The 'Other' Workers' Movement by Karl Heinz Roth

[Zanthorus]

I was reading through Steve Wright's book on Italian Autonomist Marxism and the development of the idea of 'class composition', and in the chapter on how the concept of class composition effected historical writing he mentioned a book by a German Autonomist-influenced writer Karl Heinz Roth - The 'Other' Workers' Movement. According to Wright, Roth's book is basically a reinterpretation of German labour history through the lens of the theory of class composition. In particular, the Social-Democratic and Communist parties as well as the trade-unions are seen as expressions of the highly skilled proffessional workers' which existed in the hierarchy of the German factories at the time.

Roth's main intent however, is to sketch the history of the 'other' workers' movement, the de-skilled and unorganised workers' whose struggles are typically passed over studies of the period in favour of a focus on the official institutions of the labour movement. Among other things, Roth sees the Dutch-German Left and the KAPD as expressions of the politicisation of the de-skilled workers who had traditionally been ignored by the organised labour movement, and there is an analysis of working-class struggles during the Nazi period (One section of which can be found on libcom here (http://libcom.org/history/workers-struggles-capitalist-counter-offensive-under-national-socialism) for the interested). The influence of Autonomist theory in terms of the interpretation of the classical workers' movement and the focus on leadership and the 'vanguard' of the Second and Third Internationals as being a reflection of the hierarchies existing within the organisation of the class during the early part of the 20th century seems to be fairly strong here, but Roth takes it a step further in arguing that there was a 'counter-movement' on the part of the de-skilled workers' which prefigured the struggles of the 'mass worker' which Operaismo saw as emerging in the mid-20th century as the basis for new struggles which tended towards the abolition of the capitalist organisation of labour rather than it's management by the working-class.

I am interested if anyone else has heard of or read this book and what they thought. Reading Wright's commentary it seems there are a few problems with Roth's thesis and the evidence provided to support it but as a radical reinterpretation of German labour history it probably deserves some attention.

[Android]

Sounds very interesting. Really must read Wright's book. I had not heard of Karl Heinz Roth or the thesis outlined above. But was not federalism a feature of the German workers' movement. I will admit I am not that well read outside of the KAPD and the German-Dutch left generally, so I could be totally wrong on that. But I suppose federalism and hierarchies are not the smae thing anyway.

[Zanthorus]

Just realised as well that the chapter I am thinking of is published on libcom as a separate article:

The Historiography of the Mass Worker by Steve Wright (http://libcom.org/library/historiography-mass-worker-steve-wright)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't believe that the parties exclusively represented 'highly skilled workers,' but rather that the membership was a mixture of workers of different skill levels and elements of other classes. The main point, and problem, was that the leadership of these parties was made up almost exclusively of individuals from the middle classes.

"How long it will be until the Socialists realize the folly and inconsistency of preaching to the workers that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves, and yet presenting to those workers the sight of every important position in the party occupied by men not of the working class." - James Connolly

“The general coordination of workers’ organizations to capitalism saw the adoption of the same specialization in union and party activities that challenged the hierarchy of industries. Managers, superintendent and foremen saw their counterparts in presidents, organizers and secretaries of labour organizations. Boards of directors, executive committees, etc. The mass of organized workers like the mass of wage slaves in industry left the work of direction and control to their betters.” - Paul Mattick

“The labour party becomes the party of the 'people.' Its appeals are no longer addressed simply to the manual workers but to 'all producers,' to the 'entire working population,' these phrases being applied to all the classes and all the strata of society except the idlers who live upon the income from investments. Both the friends and the enemies of the socialist party have frequently pointed out that the petty bourgeois members tend more and more to predominate over the manual workers.” - Michels, Robert. Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. [Emphasis added].

[Zanthorus]

I'm not sure about that NHIA. I did a quick search and August Bebel was originally a carpenter's apprentice while Freidrich Ebert (the leader of the SPD when they voted for war credits) started off his working life making horse saddles. I don't know about you but that to me doesn't sound very 'petty bourgeois'. I think it is too easy and displays a kind of formalism to suggest that the problem is simply members of other classes being members of workers' organisations, which would lead to the corrollary thesis that if only we could purge our organisation of non-workers all counter-productive trends could be avoided. I think one of the positive things about Roth's thesis is he seeks to understand negative trends within the workers' movement in terms of contradictions existing within the working-class itself rather than seeing them as impositions from the outside to the 'true' workers' movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Roth's main intent however, is to sketch the history of the 'other' workers' movement, the de-skilled and unorganised workers' whose struggles are typically passed over studies of the period in favour of a focus on the official institutions of the labour movement. Among other things, Roth sees the Dutch-German Left and the KAPD as expressions of the politicisation of the de-skilled workers who had traditionally been ignored by the organised labour movement [...]

I am interested if anyone else has heard of or read this book and what they thought. Reading Wright's commentary it seems there are a few problems with Roth's thesis and the evidence provided to support it but as a radical reinterpretation of German labour history it probably deserves some attention.

Damn, it's not on Google Books. :(

Are you trying to link this with commentary on the "precariat" today? Coincidentally, last night I listened to Jack Conrad's Podbean "Bourgeois Commentators on Class," and here he mentions the likes of Guy Standing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

“The labour party becomes the party of the 'people.' Its appeals are no longer addressed simply to the manual workers but to 'all producers,' to the 'entire working population,' these phrases being applied to all the classes and all the strata of society except the idlers who live upon the income from investments. Both the friends and the enemies of the socialist party have frequently pointed out that the petty bourgeois members tend more and more to predominate over the manual workers.” - Michels, Robert. Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. [Emphasis added].

So this author who eventually became a fascist mocks worker political hegemony as a central component of Erfurtism? :glare:

There are ways to become a Volkspartei without admitting non-workers or adopting positions that clearly conflict with worker interests.

[Jose Gracchus]

A "people's party"? What are you, a supporter of Völkisch now?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nope. That was Lars Lih's retention (in Lenin Rediscovered) of Kautsky's term in Das Erfurter Programm:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA96&dq=kautsky+volkspartei&hl=en&ei=dP8LTsC_D9CAsgL5oYzjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kautsky%20volkspartei&f=false

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think it is too easy and displays a kind of formalism to suggest that the problem is simply members of other classes being members of workers' organisations, which would lead to the corrollary thesis that if only we could purge our organisation of non-workers all counter-productive trends could be avoided.

Actually, I don't think there can be a permanent revolutionary workers organization. I've written about this here on RevLeft and elsewhere, so it would be easier to refer to that than to hash it all out again.

But it appears Marx and Engels were guilty of the "formalism" that you accuse me of:

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"'...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.' Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen.

“Lawrence moved that Marx be President for the ensuing twelve months; Carter seconded that nomination. Marx proposed Odger: he, Marx, thought himself incapacitated because he was a head worker and not a hand worker.” - The General Council of the First International: Minutes

“...when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty- bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time. ...In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Engels

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, we already know the dogma: spontaneism and the belief that councils can instantaneously be informed of every single policy area in society and address this, not to mention provide social services during upheaval.

[Jose Gracchus]

^^^ Nope. That was Lars Lih's retention (in Lenin Rediscovered) of Kautsky's term in Das Erfurter Programm:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA96&dq=kautsky+volkspartei&hl=en&ei=dP8LTsC_D9CAsgL5oYzjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kautsky%20volkspartei&f=false

Thanks for giving yet one more reason to dump the useless old scab.


Yes, we already know the dogma: spontaneism and the belief that councils can instantaneously be informed of every single policy area in society and address this, not to mention provide social services during upheaval.

That's not what is required, and somehow its more plausible that some historically dead corpse like the SPD (which itself was a complete failure, not the "class for itself") will somehow maintain some mass party which will build up think tanks truly committed to somesort of deliberate planning toward a totally different society, sustained through psychological commitment to DER PROGRAMMMMMM!!!

Now there's something that is truly imbecilic and implausible. It'd get absorbed into capital, and its corollaries parliamentarism and scabbing faster than you can say "Karl Kautsky".

Must you really derail every thread on a thought-provoking topic with your incessant and spammy self-promotion?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for giving yet one more reason to dump the useless old scab.

One-liners don't exactly explain "one more reason to dump." :confused:

Historically there's always been the problem of appealing just to manual workers, or public-sector unionized workers, or pensioners (as opposed to "workforce and pensioners" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workforce-and-pensionersi-t154871/index.html)). Now, of course, if the "other workers movement" that emerges avoids trying to appeal to skilled workers, less precarious workers, etc.

However very simplistic back in the day, the Volkspartei / proletarian hegemony approach tries to solve this problem. Today it comes in the form of Dispossessed Classes (and maybe, maybe Communitarian Populist Fronts).

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's not what is required, and somehow its more plausible that some historically dead corpse like the SPD (which itself was a complete failure, not the "class for itself") will somehow maintain some mass party which will build up think tanks truly committed to some sort of deliberate planning toward a totally different society, sustained through psychological commitment to DER PROGRAMMMMMM!!!

Bakunin's line, which has been repeated by various posters on this board countless times, was that workers could not possibly be conscious unless they were in "action." "That's not what is required" implies that they gain knowledge through action, action, and more action.


It'd get absorbed into capital, and its corollaries parliamentarism and scabbing faster than you can say "Karl Kautsky".

Most institutional or institutions-based revolutions do not use parliamentary routes.


Must you really derail every thread on a thought-provoking topic with your incessant and spammy self-promotion?

NHIA made his usual rant against "permanent organization," which necessitated a response of some sort. Councilism is itself a dogma, and not a very good one for workers at that.