Displacing Reactionary Ideas in Workers

[the last donut of the night]

As revolutionaries, one of our goals is to displace reactionary thinking among the working class, I presume. But there are several problems to this. Mainly, how is reactionary and revolutionary thinking related and intertwined to economic periods of high and low class consciousness (this assuming class consciousness derives from economic structures), and how do we exactly go about doing this tricky job?

[Multatulit]

As revolutionaries, one of our goals is to displace reactionary thinking among the working class, I presume. But there are several problems to this. Mainly, how is reactionary and revolutionary thinking related and intertwined to economic periods of high and low class consciousness (this assuming class consciousness derives from economic structures), and how do we exactly go about doing this tricky job? But doesn't this assume that this shift can only be brought to the working class by an external agent?

Isn't it in a sense connected to the shift of class in itself to class for itself? I think reactionary ideas in the working class now simply show that it is more a class in itself than it was in the beginning of the 20th century. As I understand it, the role of the revolutionary should be to join in with the struggles of the working class that are, as of yet, still mostly aimed at preserving their interests in the current form of society and explain the relations of capitalist production and what that means for the working class, hopefully helping facilitate the shift to class for itself.
And if a class becomes a class for itself, isn't it freed from most reactionary tendencies, as it is able to engage as a unified class in political struggles?

[devoration1]

Marx argued that the ruling ideas of a culture or civilization are the ideas of its ruling class. What we call reactionary ideas (nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc) are toxic byproducts of bourgeois ideas and values.

There seems to be a false pretense supported by some people on the left that you have to make all workers socialists before you can have a revolution, or that you can incrementally work towards socialism by supporting single-issue campaigns (gay rights, anti-racism, etc).

The working class is full of contradictions, however this has nothing to do with their revolutionary potential, which is linked to their relation to the point of production rather than whether they're all non-racist, non-sexist, etc. A great work on this subject is a short pamphlet by Martin Glaberman called 'Shopfloor Struggles of American Workers' where he writes:


The reality is that in a war which was probably the most popular war that America took part in, workers in fact, if not in their minds or in theory, said that given the choice between supporting the war or supporting our interests and class struggle, we take class struggle.
In the Vietnam war, for example, the picture most people have is of middle-class radicals, the new left, fighting against the war and the hard-hats supporting it and beating up the anti-war students. Yet, more war production was stopped by workers carrying on ordinary strikes in the course of their lives in the plants, than by the whole antiwar movement put together.
There were strikes at Olin-Matheson, which made munitions, at Mcdonnell-Douglas, on the Missouri Pacific railroad and in a couple of instances the strike lasted a couple of weeks and the shortage of planes and war material reached the point where the Johnson government was getting ready to take over the plants to stop the strikes.
It was not because the workers were anti-war: some probably were, some weren't. What the workers were doing was trying to live as human beings in the process of production.
One of the problems is, that the general analysis tends to lead in the hands of most analysts or historians or sociologists or radicals, to saying that that's interesting, workers are militant but what does it all mean? They support capitalism, they're racist, they're sexist, they're divided by skill; skilled workers against unskilled, older workers against younger. That's part of the reality. As long as capitalism exists, that's an inevitable part of the reality, unless one believes you can go around and convince everybody with some abstract definition of solidarity to all become good socialists together and we take over the society.
Marx says a revolution is necessary, not simply because you can't overthrow bourgeois society in any other way, but because without it, you cannot transform human beings to create the kind of society a future society can be. You do not create Communists and then make a revolution. You make the revolution, and that, in his phrase, gets rid of all the crap of centuries.


A good thread on the topic at Libcom:

'Are Workers Reactionary?' (where I also quoted the above passage)

[Kiev Communard]

The reactionary ideas arise out of ignorance and the ruling class propaganda. While it would be impossible and indeed utopian to try to overcome their influence through the sheer persuasion, the revolutionaries should bear in mind that the concentration of "merely" class issues could lead to the potential disaster, if a certain right-wing populist movement comes into life, combining "pro-worker" demagogy with playing upon some workers' reactionary sentiments. Therefore, the leftists shouldn't try to just dismiss the importance of anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. education and agitation, because without this our work among the proletarians would be incomplete.

[devoration1]

In periods of active class struggle, even reactionary workers have a tendency to become 'progressive' and adopt and act on anti-reactionary ideas.

The only way to end the institutional bigotry oozing from the ruling class is worldwide working class revolution. I think that these single-issue causes are dead ends for communist militants- it isn't what we should be doing.

[Dimentio]

Marx argued that the ruling ideas of a culture or civilization are the ideas of its ruling class. What we call reactionary ideas (nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc) are toxic byproducts of bourgeois ideas and values.


I am in partial disagreement with this. The late capitalist society in the western world has embraced individualism and is not longer aiming for the conscious repression of women, ethnic and sexual minorities, but is rather aiming to try to integrate these groups into capitalism.

If capitalism was inherently socially reactionary, it would not accept for example the sexual revolution of the 1960's. In general, when politicians are struggling for reactionary social policies, they are doing it in order not to satisfy the capitalists, but to win votes from rural conservatives, who often are poor and low-educated.

Capitalism is of course not socially progressive either. Its rather socially indifferent, meaning that gay rights for example is dependent on other factors in society than capitalism. Economically, it (capitalism) is reactionary of course.

[RED DAVE]

Marx argued that the ruling ideas of a culture or civilization are the ideas of its ruling class. What we call reactionary ideas (nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc) are toxic byproducts of bourgeois ideas and values.
I am in partial disagreement with this. The late capitalist society in the western world has embraced individualism and is not longer aiming for the conscious repression of women, ethnic and sexual minorities, but is rather aiming to try to integrate these groups into capitalism.Wrong.

What is going on is pseudo-integration: an illusory sham that would have us believe that integration has taken place. Take a look, for example, at the income gap between black and white workers. It has not changed in decades.


If capitalism was inherently socially reactionary, it would not accept for example the sexual revolution of the 1960's.Jeez are you naive. In the end, what the sexual revolution (bourgeois version) did was to attempt to tame sexuality and harness it as a support for the status quo. Fact is that free and frank and open sexuality, of all forms, including the sexuality of young people (with other young people), etc., which have the potential for undermining bourgeois social relation, are far from accepted.


In general, when politicians are struggling for reactionary social policies, they are doing it in order not to satisfy the capitalists, but to win votes from rural conservatives, who often are poor and low-educated.Nonsense. You misunderstand the nature of bourgeois ideologies. All of them: conservative, centrist, liberal, have the purpose of preserving the fundamental exploitative relations of capitalism. There are times when capitalism will use a liberal ideology and other times when it will use a conservative ideology. The point, always, is the preservation of the forceable extraction of surplus value from the working class. Any technique, including genocide, will be used by capitalism to preserve this.


Capitalism is of course not socially progressive either. Its rather socially indifferent, meaning that gay rights for example is dependent on other factors in society than capitalism. Economically, it (capitalism) is reactionary of course.Capitalism is only "socially indifferent" in that it will, up to a point, employ almost any tool to preserve itself. The very fact that capitalism will employ fascism as a tool shows that it is far from indifferent.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx argued that the ruling ideas of a culture or civilization are the ideas of its ruling class. What we call reactionary ideas (nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc) are toxic byproducts of bourgeois ideas and values.

There seems to be a false pretense supported by some people on the left that you have to make all workers socialists before you can have a revolution, or that you can incrementally work towards socialism by supporting single-issue campaigns (gay rights, anti-racism, etc).

While I agree with the last part, I do think that majority political support from the working class, not necessarily electoral support (consider honest membership vs. protest votes), is needed. Otherwise, you end up with Bolshevik elitism from the Third Congress onwards.

Single-issue campaigns around identity politics aren't the answer. Class-based political programs, however, are.


While it would be impossible and indeed utopian to try to overcome their influence through the sheer persuasion, the revolutionaries should bear in mind that the concentration of "merely" class issues could lead to the potential disaster, if a certain right-wing populist movement comes into life, combining "pro-worker" demagogy with playing upon some workers' reactionary sentiments.

My solution is simple:

1) Mass membership
2) Internal awareness of identity issues (and open denunciations of racist, sexist, and similar sentiments)
3) ZERO external campaigns re. identity issues (focus on the minimum program for the DOTP, not on bread-and-butter "labour" issues)

[Dimentio]

Wrong.

What is going on is pseudo-integration: an illusory sham that would have us believe that integration has taken place. Take a look, for example, at the income gap between black and white workers. It has not changed in decades.

While de-facto inequal, it was under late capitalism that the Jim Crow laws were illegalised. A system of which racism was a part of the core identity would not have managed to take such a step without revolution.


Jeez are you naive. In the end, what the sexual revolution (bourgeois version) did was to attempt to tame sexuality and harness it as a support for the status quo. Fact is that free and frank and open sexuality, of all forms, including the sexuality of young people (with other young people), etc., which have the potential for undermining bourgeois social relation, are far from accepted.

In the USA maybe, but in Sweden and most of Scandinavia it is pretty accepted and even encouraged by the authorities.


Nonsense. You misunderstand the nature of bourgeois ideologies. All of them: conservative, centrist, liberal, have the purpose of preserving the fundamental exploitative relations of capitalism. There are times when capitalism will use a liberal ideology and other times when it will use a conservative ideology. The point, always, is the preservation of the forceable extraction of surplus value from the working class. Any technique, including genocide, will be used by capitalism to preserve this.

I did not claim that capitalism has any other concern than the preservation of itself. You have a fascinating ability to misinterpret posts.


Capitalism is only "socially indifferent" in that it will, up to a point, employ almost any tool to preserve itself. The very fact that capitalism will employ fascism as a tool shows that it is far from indifferent.

RED DAVE

Modern capitalism is reluctant to employ fascism. Right now, the most successful variation of "fascistish" mood, islamophobia, is attacking Islam for being "anti-liberal, homophobic, etc...". Yes, capitalism will employ any tool to survive, but it isn't inherently racist, nor anti-racist. It is simply a very pragmatic social system which seeks to keep the inequal access to the means of production and perpetuate a ruling class.

Early capitalism could be far more repressive in the social sphere than even European feudalism, but that was because it was in a construction phase, and needed to stomp out for example the vagrants (putting them into work houses).

[devoration1]

My solution is simple:

1) Mass membership
2) Internal awareness of identity issues (and open denunciations of racist, sexist, and similar sentiments)
3) ZERO external campaigns (focus on the minimum program for the DOTP, not on bread-and-butter "labour" issues)

I disagree. I think the most important contribution of the Bolshevism was the Third International. The place of revolutionaries is not in forming or agitating for mass parties. The future class party (which can only be formed in a period of revolutionary activity and general class struggle such as the time period of 1917-1919 when it first arose) has to be a minority party of militant and educated revolutionaries from all over the world- a single world party. In the present time period, the job of revolutionaries is to regroup themselves into a global revolutionary organization, train militants, engage and intervene in workers struggles, propogate revolutionary press, etc.

The days of the mass party of workers are long over with the 2nd International. Same with any variation of the minimum program. (even only in the domain of combating reactionary prejudice).

I still stand by most of the working classes history, where reactionary workers become revolutionary in intense class struggle. There are examples when strikes and unions engage in reactionary behavior (the Western Federation of Miners printing anti-Asian immigrant posters, the anti-union integration strikes, etc) however, for the most part, divisions of race, religion and immigration status etc are erased in the heat of struggle in place of the proletarian values of internationalism and solidarity.

The only way for groups utilizing identity politics (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc) to overcome division and discrimination is the overthrow of capitalism by the working class. Even victories for various groups (gays, women, etc) are ideological defeats, as they perpetuate the myth that progressive change can be made in small advances leading to a socialist society, that capitalism has the potential to grant permanent reforms, etc. Not one of these so called advances on race, religion, gender and so on are real anyway. Abolishing anti-miscegenation laws hasn't ended discrimination against mixed race couples, abolishing anti-gay legislation (such as the NYC dance floor rules) and enacting hate crime legislation hasn't put a dent in homophobia or attacks on gays, the civil rights act hasn't even slowed racism against national minorities. These are hollow victories at best- all of this energy was diverted from the only real fight that can ensure equality and freedom for all people.