Why is the working class revolutionary?

[bricolage]

The basic principle of marxism and anarchism (even if is not reflected in practice but many operating under these titles) is that the working class is the only revolutionary class within capitalism. It is only the working class that possesses the social agency to bring about communism.

... but could it be said that there is a similarly unifying idea of why it is only the working class that can play this role, or rather that there are differing and competing conceptions at play here. Does everyone see revolutionary agency as emerging from the same factors?

[Ocean Seal]

The basic principle of marxism and anarchism (even if is not reflected in practice but many operating under these titles) is that the working class is the only revolutionary class within capitalism. It is only the working class that possesses the social agency to bring about communism.

... but could it be said that there is a similarly unifying idea of why it is only the working class that can play this role, or rather that there are differing and competing conceptions at play here. Does everyone see revolutionary agency as emerging from the same factors?
The working class suffers the most from capitalism and has the most to gain from the fall of capitalism. It is also the most industrious class producing the majority of the wealth for a very small minority of the population. I see it kind of as pressure building up. The workers have the majority of the population, the majority of the wealth is produced by them, a disproportionate amount is allocated to the rich, its only a matter of time before they discover that they can and should take that wealth for themselves and the common good.

[nuisance]

I believe that the understanding of the working class being the agent of revolutionary social transformation boils down to the class being the people who reproduce capitalist normality- that is through the means of work- rather than the deterministic view of inherent contradictions forcing the inevitable end of Capital.
Hence this role can only be fully destoryed by the operating class in their refusal to comply and downing tools, resulting in the violent break from society.

Don't know if this really answers the question, but yeah.

[gorillafuck]

Because only the working class is capable of ending the power of the ruling class and overthrowing class society.

[Catmatic Leftist]

How many people who are billionaires would voluntarily give up their comfort and breadth of influence and political clout?

[Zanthorus]

Does everyone see revolutionary agency as emerging from the same factors?

I would say there is certainly conflict between those who see the workers' revolutionary capacity as being their ability to bring production to a halt (Which is very typical of some forms of Anarchism), and those who see it in their ability to organise collectively in defence of their own interests, thus breaking down the alienation produced by capitalist society (The classical proposition put forward by Marx and Engels). The former tends to be a motive factor behind the 'folded arms' concept of revolution where the workers' simply stop doing anything and ignore the state apparatus until society crumbles ("instead of political revolution, a general strike for socialist revolution."), whereas the latter is behind the (Again classical Marxist. See Engels' writing on the 'general strike' in e.g The Bakuninists at Work) idea that workers' take political power and use it to destroy the world of 'freedom, equality, property and Bentham' by force.

[Rafiq]

Because the working class is the driving force of society. Society's don't need a bourgeoisie or a petit-bourgeoisie. But all society's need a working class.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because the working class is the driving force of society. Society's don't need a bourgeoisie or a petit-bourgeoisie. But all society's need a working class.It's a good thing we want to abolish the working class, then.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is not universal agreement as to why the working class.

But in my view, there have been different "revolutionary" classes throughout history, but in capitalism it is the working class. This is because in the structure of capitalism labor and the bosses are the two biggest social forces and they are in conflict (to varying degrees at different times in different places). Both workers and the ruling class are necessary for capitalism to operate, but it is also necessary for workers to be exploited in capitalism - this is where profits come from. So the interests of the capitalists is to take as much value out of labor whereas for the worker, their desire is not be impacted by severe exploitation.

[graymouser]

1. The working class is different from every other class in that its aims can only be achieved and secured by permanently ending the system of private property. If workers make gains vis-a-vis capitalism, as really happened in the 20th century in Europe and the USA, these gains are only temporary concessions that the bosses will take away as soon as possible. I would argue that this process is in fact underway today. To make new conquests the workers need to overtake the whole system and remove the capitalists from the production process.

2. Capitalism does something different than any previous social system. Whereas before capitalism 70%-90% of humanity is based in the country, capitalism pulls increasing masses into the cities. If you looked at the peasantry in past epochs, they were constantly spread out and dependent for their lives on annual cycles of planting and harvesting - which greatly diminished their revolutionary potential. Capitalism organizes the workers in centralized locations. This is one of those factors that I think is overlooked a lot. Capitalism creates natural organization of the worker.

[Tjis]

The working class creates more value than they use. The difference between the value that they produce and the value that they use is surplus value, and it goes into the pockets of the capitalists. The reason this happens is because it is one of the few ways in which someone without property of their own can still make a living. So the working class is dependent on capitalists to provide them with jobs, and the capitalist is dependent on the working class to provide them with surplus value.

Though the working class and the capitalists are dependent on each other, it is clearly the capitalist who has the better deal. It is in the interest of capitalists to keep this situation as it is. Though individual capitalists might 'see the light', as a whole, the capitalist class won't.

On the other hand, the working class does have a good reason to change this situation. Furthermore, the working class has the means to achieve this. As I said before, the capitalists are dependent on the working class. An organized working class can use this dependency to force the capitalists into various concessions (increasing the power of the working class), eventually enabling them to take over the means of production altogether.

With the petty-bourgeoisie (people who have a small business and make money from both their labor and their property) it is less clear. For some of them, a revolution might be in their best interest, while for others it isn't. However, capitalists are not dependent on the petty-bourgeoisie. The petty-bourgeoisie is not in a position to force capitalists into making concessions, and they are definitely not in a position to take over the means of production.

This is why the working class is the vehicle for revolution in a capitalist society.

[chegitz guevara]

If you read graymouser's reply, it is basically the Communist Manifesto in two paragraphs.

[Raúl Duke]

The basic principle of marxism and anarchism (even if is not reflected in practice but many operating under these titles) is that the working class is the only revolutionary class within capitalism. It is only the working class that possesses the social agency to bring about communism.

... but could it be said that there is a similarly unifying idea of why it is only the working class that can play this role, or rather that there are differing and competing conceptions at play here. Does everyone see revolutionary agency as emerging from the same factors?

When Marx said that "the working class is the revolutionary class" he didn't mean rigidly that in the proletarian/marxist/whatever revolution the only revolutionaries will come from blue-collar workers, etc.

What he meant was simply that this class in particular had much to desire and gain from a revolution in the sense that it would end their wage labor exploitation. From a materialist perspective, thus its the working class that has a clear material reason for wanting revolution. However, do not be surprise if people from other classes might "switch sides" and join us or if certain members of the working class might end up not joining the working class...there are always outliers.

The "why" is simply that the working class, in its relation to the economy, is directly exploited by capitalism/capitalists/corporations and this brings them into conflict with capitalists/capitalist entities when their interests conflict. Out of this conflict arises class struggle which could lead to many things. Strikes might end up being resolved when management caves in, when the workers (or their union bosses) capitulate/give-up, etc or such things can intensify and maybe even reach the level of full-blown revolution.

However, I bet other posters above have already answer your question adequately so...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would say there is certainly conflict between those who see the workers' revolutionary capacity as being their ability to bring production to a halt (Which is very typical of some forms of Anarchism)

It's found in Marxism, too, such as Bill "when we strike now, we strike with our hands in our pockets" Haywood.

Likewise, this notion:


whereas the latter is behind the (Again classical Marxist. See Engels' writing on the 'general strike' in e.g The Bakuninists at Work) idea that workers' take political power and use it to destroy the world of 'freedom, equality, property and Bentham' by force.

...is found in a number of different anarchist writings. One that comes to mind in particular is Emile Pouget's discourse about how revolutionaries should annihilate any capitalist resistance with any means at their disposal, including chemical weapons, until the earth is totally rid of any resistance to worker's rule.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I believe that the understanding of the working class being the agent of revolutionary social transformation boils down to the class being the people who reproduce capitalist normality

What made the bourgeoisie the agent of revolution over feudalism?

Was the bourgeoisie ever revolutionary?

Nic.

[Savage]

Was the bourgeoisie ever revolutionary?


Considering that the Bourgeoisie came from the exploitative feudal class, I would say not.

[nuisance]

What made the bourgeoisie the agent of revolution over feudalism?

Was the bourgeoisie ever revolutionary?

Nic.
I''m gonna be risque and say no.
The Bourgeoisie was not revolutionary, in the sense I am speaking, that is of being socially revolutionary, since it maintained a class based society. This meant that this revolution in property/production produced relatively similar/relatable social roles- put crudely, master and slave. A shift towards communism via the working class preventing the continuation of capitalist normality, through the destruction of class society, would be a socially transformative revolution.

[Zanthorus]

It's found in Marxism, too, such as Bill "when we strike now, we strike with our hands in our pockets" Haywood.

A fair point I suppose.


Considering that the Bourgeoisie came from the exploitative feudal class, I would say not.

I don't know much about the actual history of the transition from feudalism to capitalism but Marx and Engels seemed to think that the bourgeoisie at least in part from master craftsmen in the middle-ages who began accumulating wealth beyond the boundaries that could be kept in check by the guild system.


This meant that this revolution in property/production produced relatively similar/relatable social roles- put crudely, master and slave.

The relationship between master and slave is qualitatively different from the relationship between capitalist and worker. The slave was tied to a particular master, the serf to a particular lord, his personage was owned by his master. The proletarian owns themselves as a commodity and can sell themselves to any capitalist they wish. They are not tied to this or that capital, they are tied to the total social capital.

The surplus-labour performed by the serf or slave for their master was carried out for the production of surplus use-values for the lord, the master owned them for the use-value producing nature of their labour. The proletariat is bought by the capitalist because of the twofold nature of his labour, as on the one hand being a force capable of creating definite use-values and on the other a force capable of creating exchange-values. The primary interest of the capitalist is no longer the specific concrete nature of the workers' labour but it's capacity to produce surplus-value. Production under capitalism is thus not limited by the restricted needs of individuals, the accumulation of capital is limitless when compared with the accumulation of use-values.

The transition from a society in which goods only took on the commodity-form occasionally to one in which this became the dominant form of wealth, the establishment of a world-embracing market which makes all people's of the world dependent and interlinked with one another, the increasing centralisation of the state administration, these are just a few of the things that made capitalism a revolutionary social force in comparison to the modes of production which it destroyed.

[nuisance]

The relationship between master and slave is qualitatively different from the relationship between capitalist and worker. The slave was tied to a particular master, the serf to a particular lord, his personage was owned by his master. The proletarian owns themselves as a commodity and can sell themselves to any capitalist they wish. They are not tied to this or that capital, they are tied to the total social capital.
So one is still subordinate to the other, except with the alledged freedom to pick ones master. The slave class still is playing out the same role as previously, that is generating the conditions to maintain the status quo. The social role is still similar- hierarchical relations owning individuals time and labour, whether that be through individual realtions or a totalistic system, which is still composed of individuals.
So, capitalism hasn't transformed society through revolution, but more so altered the existing social roles, making it not a social revolution.


The surplus-labour performed by the serf or slave for their master was carried out for the production of surplus use-values for the lord, the master owned them for the use-value producing nature of their labour. The proletariat is bought by the capitalist because of the twofold nature of his labour, as on the one hand being a force capable of creating definite use-values and on the other a force capable of creating exchange-values. The primary interest of the capitalist is no longer the specific concrete nature of the workers' labour but it's capacity to produce surplus-value. Production under capitalism is thus not limited by the restricted needs of individuals, the accumulation of capital is limitless when compared with the accumulation of use-values.
The role, however, is still to generate production from a subordinate class.


The transition from a society in which goods only took on the commodity-form occasionally to one in which this became the dominant form of wealth, the establishment of a world-embracing market which makes all people's of the world dependent and interlinked with one another, the increasing centralisation of the state administration, these are just a few of the things that made capitalism a revolutionary social force in comparison to the modes of production which it destroyed.
Is that not only the strengthening of the ruling social order- consolidating the apparatus of domination over the subject on an international scale, which is the logical conclusion of a communicatively global planet.

[Proukunin]

I''m gonna be risque and say no.
The Bourgeoisie was not revolutionary, in the sense I am speaking, that is of being socially revolutionary, since it maintained a class based society. This meant that this revolution in property/production produced relatively similar/relatable social roles- put crudely, master and slave. A shift towards communism via the working class preventing the continuation of capitalist normality, through the destruction of class society, would be a socially transformative revolution.

I believe that the Bourgeois were revolutionary before they were in power. That being said they overthrew feudal society and that is revolutionary, But as soon as they come into power and capital and class is created they become reactionary.

The working class and peasant class are truly revolutionary.

[piet11111]

The basic principle of marxism and anarchism (even if is not reflected in practice but many operating under these titles) is that the working class is the only revolutionary class within capitalism. It is only the working class that possesses the social agency to bring about communism.

... but could it be said that there is a similarly unifying idea of why it is only the working class that can play this role, or rather that there are differing and competing conceptions at play here. Does everyone see revolutionary agency as emerging from the same factors?

Because all other classes need things to stay the same while the working-class is the only one that has an interest in overthrowing the capitalist order of things..

[nuisance]

Just to clarify, I am talking about why I reckon the working class is/is percieved as the agent of social revolution. That is the destruction of existing social roles, meaning class society, the existence of a subordinate and ruling class.

[Exakt]

Whether Marxists like it or not, there really isn't one single definition of what constitutes a revolution, and whether Marxists like it or not, Edelweiss Pirate's definition is just as legitimate as ours (whether it is more useful is another question). Yes, you can say the relationship between a slave and master verus a wage labourer and a capitalist is qualitatively different - and I'd agree with that - but when you define, as Edelweiss Pirate does, a revolution to mean something synonymous to a complete abolishment of class society - which previous bourgeoisie revolutions didn't - then its just a debate over semantics.

[Zanthorus]

So one is still subordinate to the other, except with the alledged freedom to pick ones master. The slave class still is playing out the same role as previously, that is generating the conditions to maintain the status quo.

Can we please stop with the absurdly overblown rhetoric? A capitalist is not a master and a proletarian is not a slave. They are different classes from different historical epochs with different methods of the combination of the objective and subjective factors of production and the extraction of surplus-value from the immediate producers.


The social role is still similar- hierarchical relations owning individuals time and labour, whether that be through individual realtions or a totalistic system, which is still composed of individuals.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that capitalism is comparable to individuals dominating one another because although 'domination' in this case is a result of impersonal forces, the relations of capitlaism are still composed of individuals. Whatever the case, capital is not a hierarchy, it is the accumulation of surplus-value.


So, capitalism hasn't transformed society through revolution, but more so altered the existing social roles, making it not a social revolution.

This is just semantic nitpicking over the meaning of the word 'social revolution'.


The role, however, is still to generate production from a subordinate class.

Of course, I forgot, all forms of hierarchy are exactly the same. They are all contrary to the eternal principles espoused by our resident Proudh... er, I mean Anarchists.


Is that not only the strengthening of the ruling social order- consolidating the apparatus of domination over the subject on an international scale, which is the logical conclusion of a communicatively global planet.

Except there were other modes of production in existence when communication began to be extended worldwide. None of these survived capitalism's embrace, they were all integrated within the system of generalised commodity production.

[nuisance]

Can we please stop with the absurdly overblown rhetoric? A capitalist is not a master and a proletarian is not a slave. They are different classes from different historical epochs with different methods of the combination of the objective and subjective factors of production and the extraction of surplus-value from the immediate producers.
The master and slave comparsion, as I said was crude, was an example of subordination, nothing else. You are the one who picked it up and ran a mile.
No one has claimed that each mode of production are the same, but only that the bourgeosise was not a socially revolutionary force, but a revolutionary mode of production. You haven't disproven this idea, just thrown Marxist rhetoric out your pram.


I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that capitalism is comparable to individuals dominating one another because although 'domination' in this case is a result of impersonal forces, the relations of capitlaism are still composed of individuals. Whatever the case, capital is not a hierarchy, it is the accumulation of surplus-value.
Are you say that capitalism is not composed of social relationships? This are composed of individuals, as you concede, and so can't exist without the individual pursuit of private property and its accumulation.
Capital relies on private property, which is necessarily hierarchical/creates hierarchical roles- with the individual having to sell their labour to another and this structure being replicated in everyday life.




This is just semantic nitpicking over the meaning of the word 'social revolution'.
No. It is about what social revolution is, and what it isn't.




Of course, I forgot, all forms of hierarchy are exactly the same. They are all contrary to the eternal principles espoused by our resident Proudh... er, I mean Anarchists.
No one has suggested hierarchies are the same, other than they need to be not only opposed but attacked. As for the Proudhon name drop, his work is barely relevant to anarchists these days, I mean other than coining the term anarchist and providing some pretty cool slogans and quotes.




Except there were other modes of production in existence when communication began to be extended worldwide. None of these survived capitalism's embrace, they were all integrated within the system of generalised commodity production.
That doesn't negate what was said...

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ignoring the dialouge between yourself and Zanthorus, let me give a stab at responding.


I''m gonna be risque and say no.

The reason I asked the question was not be snarky or sarcastic. Obviously if, as from the perspective of Marxism, you answered the question affirmatively, then we would be in a bit of a pickle. The bourgeoisie was not a revolutionary class* because it 'reproduced feudal normalcy'.


The Bourgeoisie was not revolutionary, in the sense I am speaking, that is of being socially revolutionary, since it maintained a class based society.

Here it's not clear what you mean by 'socially revolutionary'. The bourgeoise revolutions over feudalism were most definitely social revolutions. From the perspective of historical materialism we understand a social revolution to be a change in the class nature of the state and the interests it defends.

Of course, you seem to have a different meaning when you use the term, which only presents a problem in so far as we don't identify it, which you've done subsequentially in dialouge with Zanthorus


This meant that this revolution in property/production produced relatively similar/relatable social roles- put crudely, master and slave. A shift towards communism via the working class preventing the continuation of capitalist normality, through the destruction of class society, would be a socially transformative revolution.

Here's another question. Certainly the peasantry in feudal society or the slave class in antiquity were the 'reproducers of a societal normalcy'. Were these once revolutionary classes also? Was communism always on the agenda of history?

Nic.

* And yes, as a historical materialist I must say it was