples.

A Holistic Approach

Finally, by refusing to engage in pro-proletarian activity outside of revolution, we look lazy and disconnected. By rejecting the struggle in the legal and mainstream political sectors, we come across as inept - unwilling to use every tool at our advantage to truly democratize our society.
This is another falshood. Revolutionares do plenty to organize and fight among workers when there is no revolutionary situation, that is what every communist organization in the world (besides in Nepal) is doing right now. "Legal and mainstream" struggles aren't rejected, only carefully conducted, because "legal and mainstream" mediums aren't exactly friendly to the idea or reality of class struggle or socialism. You'll find that it is a tendency among "Leninists" to advocate the education, agitation, and organization by all means necessary and within reason, when there is not yet a revolutionary situation.


We need to accept that real revolution always happens for reasons beyond our direct control. Of course, when revolutionary currents run through society, we must be able to harness them and direct them to the right destination.
What an idealist! :lol:


If history is any indicator, that time might be soon - within the next ten years. Remember that "the Sixties," as imagined by popular culture, really started around the middle of the decade and extended well into the next one; it was precipitated by the election of Kennedy, who harnessed the progressive hopes of many idealistic young Americans but was ultimately regarded as a "glorious sell-out."
Ha, the sixties? You've got to be fucking kidding me. Ultra-lefitism failed, done deal, end of story, move on.


In other words, it was at that point where people understood that their aspirations could not be realized by a charismatic bourgeois reformist; the matter then had to be taken into their own hands.
Yeah, thats right, they all totally realized this......WAIT its 2009 and millions of Americans have voted in another imperialist with a nice, publicly accepted shell! Remember that thing I said about not making the same mistakes?


True, the Sixties didn’t bring revolution, but the West has shifted to the left since then. Most of us are too young to remember a time when “racist” wasn’t strictly pejorative or when hitting women and children was considered acceptable and even encouraged as a means of “instilling discipline.”
....shifted to the left? For fucks sake, what does that mean? Sure since then things may have gotten better in some aspects, but in most aspects of the economic and political climate in the US, its way fucking worse.


But until we reach that point of revolutionary discontent again, we shouldn't shy away from participating in progressive politics of all kinds. It's not "un-socialist" to work for nationalism on the part of oppressed peoples, and it's not "un-socialist" to do what we can with bourgeois democracy so as to make a positive difference in people's lives.
It's not un-socialist to call for national liberation, your absolutely right, however you again think that this is something "Leninists" oppose, for the most part thats simply untrue.

We cannot "do what we can" with bourgeois democracy because it is a fundamentally flawed system.


We just can't forget that the system is fundamentally broken; we have to remind people that, in the words of a character from one of my favorite television shows, "for the price it takes to fix it, might as well throw it out and get a new one."
Congratulations, your a reformist; and like most you constantly contradict yourself or simply have no idea what your talking about.

[trivas7]

You don't need to have knowledge of Marxism to have class consiousness.
I disagree; Marx provides a scientific understanding of classes, unlike anarchist and bourgeois theorists.

[RGacky3]

I disagree; Marx provides a scientific understanding of classes, unlike anarchist and bourgeois theorists.

So your saying that without reading marx its impossible to realize that your boss makes more money than you, and has way more say than you, even though your doing more of the work? Its impossible to know that rich people have much more an influence over society than you do?

Thats rediculous.

Marx is no more "scientific" than any anarchist understanding of class.

[trivas7]

So your saying that without reading marx its impossible to realize that your boss makes more money than you, and has way more say than you, even though your doing more of the work? Its impossible to know that rich people have much more an influence over society than you do?

Indeed; none of that allows you to understand what classes are or why they're important. General angst over social inequality doesn't make one class conscious.

[RGacky3]

Indeed; none of that allows you to understand what classes are or why they're important. General angst over social inequality doesn't make one class conscious.

No, but it can lead to that, its easy to tell that wage workers are in a different class from Capitalists. None of what I mentioned had a hint of angst, it was realizations.

Class counsciousness is'nt that complicated.

[trivas7]

Class counsciousness is'nt that complicated.
What is class consciousness without Marx?

[RGacky3]

What is class consciousness without Marx?

Understanding what the ruling class is, what the working class is, how the ruling class rules, and so on and so forth, its not so hard.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Understanding what the ruling class is, what the working class is, how the ruling class rules, and so on and so forth, its not so hard.

Right, its not so hard; but the best way to do this is to read Marx and Engels (and Lenin of course).

[RGacky3]

Right, its not so hard; but the best way to do this is to read Marx and Engels (and Lenin of course).

Depends what you mean by best, maybe the most detailed, but not the easiest or simplest.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Depends what you mean by best, maybe the most detailed, but not the easiest or simplest.

Well your right, to read translations of 19th century German, especially when Marx's sentences go on forever is very difficult. However this isn't a competition of how easily one can explain the capitalist system and class struggle, because its actually very difficult to outline and analyze all the factors at hand (let alone get people to agree on them).

I'm not implying that if you come across someone interested in communism, that you should throw a copy of Kaptial at them; I'm simply saying that Marx's analysis, along with further contributions, is a scientific analysis stretching about 160 years of theory and practice. If class consciousness is what one is after, then its highly likely one would come to read Marxist works anyways...

[RGacky3]

If class consciousness is what one is after, then its highly likely one would come to read Marxist works anyways...

I agree. However my point was (which was directed toward Trivas), that its perfectly possible and infact quite common, for people to have a level class consciousness without every reading marx, many times without reading anything.

[trivas7]

[...] its perfectly possible and infact quite common, for people to have a level class consciousness without every reading marx, many times without reading anything.
No it's not. Unless you can tell me what a class is, you're not class conscious. You're implying that Marx is somehow difficult to understand re this, which isn't the case.

I asked you to provide an anarchist definition of class consciousness, which you didn't. B/c you can't, b/c there is no anarchist understanding of class AFAIK. So unless you've read Marx your default understanding of class comes from vague bourgeois characterizations of class, i.e. upper class, middle and lower class tied to income levels. Which makes you as class conscious as Glen Beck.

[Hit The North]

Obviously class consciousness does not depend upon an understanding of Marxism, otherwise it could not have existed before Karl Marx. It would also mean that it must therefore have been conjured into existence by the mighty thoughts of Marx himself. A notion which would, no doubt, have amused Marx very much but impressed him little.

[Hit The North]

Unless you can tell me what a class is, you're not class conscious.I don't think this is true. Class consciousness is being aware of the existence of social classes and having a view which privileges a social class analysis of society. A strict definition of what a class is, is less important. Fortunately other classes like to impress themselves upon us through their economic, political and social power, mode of consumption and cultural signifiers, and are rarely able, even if willing, to hide their existence from us.

Class consciousness is two-fold. It is a recognition of community. Further, it is a recognition of how one's class stands in relation to other classes. This is the stuff of experience for most workers. But we shouldn't mistake class consciousness for revolutionary class consciousness.

[KC]

I think this is true. Fortunately other classes like to impress themselves upon us through their economic, political and social power, mode of consumption and cultural signifiers, and are rarely able, even if willing, to hide their existence from us.

Class consciousness is two-fold. It is a recognition of community. Further, it is a recognition of how one's class stands in relation to other classes. This is the stuff of experience for most workers. But we shouldn't mistake class consciousness for revolutionary consciousness.

I think it is also important to note that class consciousness depends on a positive self-identification of class and not simply a negative one. One can understand the position of their class negatively through understanding the positions of other classes.

Class consciousness, on the other hand, depends on a positive understanding of not only the historical relation of one's class, but also the historical interests and ultimately the historical role of one's class.

This is what separates class consciousness from revolutionary consciousness.

[trivas7]

Class consciousness is two-fold. It is a recognition of community. Further, it is a recognition of how one's class stands in relation to other classes. This is the stuff of experience for most workers. But we shouldn't mistake class consciousness for revolutionary class consciousness.
This makes everyone and no one class conscious since a recognition of how one's class stands in relation to other classes is, as you say, "the stuff of experience". Most workers think of themselves as middle class, whatever they mean by it. Revolutionary class consciousness presupposes class consciousness.

[Hit The North]

I think it is also important to note that class consciousness depends on a positive self-identification of class and not simply a negative one. One can understand the position of their class negatively through understanding the positions of other classes.

I agree, which is why I said it was a recognition of 'community'.


Class consciousness, on the other hand, depends on a positive understanding of not only the historical relation of one's class, but also the historical interests and ultimately the historical role of one's class.

This is what separates class consciousness from revolutionary consciousness.

Do you mean Revolutionary Class Consciousness "depends on a positive understanding of not only the historical relation of one's class, but also the historical interests and ultimately the historical role of one's class"?


Originally posted by trivas7
Most workers think of themselves as middle class, whatever they mean by it.

This is more true in the USA than European capitalist nations, I think. Although ideological mis-recognition is obviously a common countervailing tendency against recognition of one's object class position in all societies where the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class and people live in a condition of alienation.

[KC]

Do you mean Revolutionary Class Consciousness "depends on a positive understanding of not only the historical relation of one's class, but also the historical interests and ultimately the historical role of one's class"?Yep. Good catch.:)

[RGacky3]

I asked you to provide an anarchist definition of class consciousness, which you didn't. B/c you can't, b/c there is no anarchist understanding of class AFAIK. So unless you've read Marx your default understanding of class comes from vague bourgeois characterizations of class, i.e. upper class, middle and lower class tied to income levels. Which makes you as class conscious as Glen Beck.

Well you did'nt ask me to provide one, but since yo uasked now I'll give you one, and its not an "anarchist" definition, its a basic definition.

Class is ones relationship to the means of production which includes wealth.

Working class gets their main income from wage work, does'nt own Capital or resources, generally rents rather than owns a home, and has little say over the workplace and essencailly the economy.

Capitalist class, get most of their income from investments and direct worker exploitation (company profits), generally own more than one home, and have most of the say over the workplace and essencially the economy (through their wealth).

The Petty-Bourgouise class, professional class, and so on. are People who are generally self employed, or have small companies in which they do the majority of the work, and get the majority of their income from that work. they have most of the say ove rtheir workplace (because they are self employed) but not so much say over the economy.

Theres a basic understanding of class.


Most workers think of themselves as middle class, whatever they mean by it. Revolutionary class consciousness presupposes class consciousness.

Most workers think of themselves as working class. Some don't think of themseves as "lower class" because of the implications it brings with it. BTW, this is just in the united states, and the united states native population at that. Remember Capitalism is global.