Karl Marx a thirdworldist?

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

"The English Proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possesion of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie"

(Letter to Engels, 7 october 1858)

[AK]

Was stupid of him to say that. I can't see how they can become Bourgeois without owning means of production.

[Adi Shankara]

I know I'll sound like a cultist for recommending this book (I swear, I'm not, esp. because he had no personality cult), but if you want to read good theory on revolution in a post colonialist state (as Burkina Faso was ground zero), then read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Sankara-Speaks-Burkina-Revolution/dp/0873489861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277466851&sr=8-1

literally changed my life. he was a real advocate of the 3rd world. not saying Marx wasn't, but that quote is a little strange...

[ZeroNowhere]

You mean Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm)?

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

No, i have it here in print, Marx said it to Engels, Engels probably said the same to moore, the words are different, supporting the fact engels would have supported marx in his saying it originally, then repeating it to others.

I think Marx is refering to the fact the English Proletariat side with the Ruling class, and mirror their anti worker attitude.

Anyone else have a different opinion about what he meant?

[ZeroNowhere]

Engels repeated it on the exact same day? It does not seem likely. Indeed, Marx replied the next day with:


1. Cuttings from Reynolds’s relating to Jones. You will see for yourself where Reynolds is conveying facts, and opinions based on facts, and where he is venting his spleen. Reynolds is a far greater rogue than Jones, but he is rich and a good speculator. The mere fact that he has turned an out and out Chartist shows that this position must still be a ‘profitable’ one. I have read the speech Jones made in Manchester. Since you did not see his earlier speeches in Greenwich, etc., you couldn’t have detected that he is making another turn and seeking again to bring the ‘alliance’ more into accord with his former attitude.This would be in response to this part from the letter from Engels containing the quote which you had posted:


Reynolds will become a prominent personage thanks to Jones’ manoeuvre; he is the only ‘educated’ man (vulgo ‘scholar') who still poses as the representative of the proletariat — au fond he is as bourgeois as Monsieur Jones has now become, though in a different way. For him this is a Godsend. Be sure to send me the cuttings from his paper you promised me.

The words being different is not much of a surprise, as it's probably in translation.

[scarletghoul]

Marx was referring to the then-emerging 'middle class' section of the proletariat in England which has been bought off using excess wealth stolen from the third world by the British Empire. Only an idiot would deny that a large section of English workers have become 'bourgeoisified' in this way. (Not, of course, members of the bourgeois class, but they do live comfortable lives and share in the exploitation of the third world and therefore ideologically allign with the bourgeoisie.) This is an objective fact and it must be acknowledged. Such bourgeoisified workers are not going to lead the revolution, they don't have 'nothing to lose but their chains'. Third worldists call them the labour-aristocracy, and there is some truth in that.

However the mistake of the Third Worldists (and the mistake of Marx's vague speculation which he could not really have forseen) is their failure to recognise that not all of the English proletariat have become 'middle class' or 'labour aristocrats'; only a section of them have (Just enough to give the impression that 'social mobility' is possible and to create new reserves of bourgeois ideological support). In fact there clearly is a proper proletariat still existing in England and the labour aristocracy does not make up the whole population.

In other words, Marx's observation was correct to an extent but not completely accurate (and neither could it be, or was it supposed to be, it was just a little thing said in a letter way before the labour aristocracy realy emerged)

edit- whoever said it

[A.J.]

No, i have it here in print, Marx said it to Engels, Engels probably said the same to moore, the words are different, supporting the fact engels would have supported marx in his saying it originally, then repeating it to others.


I've seen that quote before but thought it was made by Engels not Marx :confused:


erm....I'll have to look it up.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

PG 58 The model for capitalism:British Political Economy.

Only in the last years of their lives did Marx and Engels recognise, and then in private correspondence rather than by ammending the Polarization model- that the english working class themselves were becoming bourgeoisified.

(the quote from the letter here)

Indeed they went too far, for though their comments might have been valid for a small labour aristocracy, they were not for the vast numbetrs of unskilled workers like the gas workers and the dockers.

From Marx and Marxism, written by a Marxist, he has no need to lie or slander.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't know, did Lenin have more reason to lie or slander?


In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.”
-Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm)

[Robocommie]

However the mistake of the Third Worldists (and the mistake of Marx's vague speculation which he could not really have forseen) is their failure to recognise that not all of the English proletariat have become 'middle class' or 'labour aristocrats'; only a section of them have (Just enough to give the impression that 'social mobility' is possible and to create new reserves of bourgeois ideological support). In fact there clearly is a proper proletariat still existing in England and the labour aristocracy does not make up the whole population.

I cannot even speculate on the situation in England, having neither lived nor worked there, but I would go so far as to say that while the relationship of the proletariat to the means of production has not really changed for the majority in the first world nations, there has still been a significant shift in the ideological superstructure so that even if they do not benefit like the bourgeoisie, even if they do not have the material conditions of the bourgeoisie, nor the relations to production, they do still possess a drive to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie.

I mean, that's Gramsci, as I understand him. I don't know if Maoist Third Worldism borrows from Gramsci at all, but I think he was right.

I recall reading somewhere that in Lenin's writings on imperialism he stated something else about how revolution could not occur in an imperialist society?

[Guerrilla22]

No, he stated that revolution would only happen in advanced industrialized countries.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here is the original letter, written from Engels to Marx: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm

What was meant by the statement was that the working class was coming more under the influence of the bourgeoisie as a result of reforms aimed at making the working class identify with its exploiters. The labor movement in England was striving for better conditions under capitalism instead of the abolition of capitalist conditions all together.

Or, to put it another way:

"...reformism presupposes a reformable capitalism. So long as capitalism has this character, the revolutionary nature of the working class exists only in latent form. It will even cease being conscious of its class position and identify its aspirations with those of the ruling classes. Some day, however, the continued existence of capitalism will no longer be able to rely on a 'reformism in reverse'; it will see itself forced to recreate exactly those conditions which lead to the development of class consciousness and the promise of a proletarian revolution. When this day arrives, the new capitalism will resemble the old, and will again find itself, in different conditions, facing the old class struggle." - Paul Mattick

Marx wrote of this:

"But England, the country that turns whole nations into her proletarians, that spans the whole world with her enormous arms, that has already once defrayed the cost of a European Restoration, the country in which class contradictions have reached their most acute and shameless form -- England seems to be the rock which breaks the revolutionary waves, the country where the new society is stifled before it is born. England dominates the world market. Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England is dominated by the bourgeoisie. ...
Thus, the liberation of Europe, whether brought about by the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for their independence or by overthrowing feudal absolutism, depends on the successful uprising of the French working class. Every social upheaval in France, however, is bound to be thwarted by the English bourgeoisie, by Great Britain's industrial and commercial domination of the world. Every partial social reform in France or on the European continent as a whole, if designed to be lasting, is merely a pious wish. Only a world war can break old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organized English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their powerful oppressors. Only when the Chartists head the English government will the social revolution pass from the sphere of utopia to that of reality. But any European war in which England is involved is a world war, waged in Canada and Italy, in the East Indies and Prussia, in Africa and on the Danube. A European war will be the first result of a successful workers' revolution in France. England will head the counter-revolutionary armies, just as she did during the Napoleonic period, but the war itself will place her at the head of the revolutionary movement and she will repay the debt she owes to the revolution of the eighteenth century."

[Robocommie]

No, he stated that revolution would only happen in advanced industrialized countries.

Lenin said that? In Russia?

[Robocommie]

NHIA, you negrepped me for that post? You really ARE a petty, trifling man-child.

[Zanthorus]

Lenin said that? In Russia?

To clarify, Lenin believed that socialist revolutions would only happen in advanced industrial countries.

[Adi Shankara]

To clarify, Lenin believed that socialist revolutions would only happen in advanced industrial countries.


Whereas Mao and Pol Pot were almost completely the opposite; they believed only Peasant farmers had the ability to lead a revolution, which shows the split in thinking I guess.

[Zanthorus]

Whereas Mao and Pol Pot were almost completely the opposite; they believed only Peasant farmers had the ability to lead a revolution, which shows the split in thinking I guess.

This is not quite correct. From what I understand Mao advocated a "bloc of four classes" consisting of the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and national/patriotic bourgeoisie under the lead of the bourgeoisie in "fedual"/"semi-feudal" countries such as China to instate a New Democratic regime with property nationalised under the democratic rule of the proletariat and peasantry. Pol Pot was the only one who ever believed that only the peasantry were revolutionary.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Thats because there were less working class people in china than there were peasants, in this case, they become the people who have the power to overthrow the state.

In my view,peasants fit into the lumpen proletariat, under the working poor, they must sell their labour, ie livestock, crops and at bad prices, they are given a fraction of the "value" of their produce, so i see no difference in having working class as the main body for revolution in industrialised nations, and peasants in third world nations.

It is just common sense, i dont think it affects the outcome of revolution in terms of the way the new state would be formed afterwards.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The working class is the only revolutionary class today because of its social position.

"...the present-day oppressed class the proletariat, cannot achieve its emancipation without at the same time emancipating society as a whole from division into classes and, therefore, from class struggles." - Engels

Unlike the working class that can only free itself from its current conditions by eliminating property in the means of production, small farmers can only escape from their conditions by expanding their businesses and hiring others to do the work on their farms.

[Zanthorus]

In my view,peasants fit into the lumpen proletariat, under the working poor, they must sell their labour, ie livestock, crops and at bad prices, they are given a fraction of the "value" of their produce, so i see no difference in having working class as the main body for revolution in industrialised nations, and peasants in third world nations.

No offence, but I think you have a lot to learn about Marxist theories of class.

First of all the "lumpenproletariat" is badly defined however for the most part it refers to those who engage in criminal activity like drug dealing or prostitution. I would hope you aren't lumping all peasants under the rubric of criminals.

Second of all, although it's true that the peasantry may in some ways be disadvantaged by the capitalist marketplace there is still a massive gulf between them and the proletariat. The peasantry owns it's own means of production and doesn't have to sell it's labour as a commodity on the market in return for it's means of subsistence. As such it is not the wage-labour system in general that oppresses them but specifically the big-bourgeoisie. In the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks had massive problems with the peasantry because at first they had some support from them and organised land grabs and the breaking up of the large estates however all this did was create an even bigger class of lower and middle peasantry who had no intention of co-operating with the Russian state.

And it is not necessarily the fact that the proletariat is "poor" that necessarily makes them revolutionary but the fact that they produce surplus-value and hence capital. As the very class which capital needs to survive and a class which operates within the direct process of capitalist production they are the best positioned to overthrow capitalism as well as the class with the most objective interest in such an overthrow.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

The contempary notion of lumpen, defined by the BPP in the USA is what i am refering to.

Eldrige Cleaver came up with his notion of the lumpen, which was adopted by the panthers, and it is not just about criminals, but also included those who work, but are the poorest in the community.

Dont come off at the mouth with me, when you have your shit wrong.

God its because of shit like this i fucking hate most leftists.

The reason some class peasants as lumpen, is because they can side with the ruling class in dampening workers struggles to gain bigger buisness, thus enriching their material conditions.

next time think and don;'t be a condecending ass, especially when your wrong

[Adi Shankara]

This is not quite correct. From what I understand Mao advocated a "bloc of four classes" consisting of the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and national/patriotic bourgeoisie under the lead of the bourgeoisie in "fedual"/"semi-feudal" countries such as China to instate a New Democratic regime with property nationalised under the democratic rule of the proletariat and peasantry. Pol Pot was the only one who ever believed that only the peasantry were revolutionary.

But Mao also believed that, of those four classes, the peasantry were the most important since they were the majority, and the "true" proletarians; Pol Pot believed there should only be one social class, and did his best to eliminate everyone who was associated with the cities and urban life, even if they were proletarian factory workers.

[Zanthorus]

aCTUALLY, YOU NEED TO READ WHAT LUMPEN PROLETARIAT ACTUALLY MEANS.

Eldrige Cleaver came up with his notion of the lumpen, which was adopted by the panthers, and it is not just about criminals, but also included those who work, but are the poorest in the community.

Dont come off at the mouth with me, when you have your shit wrong.

God its because of shit like this i fucking hate most leftists.

You know, next time you might want to research what you're talking about before you make posts like this which make you look ridiculous. The notion of a "lumpenproletariat" was developed by on Karl Heinrich Marx who funnily enough was born a hundred and seventeen years before Cleaver.


The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.


Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the state, had command of all the organized public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, Clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes crapuleux [debauched], where money, filth, and blood commingle. The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society.

And the nonruling factions of the French bourgeoisie cried: Corruption! The people cried: À bas les grands voleurs! À bas les assassins! [Down with the big thieves! Down with the assassins!] when in 1847, on the most prominent stages of bourgeois society, the same scenes were publicly enacted that regularly lead the lumpenproletariat to brothels, to workhouses and lunatic asylums, to the bar of justice, to the dungeon, and to the scaffold.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Yes, but was not talking about the way he talked about the lumpen, i was using Cleavers analysis, if you had of asked before neg repping me like a spoilt child, i couldof told you that i meant that, but you felt trying to embaress me, and act like a arse rather than engage, was way cooler.

My god, please just dont act like that to people who have not been communists fopr years, they will abandon their quest for marx and most probably, plant one on you.

[Zanthorus]

Yes, but was not talking about the way he talked about the lumpen, i was using Cleavers analysis, if you had of asked before neg repping me like a spoilt child, i couldof told you that i meant that, but you felt trying to embaress me, and act like a arse rather than engage, was way cooler.

I think you have your wires crossed. I haven't ever used the negrep feature on this board.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

i thought neg rep just meant negative reply? lol

Anyway why do you have to be so angry at the fact, you mistook me for using one analysis instead of another, just apologise,or let it go... maybe.

[Adi Shankara]

wait...there is a negrep feature? 0__o where is this, for I do not see it, lol

[Zanthorus]

@ Subcommandante Marcos: I'm not really angry, you're the one who blew his top as soon as I corrected you for using a non-standard analysis of the lumpenproletariat which I thought was a genuine mistake.


wait...there is a negrep feature? 0__o where is this, for I do not see it, lol

At the top of everyone's post there is a little symbol that looks like a set of weighing scales. You can then click "dissaprove" to take away from their reptutation.

[BAM]

To get back to the letter, another explanation is also to hand as further down, Engels writes:

"For the rest it is a complete mystery to me how the massive overproduction which caused the crisis has been absorbed; never before has such heavy flooding drained away so rapidly."

Engels is still exasperated about the failure of revolution to break out in Europe after the massive crash of 1857. I wouldn't read too much into a few sharp words in private to his best friend.