How/when do workers radicalize?

[punisa]

I'm looking for some modern Marxist theories as to when/how do the workers radicalize themselves and their actions?

let me explain, currently my country, and many others, are seeing a great number of worker strikes.
I've been witness to one of these strikes just yesterday. Industrial production, around 400 workers organized demonstrations.
To summarize, all they shout is "we want work, we want paychecks, we want food".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking anyone, I sincerely express solidarity with all fellow workers, being one myself.
But... why do you demand work? Why go back and demand more of the same?
Paychecks are miserable, they barely survive.
Where is some kind of need to demand more then that?

I'm not saying that they should sing internationale and call for a proletariat revolution (although, that's a nice idea), but why are there no spontaneous non-ideological sparks to begin with?

I know, people are afraid to loose this small string of life they cling on to.
But let's get back to my original question - what would make these people more radical? To make them at least think about what life would be like if they were the ones who run the factory?

And this is an ex-socialist country we are talking about, "stories" about how being a worker in Yugoslavia are everywhere.
Almost every worker over 50 (blue collar at least) is telling me hours of stories on how life was good, secure, joyful and plentiful in many ways.
Aren't these examples motivating younger people in any way?

Would glad to discuss further.

[Steve_j]

I'm not saying that they should sing internationale and call for a proletariat revolution (although, that's a nice idea), but why are there no spontaneous non-ideological sparks to begin with?

Not too versed in it, but perhaps look at some autonomist marxist theory and the italian new left.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Aren't these examples motivating younger people in any way?It seems that this nostalgia isn't making much of an impact at all on the younger generation; which is shameful to say the least, being a part of this generation, I think it's important for younger folks to actually have an interest in the old days of Yugoslavia and the Eastern Bloc. It could be a tool to try and increase class consciousness, which I would say is the answer to your over all question, but I don't think modern class consciousness can come from a time that has passed.

It's difficult to say how or when these workers will radicalize, and begin to have more revolutionary demands and goals. However it is quite necessary for us as communists to assess new methods of raising class consciousness where old methods have failed, as well as exactly what this consciousness entails. Anyone can call for revolution and damn the bourgeoisie, but we need concrete actions and organization to have a chance at taking power. I guess only time and hard work will answer the question.

[punisa]

It seems that this nostalgia isn't making much of an impact at all on the younger generation; which is shameful to say the least, being a part of this generation, I think it's important for younger folks to actually have an interest in the old days of Yugoslavia and the Eastern Bloc.

Agreed, they don't have to actually yearn for traveling back in time.
Despite my comic avatar, there were indeed some fatal flaws in Yugoslavia and Eastern block.
But they must discover and re-discover all the good elements that were implemented in those days, they should build upon those and gradually take further steps towards a new socialist revolution.

Maybe I'm way off in my calculations here, but to me it seems that workers become radical only when they start to feel their immediate future might not be able to sustain their very lives?
Why must it become so bad?

Although I don't wish to see us working people dying on the street from hunger, but if that is the point were we take action then even more troublesome is the fact that capitalists are too well organized to allow for such a drastic state to happen.
They always have a trick up their sleeves and manage to pump in some new money which will keep workers barely surviving, but still showing up for work every morning.

You are right about us communists having the duty of organizing and explaining class consciousness.
But even we are usually so deep in exploitation, that we don't have time to even say the word vanguard-ism.

Back in the old days you had people who were "professional revolutionaries", but comintern is not around anymore to give us food and shelter while we work :p

[mikelepore]

I'm looking for some modern Marxist theories as to when/how do the workers radicalize themselves and their actions?

I disagree with practically the whole worldwide leftist answer to that question. Generally the left believes that the way for the workers to become radicalized is to call for incremental improvements, to make "demands", to be "mobilized", to march on the street, chant slogans. I believe those actions accomplish little or no lasting advancement in radical consciousness, and are useless for that purpose. When such actions win us a wage increase, or a better health and safety regulation, that's good, but these actions do nothing to get a lot of people to think about and discuss the idea of changing the whole social system fundamentally. People can become radicalized only by directly and conceptually discussing the social question -- in what ways does the present system cause humanity's problems, what kind of new system could we have, how might it operate structurally, and how can we go about implementing it.

______________

"We socialists are not reformers. We are revolutionists. We socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society. Let the form take care of itself." -- Daniel De Leon

[The Vegan Marxist]

I disagree with practically the whole worldwide leftist answer to that question. Generally the left believes that the way for the workers to become radicalized is to call for incremental improvements, to make "demands", to be "mobilized", to march on the street, chant slogans. I believe those actions accomplish little or no lasting advancement in radical consciousness, and are useless for that purpose. When such actions win us a wage increase, or a better health and safety regulation, that's good, but these actions do nothing to get a lot of people to think about and discuss the idea of changing the whole social system fundamentally. People can become radicalized only by directly and conceptually discussing the social question -- in what ways does the present system cause humanity's problems, what kind of new system could we have, how might it operate structurally, and how can we go about implementing it.

______________

"We socialists are not reformers. We are revolutionists. We socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society. Let the form take care of itself." -- Daniel De Leon

I'm sorry, I didn't know being a leftist meant being a democrat? As a leftist, I think it's important to take militant action against those that oppress us & exploit us. We live in a world where protests, or even riots, won't work, because all we're doing is wasting gas taking ourselves to these events, in which profits the large industries & having workers to fix the shit we fuck up, which only leads to more exploitation.

I've protested many times in my life, but the act of protesting is useless in its own way. As a leftist, fuck the demands, fuck the chants, & fuck the reforms. We're not here to demand something, we're here to take it back whether they like it or not. We're not here to scream out chants, unless it's the chant of "say your last words" with our guns pointing towards them. And we're sure as hell aren't here to reform the system, in the hopes of rehabilitating it back to "normal". We're here to destroy the system, altogether. Being militantly organized, both workers & peasants, is the most important thing we need to worry about. There will never be a successful bloodless revolution with the aims we're seeking.

[punisa]

I'm sorry, I didn't know being a leftist meant being a democrat? As a leftist, I think it's important to take militant action against those that oppress us & exploit us. We live in a world where protests, or even riots, won't work, because all we're doing is wasting gas taking ourselves to these events, in which profits the large industries & having workers to fix the shit we fuck up, which only leads to more exploitation.

I've protested many times in my life, but the act of protesting is useless in its own way. As a leftist, fuck the demands, fuck the chants, & fuck the reforms. We're not here to demand something, we're here to take it back whether they like it or not. We're not here to scream out chants, unless it's the chant of "say your last words" with our guns pointing towards them. And we're sure as hell aren't here to reform the system, in the hopes of rehabilitating it back to "normal". We're here to destroy the system, altogether. Being militantly organized, both workers & peasants, is the most important thing we need to worry about. There will never be a successful bloodless revolution with the aims we're seeking.

I see your point, but has this been the case at all in recent times?
What example of an "armed" protest we can take a look at?
In my region, I remember none.

You spoke of peasants, we had an interesting situation just two weeks ago here.
Peasants finally realized that the government had let them down too many times (failing to deliver promised subsidizing) so they organized on a large scale.
They used their huge farm tractors and started blocking roads and border crossings.
And we're talking big big organization. 50% of our population here is rural.

In interviews, peasants were as radical as it gets, they claimed everything has failed and how they don't want to listen to any more lies. Game over, they will march and drive their big tractors to the capital and force government to step down etc etc.

Now it is worthwhile to mention that majority of these people are war veterans from the 90's, almost everyone has a big ass weapon supply at their own home. We're not talking just guns, there are rifles, bazookas and whatnot..

By their sheer number they could've brought down the system in matter of days.
Some of my friends were very existing about this, being 100% sure that this is the exact scenario that is gonna happen. Then the students would join, workers would join etc....

I was the only one skeptical, I claimed on numerous occasions that peasants will not do shit. First of all, they are never hungry, the workers are. Second - these "peasants" - they live on their rather large farms and export goods, which makes them very bourgeoisie. I said that they will come to an agreement with the government as soon as the government tosses some good deal.
Especially since I know the real background of this story, rich peasants "milk" the state for subsidizing money which they never actually invest in production, but rather buy luxurious cars and such.

Unfortunately, I was correct.
All this hype about revolutionary peasants was gone with the wind as soon as government threw them another bone to chew.

I'm telling you all these just as an example of a large group that actually has arms. I believe there are many other examples all over the world, but people are not very eager to use them.

So we're still stuck with question number 1 - what will radicalize people to the point where they will start making more action?
I'm not asking this in order to print it and distribute among my co-workers.
I'm just interested in theory, some factual examples of what were the initial sparks that set people off?

BTW, is all history of revolutions connected with theirs strong vanguards?
Hmm.. I kinda like and dislike that idea at the same time :p

[h9socialist]

Forgive for not having the exact citation, but at some point Marx observes that capitalism will not collapse until it has exhausted its possibilities. A good observation, which may provide some insight. But please note: there are a lot of "radicalized" workers today. The real question is what will it take to bring the "radicalization of the working class" to a "critical mass" for a viable revolution to overthrow capitalism?

Here we must be careful. History suggests capitalism is at its weakest during times of crisis -- recession, hyperinflation and depression. The problem is that history also suggests that the knee-jerk reaction of people in the West in such times has been toward the right. Even today, we see the TEA Party movement. It's easy to dismiss them as whackos. However, they follow the same pattern as Hitler in the early 1930s. Workers tend to be the most "socialistic" when there is plenty -- economic good times. In other words, you're more likely to share when your sacrifice for someone else does not mean that you will starve.

So, in fact, we socialists, communists, social democrats, greens and other radicals from the Left must walk a fine line. Just pointing out to workers that capitalism has failed is not sufficient to radicalize them if they don't believe socialism can deliver the goods either. It's just as likely to turn the working class towards selfishness and reaction.

I must tell you that my suspicion is that workers will radicalize in mass only when economics is not their first concern. Socialism is humanity's emancipation from the tyranny that economics imposes. When the working class understands that the economic wherewithal is sufficient, but the hierarchical order of capitalism is the source of injustice then the door is open. The final step comes with the belief that capitalism cannot resolve its problems via its own politics and operations. I suspect we are very near that point. All that is left after that is instilling a belief that socialism is not only possible, but inherent to the ability of workers to maintain their social lives and dignity.

BUT, I'm realistic enough to know that history NEVER works out the way it's supposed to!

[The Vegan Marxist]

Forgive for not having the exact citation, but at some point Marx observes that capitalism will not collapse until it has exhausted its possibilities. A good observation, which may provide some insight. But please note: there are a lot of "radicalized" workers today. The real question is what will it take to bring the "radicalization of the working class" to a "critical mass" for a viable revolution to overthrow capitalism?

Here we must be careful. History suggests capitalism is at its weakest during times of crisis -- recession, hyperinflation and depression. The problem is that history also suggests that the knee-jerk reaction of people in the West in such times has been toward the right. Even today, we see the TEA Party movement. It's easy to dismiss them as whackos. However, they follow the same pattern as Hitler in the early 1930s. Workers tend to be the most "socialistic" when there is plenty -- economic good times. In other words, you're more likely to share when your sacrifice for someone else does not mean that you will starve.

So, in fact, we socialists, communists, social democrats, greens and other radicals from the Left must walk a fine line. Just pointing out to workers that capitalism has failed is not sufficient to radicalize them if they don't believe socialism can deliver the goods either. It's just as likely to turn the working class towards selfishness and reaction.

I must tell you that my suspicion is that workers will radicalize in mass only when economics is not their first concern. Socialism is humanity's emancipation from the tyranny that economics imposes. When the working class understands that the economic wherewithal is sufficient, but the hierarchical order of capitalism is the source of injustice then the door is open. The final step comes with the belief that capitalism cannot resolve its problems via its own politics and operations. I suspect we are very near that point. All that is left after that is instilling a belief that socialism is not only possible, but inherent to the ability of workers to maintain their social lives and dignity.

BUT, I'm realistic enough to know that history NEVER works out the way it's supposed to!

These points, to me, merely point out that another disaster needs to happen for people like here in the States to finally realize that, alright, we had a disaster in '08, & now we're going through another one. People need to see, first hand, capitalism falling down to its knees. Only then will they rise up & take action, in which they know very well that only three outcomes can come about their action: 1) they'll succeed, 2) they'll go to jail, or 3) they'll be killed. So they need to be willing to take the risk in the hopes of gaining #1, while in a three-way chance here. The government has the odds, but the working class needs to realize that we have the numbers.

[bricolage]

These points, to me, merely point out that another disaster needs to happen for people like here in the States...

I don't think this a very healthy way of looking things. Aside from the fact that it involves wishing on something that will undoubtedly cause enormous harm to millions and thus the worst form of 'ends justifies means' though, it doesn't necessarily mean the end will be good in itself. When things are that bad it is just as likely that those suffering will sign up to anything that promises a slight improvement in living conditions, the most obvious problem this involves is opportunists and, sadly, fascists. Communism is possible at any time, not just when things are beyond shit.

[punisa]

three outcomes can come about their action: 1) they'll succeed, 2) they'll go to jail, or 3) they'll be killed.

I like this, indeed we could narrow things down to these 3 possible outcomes.
With number 2 probably being the most probable one to occur if you head out and start doing something today.

What workers will need is to "feel" the size of the movement (if it comes to that). If you are certain there are hundreds of thousands people behind you, you will eventually start worrying about being jailed, simple because the masses will not allow. Sure, then number 3 kicks in...

This might be a rather dumb statement which I'm gonna make now, but I believe people are more afraid/concerned of being arrested in "peaceful" times then to be killed in times of big revolutionary changes.

I remember the Yugoslav wars, young people voluntarily signing up for the army, eager to be dispatched on the front lines, although they knew that many before never came back.
Dunno, what psychological element is behind that, I can only guess. Perhaps people instinctively know that there are not many opportunities to be a part of some large achievement during their lifetimes, and once they feel they have a chance of participating in one - they go for it, even if they are aware it could easily result in their deaths.

[CartCollector]

People need to see, first hand, capitalism falling down to its knees. Only then will they rise up & take action
The problem is that Americans don't necessarily perceive the US as being capitalist. Whenever the government taxes or subsidizes one cent of anything the US is "socialist." So, if another recession or a hyperinflation were to take place, many Americans would blame it on "socialism" and would continue to chase the free-market pot of gold-backed currency at the end of the Constitutional Freedom and Democracy rainbow.

[h9socialist]

The question, if I may be so bold to interpret, is what will cause the working class to "radicalize"? I interpret "radicalize" as meaning "to adopt a political stance -- collectively as a class -- that opposes the continuation of capitalism as a social regime, and seeks to replace it some form of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- or, probably better described as radical democratic socialism."

To me this means that the crisis of capitalism cannot simply be a crisis of economics. If the production system cannot produce enough socialism is not possible. Workers who eat because other workers starve are not going to have a basis for solidarity. This is a purely Marxian observation, from "The German Ideology, I believe. Moreover, capitalism is the first epochal regime in which economics is the great arbitrator of civilization. Go read the subtitle to "Das Kapital, Vol. I" -- The Critique of Political Economy. I contend that Marx was arguing for socialism/communism as a break from economic society. The "Realm of Freedom" using the "Realm of Necessity" only as a prerequisite base for enabling people to pursuits beyond their "daily bread."

If workers do not think economic plenty is possible, they can still get mad at capitalism as they have these last couple of years -- but that doesn't make them radicals, and certainly not revolutionaries! IN THE US the Republican cry against healthcare reform is "we can't afford it." Workers under the age of 50 have been particularly prone to believe that there won't be "Social Security" when they retire. The capitalists want to make sure workers believe there won't be enough. That way they will be more apt to compete with each other rather than cooperate with each other.

In my opinion, a truly socialist consciousness must include consciousness that plenty can exist, that it canexist more readily on the basis of cooperation, that there are many satisfactions of life beyond the struggle for daily bread that are being denied BECAUSE the capitalist system cannot allow them without breaking down the mechanisms and discipline of capitalist hierarchy (thus, capitalism as the impediment to a better life. This to me seems the basic conasciousness necessary for a workers' revolutioon. Capitalism can survive all sorts of crises so long as the working class hasn't fully adopted this consciousness. But if these ideas take hold, a minor crisis could spark a revolution.

[CartCollector]

Well then, we need to show the weaknesses of capitalism. Too much of the blame for America's economic woes are put on either regulation/"socialism" (the Republican viewpoint) or deregulation/lack of a safety net (the Democratic viewpoint), not on capitalism itself. So, what are the weaknesses of capitalism? I'll start a list:

-Constant unemployment
-Taxing workers or reducing worker's wages to support the unemployed who are completely capable of working (unemployment benefits)
-Externalities like pollution
-The cost of measures to reduce externalities (the EPA, carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc)
-Concentration of wealth and control of productive resources into the hands of a few that continues to get smaller over time
-Division of society into classes based on relations to production
-Forcing the majority of people to be separated from the product of their labor and the control of the tools they use (alienation)
-A disproportionate amount of political power being available to those with the most money
-Cycles between excessive unemployment and excessive inflation
-The necessity of constantly expanding markets to keep business profitable, occasionally through war/imperialism
-The tendency of markets to be controlled by less than a dozen sellers (oligopoly) or less than a dozen buyers (oligopsony, like most labor markets), which reduces efficiency, and the aversion of businesses to compete, since competition means less profits

Hopefully this should shatter the yearning for the late 18th century constitutional utopia of freedom and democracy created by the Founding Gods that is so prevalent in America, and explain that even if that did exist, it's not relevant or doable today. Of course, once these problems are explained, you have to explain how proletarian control of the government and the means of production (aka what socialism really is) is better than what we have now. But if people believe capitalism solves everyone's problems they're not going to want to hear anything about socialism.

What do you think? Is there anything that could be added to the list?

[MarxSchmarx]

As much as it pains me to say it, holding elections in your workplace to decide how to proceed is effective.

Where I work, before negotiations, we often have a strike authorization vote - that is, we tell the negotiating team, give us our demands or we will strike. Although turnout on these votes varies, we almost always get 80-100% approval. This is a way of telling the other side we mean, well, business everytime we sit down to figure something out.

The fact of the matter is, they can't operate without our going along. The bare fact of making this explicit every year or so reminds people that we only work for them because we want to, not vice versa.

It's not an unbridgeable chasm from that to worker-run enterprises.