being petit bourgeois or bourgeois and leftist

[nothing but left]

What do you think, is it wrong to be bourgeois and still be involved in some leftist political organization? (not actually exploit workers, but for example be son or daugher of petit bourgeois or bourgeois father/mother) I mean, I always hear people saying that people who aren't poor have nothing to do within a political organization that speaks of people getting fired from their jobs, people not having any money, etc. because they don't know what that feels like. What do you think?

[Communist]

Marx addressed this issue. (Quoted from memory)

"Just as in older times, when part of the nobility went to the side of the bourgeoise, so now part of the bourgeoise goes to the side of the proletariat, in particular some bourgeois ideologists, who have attained an understanding of the movement."

So it fine for a non-working class person to join a *Marxist* political organization, as long as they agree with proletarian goals.

[00000000000]

Well...you can't help what kind of class or family you're born into. If you're the son or daughter or w/e of someone who is bourgeois and choose to fight or support the Left, I see nothing wrong with that
No one should be condemned by accidents of birth, would be the same as if a Jew born in Israel decided to support the Palestinian cause.

[tachosomoza]

Would a white person in America who decides to work with organizations designed to bring Leftist thought to historically oppressed minorities be wrong? I didn't think so. A comrade is a comrade.

[thesadmafioso]

Althusser on the question of combating ones initial class instincts and adopting the demands of the proletariat in the field of political theory.


To be a Communist in philosophy is to become a partisan and artisan of Marxist-Leninist philosophy: of dialectical materialism.

It is not easy to become a Marxist-Leninist philosopher. Like every ‘intellectual’, a philosophy teacher is a petty bourgeois. When he opens his mouth, it is petty-bourgeois ideology that speaks: its resources and ruses are infinite.

You know what Lenin says about ‘intellectuals’. Individually certain of them may (politically) be declared revolutionaries, and courageous ones. But as a mass, they remain ‘incorrigibly’ petty-bourgeois in ideology. Gorky himself was, for Lenin, who admired his talents, a petty-bourgeois revolutionary. To become ‘ideologists of the working class’ (Lenin), ‘organic intellectuals’ of the proletariat (Gramsci), intellectuals have to carry out a radical revolution in their ideas: a long, painful and difficult re-education. An endless external and internal struggle.

Proletarians have a ‘class instinct’ which helps them on the way to proletarian ‘class positions’. Intellectuals, on the contrary, have a petty-bourgeois class instinct which fiercely resists this transition.

A proletarian class position is more than a mere proletarian ‘class instinct’. It is the consciousness and practice which conform with the objective reality of the proletarian class struggle. Class instinct is subjective and spontaneous. Class position is objective and rational. To arrive at proletarian class positions, the class instinct of proletarians only needs to be educated ; the class instinct of the petty bourgeoisie, and hence of intellectuals, has, on the contrary, to be revolutionized. This education and this revolution are, in the last analysis, determined by proletarian class struggle conducted on the basis of the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory.

As the Communist Manifesto says, knowledge of this theory can help certain intellectuals to go over to working class positions.

Marxist-Leninist theory includes a science (historical materialism) and a philosophy (dialectical materialism).

Marxist-Leninist philosophy is therefore one of the two theoretical weapons indispensable to the class struggle of the proletariat. Communist militants must assimilate and use the principles of the theory: science and philosophy. The proletarian revolution needs militants who are both scientists (historical materialism) and philosophers (dialectical materialism) to assist in the defence and development of theory.

The formation of these philosophers runs up against two great difficulties.

A first – political – difficulty. A professional philosopher who joins the Party remains, ideologically, a petty bourgeois. He must revolutionize his thought in order to occupy a proletarian class position in philosophy.

This political difficulty is ‘determinant in the last instance’.

A second – theoretical – difficulty. We know in what direction and with what principles we must work in order to define this class position in philosophy. But we must develop Marxist philosophy: it is theoretically and politically urgent to do so. Now, this work is vast and difficult. For in Marxist theory, philosophy has lagged behind the science of history.

Today, in our countries, this is the ‘dominant’ difficulty.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/philosophy-as-weapon.htm

[Caj]

Mikhail Bakunin stated in his God and the State that the revolution is doomed to fail without "the bourgeois" who "embrace the . . . cause of the proletariat[.]":


[A] portion of the youth -- those of the bourgeois students who feel hatred enough for the falsehood, hypocrisy, injustice, and cowardice of the bourgeoisie to find courage to turn their backs upon it, and passion enough to unreservedly embrace the just and human cause of the proletariat -- will assume the role of fraternal instructors of the people: thanks to them, there will be no occasion for the government of the 'savants.'
(emphasis in original)

[CAleftist]

What do you think, is it wrong to be bourgeois and still be involved in some leftist political organization? (not actually exploit workers, but for example be son or daugher of petit bourgeois or bourgeois father/mother) I mean, I always hear people saying that people who aren't poor have nothing to do within a political organization that speaks of people getting fired from their jobs, people not having any money, etc. because they don't know what that feels like. What do you think?

Recognizing the conflict between the working class and the ruling class, and taking the side of the working class, isn't limited to the proletariat.

However, a lot of bourgeois and petit bourgeois will be reactionary to the end.

[Nuvem]

bourgeois students who feel hatred enough for the falsehood, hypocrisy, injustice, and cowardice of the bourgeoisie to find courage to turn their backs upon it, and passion enough to unreservedly embrace the just and human cause of the proletariat -- will assume the role of fraternal instructors of the people


bourgeois students


fraternal instructors of the people


Lenin was born into a comfortable middle-class family. Lenin's father Ilya was elevated into the Russian Nobility for his work in the government bureaucracy, and, after being appointed director of Simbirsk's primary schools in 1874, was entitled to wear a blue gold-embroidered uniform and be addressed as "Your Excellency". Although later Soviet biographies tried to disguise his background, Lenin himself never made any effort to hide the fact that he was a nobleman by birth.[/URL]Lenin argued explicitly in one of his most famous works What is to be Done? that intellectuals from "bourgeois" backgrounds have a vital revolutionary role to play bringing political ideas to the working-class movement: "By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia."


Friedrich Engels was born in Barmen, Prussia, at the time an expanding industrial metropole, as the eldest son of a wealthy German cotton manufacturer.


Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 at 664 Brückergasse in Trier... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin#cite_note-Ronald_W._Clark_1989_p._4-3) Karl's father, Hirschel Marx, was middle-class( Petty bourgeois ) and relatively prosperous, owning a number of Moselle vineyards...

Please, explain to me how this is NOT an argument that Bakunin has made in favor of Vanguardism. I will repeat again for emphasis,


students who feel hatred enough for the falsehood, hypocrisy, injustice, and cowardice of the bourgeoisie... will assume the role of fraternal instructors of the people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#cite_note-12)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin#cite_note-5"]

[Caj]

Please, explain to me how this is NOT an argument that Bakunin has made in favor of Vanguardism.

It is in favor of vanguardism. Bakunin stated consistently throughout his life after become an anarchist that he was in favor of a vanguard organization. In fact, he formed his own that was known as the International Brotherhood (or the Alliance). In his National Catechism, despite seeing the need for the revolution to be "coordinated by a secret organization [,]" he also said that "The Revolution must be made not [I]for but by the people and can never succeed if it does not enthusiastically involve all the masses of the people, that is, in the rural countryside as well as in the cities." Again, in The Program of the International Brotherhood he explained that although "the Revolution must everywhere be achieved by the people," and that "revolutions are never made . . . by secret societies[,]" there is still the need of a vanguard organization that would involve itself with two tasks, "[1.]to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts [propaganda], and [2.] to organize, not the army of the Revolution -- the people alone should always be that army -- but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people." The fundamental difference between Bakuninist vanguardism and Leninist vanguardism is that Bakuninist vanguardism sees no role for the vanguard in leading or ruling over the proletariat. In fact, if you look at the original quote that you (and I) believe is in favor of vanguardism, he warns against the possibility of a vanguard ruling over and oppressing the proletariat, which he refers to as the "the government of the 'savants'"
(all emphases are from original)

[Seresan]

Lenin himself wasn't exactly from a 'poor and oppressed' family... I mean, you really only need a working conscience to be a leftist. I think that support from as much of the bourgeois as possible would help the proletariat a great deal in the long run.

I'm an odd mix. My father is unemployed, but my mother is quite high up in her current company and attends meetings with the CEO. All three of us are definitively left in our own ways, regardless of relative social position.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In such a petty-bourgeois country as Germany these ideas certainly have their own justification. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers’ party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. The time, moreover, seems to have come. How the Party can tolerate the authors of this article in its midst any longer is to us incomprehensible. But if the leadership of the Party should fall more or less into the hands of such people then the Party will simply be castrated and proletarian energy will be at an end.

"As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is therefore impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. If the new Party organ adopts a line corresponding to the views of these gentlemen, and is bourgeois and not proletarian, then nothing remains for us, much though we should regret it, but publicly to declare our opposition to it and to dissolve the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad." - Marx and Engels

-----

"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..." - Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: A Life.

“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, pp. 36 . (Institut marksizma-leninizma)

-----

"...for this very reason, the General Council was some months ago precluded from recognizing a Slavonian section exclusively composed of students;

"That according to the General Regulations V, I, the General Rules and Regulations are to be adapted 'to local circumstances of each country;'

"That the social conditions of the United States, though in many other aspects most favorable to the success of the working-class movement, peculiarly facilitate the intrusion into the International of bogus reformers, middle-class quacks, and trading politicians.

"For these reasons, the General Council [of the IWMA] recommends that in future there be admitted no new American section of which two-thirds at least do not consist of wage laborers." - Marx

"The International Working Men's Association, based upon the principle of the abolition of classes, cannot admit any middle class Sections." - Resolutions of the Hague Congress of the International Working Men's Association, Part IV, Section 2, September 1872.

-----

"A long discussion then took place as to the mode of presenting the address and the propriety of having a MP with the deputation; this was strongly opposed by many members who said working men should rely on themselves and not seek for extraneous aid." - Minutes of 29 Nov. 1864, in Gen. Council F.I. 1864-66

"... part of the Englishmen on the Committee wanted to have the deputation introduced by a member of Parliament since it was customary. This hankering was defeated by the majority of the English and the unanimity of the Continentals, and it was declared, on the contrary, that such old English customs ought to be abolished." - Marx

In 1865 the General Council announced it had refused the proposal of a rich English lord who had offered an annual subsidy to be the organization’s “protector.”

[JustMovement]

In principle I think any friend of the movement, as long as they are not exploiters, should be welcome. But in reality things are not that simple.

Higher class people, who often have had the opportunity of a better education, better "manners", who their whole life have been expected to speak their minds and "lead", can often do quite well within leftist organisations. I am sure I am not the only one who has seen organisations whose leadership is working class only in a very extended definition of the term. However these bourgeois revolutionaries, perhaps through not fault of their own, bring their own class prejudices, and influence organisations so that they start reflecting bourgeois society. Furthermore, a bourgeois revolutionary always has the opportunity to turn his back to the struggle, seeing that he or she is not propelled by need to take it up in the first place, making them more opportunistic. I am very suspicious of students, for example, taken as a revolutionary class, and I think that 68 was a great example of how a revolutionary situation (at least in Italy) was subverted by students.

So my qualified answer is this, upper class comrades are still comrades, however to preserve the necessarily working class nature of any revolutionary group they should be kept out of positions of authority.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I like the irony of Althusser including Lenin's views of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries like Gorky.

But yeah, there is really (or shouldn't be) any reverse snobbery in the movement towards comrades who were brought into this world by people who haven't 'tempered the steel', so to speak.

I was born to a Lawyer, I went to a private nursery and primary school. It really wasn't my choice and didn't reflect my personality nor desires, so I don't see why that should hold me back, especially when you consider that, in any case, the working class is (in any post-feudal society), the majority of the mass of society. To an extent, this question thus has more pertinence in the context of those from a petty-bourgeois, rather than a bourgeois background, for the reason that petty-bourgeois children such as myself are certainly at threat from proletarianisation in any case, and from the fact that the petty bourgeoisie are not necessarily an exploitative class; indeed, as Capitalism is developing, it is becoming clear that the petty bourgeois class itself is actually fracturing as some of its members become exorbitantly wealthy (the doctors, the lawyers, the public sector middle-managers who are not actually of the 'managerial class', so to speak) and some become vulnerable to the process of proletarianisation that has clearly been taking place in many developed nations in the past 30-40 years.

[electro_fan]

not necessariyl , i am from a petit bourgeois background myself, but being pb doesn't mean that you can't become proletarianised, some shopkeepers for instance work 20 hours a day for very little rewards. also, if your parents have savings and the like then these can become worthless in an economic collapse, so i dont think its really accurate to say that everyone who is pb or from a pb background can not understand what its like to be poor. many people who were working class also become pb through work or just luck.

if you're actually proper bourgeois though, like your dad is the CEO of some large monopoly or something, then i would wonder wtf you were doing in a left wing organisation and probably be a bit suspicious of your motives and dedication. there is a big difference between pb and bourgeois, pb can go to the side of the working class in a revolution, but bourgeois very rarely would

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx addressed this issue. (Quoted from memory)

"Just as in older times, when part of the nobility went to the side of the bourgeoise, so now part of the bourgeoise goes to the side of the proletariat, in particular some bourgeois ideologists, who have attained an understanding of the movement."

So it fine for a non-working class person to join a *Marxist* political organization, as long as they agree with proletarian goals.


But, comrade, as a voting member or just a non-voting member with other rights?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But, comrade, as a voting member or just a non-voting member with other rights?

Who are you to decide that people should be excluded from democracy because of their background?

Such idiocy is the enemy of democracy, and thus, Socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who are you to decide that people should be excluded from democracy because of their background?

Such idiocy is the enemy of democracy, and thus, Socialism.

In addition to NHIA's posts above, the pre-war SPD didn't (thankfully) allow peasants or shopkeepers into the party's voting membership.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes but I think the pre-war SPD were a load of fucking morons, so that doesn't really satiate my desire to attack your point.

You're essentially saying that, because I was brought up (in half) by a lawyer, and because I went to a private school until the age of 11, I shouldn't be allowed voting rights in a revolutionary organisation.

Read that previous sentence back to yourself, then think about how much sense my posts make in comparison to yours, and then accept the probable realisation that curbing democracy to satisfy your own petty bureaucratic desires is actually not a good idea.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes but I think the pre-war SPD were a load of fucking morons, so that doesn't really satiate my desire to attack your point.

You're essentially saying that, because I was brought up (in half) by a lawyer, and because I went to a private school until the age of 11, I shouldn't be allowed voting rights in a revolutionary organisation.

I don't care whether you went to the most expensive private school in the world. I'm more concerned about whether you've had a working-class occupation at all, let alone such occupation(s) for a reasonable period of time, in your life. I have. Have you?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

but being pb doesn't mean that you can't become proletarianised, some shopkeepers for instance work 20 hours a day for very little rewards.

That's not what proletarianization is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, but that's absolutely not the point.

It could easily be the case that someone in their late teens/early twenties could still be a student and not be in a position to sell their labour at that point in time, yet be a committed Marxist.

Should they be excluded from the vote?

Or are you recommending that such a person (who is all too common in the UK) should up sticks, leave education and proletarianise themselves? Some sort of extreme social nihilism you've got going on there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, but that's absolutely not the point.

It could easily be the case that someone in their late teens/early twenties could still be a student and not be in a position to sell their labour at that point in time, yet be a committed Marxist.

Should they be excluded from the vote?

Yes. I was in that position a decade ago myself.


Or are you recommending that such a person (who is all too common in the UK) should up sticks, leave education and proletarianise themselves? Some sort of extreme social nihilism you've got going on there.

You haven't ever heard of combining full-time studies with part-time work, or part-time studies with part-time work, or part-time studies with full-time work, have you? I was not able to complete my degree studies without a full-time job, anyway. So, to explain this education-work mix to the more non-worker posters of this board:

1) In the tail end of high school and the first couple of years of degree studies, combine full-time studies with part-time work, and get full-time summer work where possible.

2) In the later years of degree studies, reduce the full-time studies to part-time and get at least part-time work, better if full-time. Some degree programs are designed specifically this way, with a work experience requirement for graduation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I do work part-time. That's not the fucking point. The point is that I do that to provide extra income for myself.

Many people are slightly better off financially than me, and as students don't need to do the extra part-time work in addition to their full time studies. Most degrees inthis country are not designed to encourage extra part-time work. That is why they are full time programmes.

So, stop beating about the bush and answer me:

Do you think that students who are committed to revolutionary Socialism should be denied voting rights simply because they have parents with enough money to support them whilst they study?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, as stated explicitly in the earlier post of mine.

[JustMovement]

Yes, but that's absolutely not the point.

It could easily be the case that someone in their late teens/early twenties could still be a student and not be in a position to sell their labour at that point in time, yet be a committed Marxist.

Should they be excluded from the vote?

Or are you recommending that such a person (who is all too common in the UK) should up sticks, leave education and proletarianise themselves? Some sort of extreme social nihilism you've got going on there.

They should absolutely be excluded, or not excluded but at least marginalised. There is nothing revolutionary about a student. There is nothing revolutionary about occupying a university. Students are only revolutionary subjects in as much as they are workers. I think an unemployed young person is more revolutionary than a student, as they are less in the grasp of the system.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Have a fun revolution chaps.

Let me know when my understanding of revolutionary Socialism as codified by Marx, Engels and Luxembourg qualifies me to contribute to democracy in your revolution.:rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They should absolutely be excluded, or not excluded but at least marginalised. There is nothing revolutionary about a student. There is nothing revolutionary about occupying a university. Students are only revolutionary subjects in as much as they are workers. I think an unemployed young person is more revolutionary than a student, as they are less in the grasp of the system.

This is an excellent, excellent way to absolutely repulse and repel my generation of people from Socialism and to make even the most ridiculous anti-communist propaganda seem somehow legitimate.

There is no Socialism with democracy. I must repeat. There is no Socialism with democracy.:rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most degrees in this country are not designed to encourage extra part-time work. That is why they are full time programmes.

And those same programs, as I said before, can be split in two, with a full-time studies component and a part-time studies component later. Business degrees, engineering degrees, technology degrees, and some higher trade studies are, for example, tailored this way. There is opportunity for proletarianization already with part-time work in the first part, and another opportunity with the work experience requirement for graduation.


This is an excellent, excellent way to absolutely repulse and repel my generation of people from Socialism and to make even the most ridiculous anti-communist propaganda seem somehow legitimate.

There is no Socialism with democracy. I must repeat. There is no Socialism with democracy.:rolleyes:

What about "It's a middle-class ideology with middle-class support, so it's not working-class"? :glare:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why would anyone want to extent their degree and accrue even more debt, just for the sake of self-proletarianisation to satisfy your petty bureaucratic anti-democracy rules?

So, a party that allows all interested parties to join with voting rights is a middle-class one with middle-class support? Can you even back that up with even an ounce of fact?

Do you really think that you can ever form a mass party without the support of non-working students?

It's interesting that a few hours of part-time work marks a distinction between having revolutionary credence, in your eyes. Says a lot about your understanding of the facts on the ground, comrade.

[JustMovement]

I am not making a moral judgement of anyone based on their class background. I think you can be the son of a CEO and be a good person and so on.

Having said that I think that there are very good reasons to make this point about students right now. Sections of the left focus a lot of attention on students, have recruiters outside of universities signing students up, selling papers, etc. However I think this emphasis on students can really alienate working class people, who view the movement as something of an intellectuals club. Students also do not have the economic clout of workers, who are able to withhold their labour. They have more to lose if they are arrested in direct actions, protests, as it could affect their future employment opportunities.

I am not anti-democratic, I think a post-revolutionary society should engage all sections of society, regardless of their previous class background. However I think that the actual revolutionary movement should, while drawing support from all sections of society, be managed by members of the working class, and work on building organic intellectuals.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would anyone want to extent their degree and accrue even more debt, just for the sake of self-proletarianisation to satisfy your petty bureaucratic anti-democracy rules?

My post above dealt with the structure of degree programs, not with your mischaracterization. Again, both the earlier component of full-time studies and the later component of part-time studies must be completed, plus the work experience, in order to obtain degrees that are structured in that manner. Completing just the first component only nets a certificate or diploma.


So, a party that allows all interested parties to join with voting rights is a middle-class one with middle-class support?

Look at why so many workers aren't members of left groups today, why they're stacked by radical chic journalists and other freelancers, tenured profs with subordinate research staff, and the Student Left.


Do you really think that you can ever form a mass party without the support of non-working students?

It's interesting that a few hours of part-time work marks a distinction between having revolutionary credence, in your eyes. Says a lot about your understanding of the facts on the ground, comrade.

You don't understand the Erfurtist strategy from the days of the original Socialist International (the Second):

1) Build a working-class base of support.
2) Obtain support from more workers.
3) Hegemony / Volkspartei ("people's party"): Only after 1) and 2) are done can the party-movement accommodate non-worker issues, to the extent that those issues don't conflict with worker issues and to the extent that non-workers still don't have voting rights.

[craigd89]

They should absolutely be excluded, or not excluded but at least marginalised. There is nothing revolutionary about a student. There is nothing revolutionary about occupying a university. Students are only revolutionary subjects in as much as they are workers. I think an unemployed young person is more revolutionary than a student, as they are less in the grasp of the system.
This is probably one of the dumbest things I ever read.

[craigd89]

They should absolutely be excluded, or not excluded but at least marginalised. There is nothing revolutionary about a student. There is nothing revolutionary about occupying a university. Students are only revolutionary subjects in as much as they are workers. I think an unemployed young person is more revolutionary than a student, as they are less in the grasp of the system.
So is a young junkie who panhandles and lives in the gutter more revolutionary then the middle class marxist?

[JustMovement]

So is a young junkie who panhandles and lives in the gutter more revolutionary then the middle class marxist?

Yes.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It could easily be the case that someone in their late teens/early twenties could still be a student and not be in a position to sell their labour at that point in time, yet be a committed Marxist.

Should they be excluded from the vote?

"the General Council was some months ago precluded from recognizing a Slavonian section exclusively composed of students"

--------

In the end you always get the same thing: "But what about me?!?" That's why it's not really worth spending a lot of time debating individual members of the petty-bourgeoisie on this question. It is important however to warn working-class movements about the dangers of petty-bourgeois saviors, managers, experts, etc., hijacking things and putting their own class interests at the forefront.

[nothing but left]

To answer the question much above about me being bourgeois or petty bourgeois, i think I am petty - my grandfather used to work for the UN so he has a high pension income. my mother is an editor of arts program on the radio. Couple of years ago my mother sold this apartment we were living in to buy the apartmen my grandfather is currently living in, since he couldn't with his pension. Now they live together and I live alone in an apartment they bought when they sold a house my grandfather owned. They pay for my cost of living, although I do work part time (Im a student). My family owns one more apartment (bought also when we sold a house). This apartment in which my mother and grandfather live it's worth a lot, that's why they sold out old apartment to buy this one. When my grandfather dies (he is 93) my mother will sell that apartment and buy two apartments, which means we will have 4 apartments.
She will live in one and rent three. With her low pension and money from the rent, she'll have aproximently 1000 euro income. When my grandfather dies, she won't be able to pay for my costs in other apartment so i'll have to move in with her. I don't know, is this petty bourgeois?
The organization i belong to doesn't like petty bourgeois or bourgeois people involved in the movement. I always had a feeling we are living better off than other people and i always hid it, because I was embaressed that i have leftist attitudes and I am not proletarian. I am lying to my organization; I never mentioned my grandfather's previous job, only my mothers, and I didn't tell them I live alone, because if they knew, they will call me bourgeois and tease me, ask me why am I here since I don't have much of a money problem, etc. And what's worse, I agree with them. Why would I call myself a comrade and put myself in a position of other comrades, who work all their lives and whose parents have severe money problems? I can't tell them the truth because they will see me differently and I hate it because i think they like me. I can't lie either, it's tearing me apart. And I don't wanna leave the organization because i always had leftist way of thinking and I really wanna contribute to a fair society. I want everyone to have everything, not just some to have everything. It's this; i hate my class position and I can't change it, I am so embaressed by it I can't even talk to anyone else, I just suffer inside. I really wanna be a part of a leftist movement, it's the most important thing for me because I always was against capitalism and saw how capitalism ruins people's lives.
I don't know what to do, i feel trapped, i can't talk to anyone about it, i tried to talk to my mother but she said I am making up problems. Please, help me, I feel so horrible, literally sick to my stomach; i can't eat, can't sleep, can't concentrate, i feel like i'm lying all the time and it's sickening to me but the thought of telling the truth also sickens me. I really feel like I can't escape this. what do you suggest? Please, please help me.

[Welshy]

Individual members of the petty bourgeoisie or young people from petty bourgeois backgrounds can assist the working class in the over throw of capitalism. So yes they can be involved in left organizations. I'm the son of two automotive engineers/managers and I'm still involved with the Workers Party in America as a supporter. I only have consultative vote, but that doesn't bother me.

To El_Granma who is getting upset because people wish to exclude bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements from voting with in left organizations, why should socialists who seek to establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat try to include petty bourgeois elements into this? The DotP is a more democratic system than bourgeois democracy because it's basis is in the working class (the vast majority of the world) and in workers councils, not because it gets all nice nice with the petty bourgeoisie (a small portion of the world).

Also if we were include them, then what would prevent them from fighting actions being taken by the working class that would get rid of their privileged position in society from with in the structures that should be advancing the working class?



Do you really think that you can ever form a mass party without the support of non-working students? Yes. Most of the country is working class and non-working students make up a rather small chunk of society. Though no one is saying that non-working students can't support a mass party, but it's rather idiotic to focus on such a small part of society as if it is a necessary component of a mass party.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"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

[electro_fan]

to be honest there are loads of complications with the definition of middle class and petty bourgeois. i am from a pb family, my parents had a business, which is the DEFINITION of being pb. however, i will never have this. i will have to work until i drop. i have advantages people from working class families don't have, but my kids very well might not. i'm currently unemployed, i spent the last six months working in a shitty job and am having to grub around for work. when do you stop defining who can and can't be a member of the party?

there were guys at work in my warehouse who had previously made a lot of money, had phds, some of them ran their own businesses previously but were having to work a job barely above minimum wage. to be honest, i do agree with the idea of the leadership of the party being working class, from working class backgrounds, i don't want a leadership position in the party, because a lot of people will try to water down the ideas of socialism for their own gain (or what they think is their own gain).


i do, however, think in terms of membership there's no reason why i shouldn't have the same voting rights as other members of the party.

however, i still think there's a difference between pb and being bourgeois though. the people here who think that there'd be no problem with it, if someone like say Bill Gates' son decided to join your organisation, would you not be at least a tiny bit suspicious of them???

[electro_fan]

To answer the question much above about me being bourgeois or petty bourgeois, i think I am petty - my grandfather used to work for the UN so he has a high pension income. my mother is an editor of arts program on the radio. Couple of years ago my mother sold this apartment we were living in to buy the apartmen my grandfather is currently living in, since he couldn't with his pension. Now they live together and I live alone in an apartment they bought when they sold a house my grandfather owned. They pay for my cost of living, although I do work part time (Im a student). My family owns one more apartment (bought also when we sold a house). This apartment in which my mother and grandfather live it's worth a lot, that's why they sold out old apartment to buy this one. When my grandfather dies (he is 93) my mother will sell that apartment and buy two apartments, which means we will have 4 apartments.
She will live in one and rent three. With her low pension and money from the rent, she'll have aproximently 1000 euro income. When my grandfather dies, she won't be able to pay for my costs in other apartment so i'll have to move in with her. I don't know, is this petty bourgeois?
The organization i belong to doesn't like petty bourgeois or bourgeois people involved in the movement. I always had a feeling we are living better off than other people and i always hid it, because I was embaressed that i have leftist attitudes and I am not proletarian. I am lying to my organization; I never mentioned my grandfather's previous job, only my mothers, and I didn't tell them I live alone, because if they knew, they will call me bourgeois and tease me, ask me why am I here since I don't have much of a money problem, etc. And what's worse, I agree with them. Why would I call myself a comrade and put myself in a position of other comrades, who work all their lives and whose parents have severe money problems? I can't tell them the truth because they will see me differently and I hate it because i think they like me. I can't lie either, it's tearing me apart. And I don't wanna leave the organization because i always had leftist way of thinking and I really wanna contribute to a fair society. I want everyone to have everything, not just some to have everything. It's this; i hate my class position and I can't change it, I am so embaressed by it I can't even talk to anyone else, I just suffer inside. I really wanna be a part of a leftist movement, it's the most important thing for me because I always was against capitalism and saw how capitalism ruins people's lives.
I don't know what to do, i feel trapped, i can't talk to anyone about it, i tried to talk to my mother but she said I am making up problems. Please, help me, I feel so horrible, literally sick to my stomach; i can't eat, can't sleep, can't concentrate, i feel like i'm lying all the time and it's sickening to me but the thought of telling the truth also sickens me. I really feel like I can't escape this. what do you suggest? Please, please help me.

you're petty bourgeois, i'm from a similar background and have had similar conflicts. your family may have made choices in life which were bad for society, but also bear in mind many working class people will also have made the same choices if they had the money to do so. and there is no telling what may happen in the future.

you're not bourgeois. the income differential between even the upper middle class and the upper class is vastly different, to the point where you wouldn't even have been able to imagine it. these fuckers own yachts, mansions, and all sorts of other shit. things that you and me, even with a relatively wealthy background, can only dream about. they never have to worry about money. they never have to worry about debt. or anything else.

and to be honest, you don't have to carry on your family's choices in life. it took me a long time to learn, but be yourself. there is nothing to be ashamed about with your background. it is not your fault, and your parents worked hard to get where they were. remember it is not them that are at fault for trying to do the best, it is THE SYSTEM. and when the system is changed, you will probably have to accept a less privileged lifestyle than we led before, BUT BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS IN SUCH A STATE, WE WILL HAVE TO ANYWAY.

it certainly shouldn't stop you being part of the left or put you off a working class movement, because ultimately the end of capitalism will benefit not only the working class but also the pb as well.

[electro_fan]

and thanks for making me write that post, because it's actually helped to get ideas about this subject a lot clearer in my own head :D

[Welshy]

to be honest there are loads of complications with the definition of middle class and petty bourgeois. i am from a pb family, my parents had a business, which is the DEFINITION of being pb. however, i will never have this. i will have to work until i drop. i have advantages people from working class families don't have, but my kids very well might not. i'm currently unemployed, i spent the last six months working in a shitty job and am having to grub around for work. when do you stop defining who can and can't be a member of the party?



I don't anyone is claiming that if you come from the petty bourgeoisie (as in your family was petty bourgeoisie) that it is impossible to to become working class. There are a lot of kids from my high school whose parents were managers or small business owners who are studying to become teachers or nurses or aren't even going to college. So if you have to sell you labor in order to make a living and aren't doing it for just a short time before you graduate from university and become a manager, businessman, a lawyer or some other petty bourgeois profession, then you are working class in my opinion and should be allowed a vote in leftist organization.

And as a side note, this debate on whether petty bourgeois elements should be able to vote in a leftist organization should really only be relevant in a small handful of situations as they should be focused on recruiting members from the working class and not worry about getting allies from the other classes.

[cenv]

Students are important to the struggle in the context of modern society, but you're gonna see that any major unrest stemming from students' issues is a result of the structure of bourgeois education reproducing society's class differences within universities by tying up working-class students in debt and passing down capitalism's economic instability to these same students through tuition hikes, budget cuts, etc. etc.

As far as distinguishing between working-class and petty-bourgeois communists, the question isn't just whether they're communists -- it's whether they're going to stay communists. We've all seen self-described communists from (petty-)bourgeois backgrounds who eventually figure out that they're going to be a lot happier if they buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood and forget altogether about working-class politics. We have a lot to lose by giving people with no immediate experience of working-class issues too central a role in this fight. It's unfortunate that some people who are dedicated and knowledgeable comrades might feel left out because of this, but it's a necessity dictated by the reality of the struggle.

[electro_fan]

that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter cenv and tells me i need to stop being so goddamn harsh on myself sometimes :D

[electro_fan]

As far as distinguishing between working-class and petty-bourgeois communists, the question isn't just whether they're communists -- it's whether they're going to stay communists.

yep. that's the important bit - and so often, they don't.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Individual members of the petty bourgeoisie or young people from petty bourgeois backgrounds can assist the working class in the over throw of capitalism. So yes they can be involved in left organizations. I'm the son of two automotive engineers/managers and I'm still involved with the Workers Party in America as a supporter. I only have consultative vote, but that doesn't bother me.

To El_Granma who is getting upset because people wish to exclude bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements from voting with in left organizations, why should socialists who seek to establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat try to include petty bourgeois elements into this? The DotP is a more democratic system than bourgeois democracy because it's basis is in the working class (the vast majority of the world) and in workers councils, not because it gets all nice nice with the petty bourgeoisie (a small portion of the world).

Also if we were include them, then what would prevent them from fighting actions being taken by the working class that would get rid of their privileged position in society from with in the structures that should be advancing the working class?

Yes. Most of the country is working class and non-working students make up a rather small chunk of society. Though no one is saying that non-working students can't support a mass party, but it's rather idiotic to focus on such a small part of society as if it is a necessary component of a mass party.

Over 1 million students are currently at University in the UK, with the figure ever rising.

Think about it like this. Students don't get education for free anymore. They are forced to indebt themselves to the ruling class in exchange for education, much as the working class are forced into bondage by the ruling class in exchange for a meagre salary. Obviously I won't be dis-respectful enough to say that the two are entirely comparable, but there has, over the past 10 years or so, been an element of convergence between the economic relations of the working class and of students.

It's not idiotic for me, as a Brit, to focus on students as a necessary component of any mass party in the short/medium term. In the past year, workers have been attacked on all fronts: healthcare, education, pensions, jobs, welfare transfers and indirectly through inflationary pressures as a result of the economic incompetence of the current government, particularly manifested through our idiotic Chancellor. Out of all the groups affected, it is the students who alone have shown the greatest degree of economic and political consciousness, the students who alone have been able to organise independent of existing leftist organisations and students who alone (perhaps discounting for the recent rioting episode) have made the ruling class shit themselves.

And yet, despite the clear consciousness and impressive self-organisation shown by the students, you choose to discount their revolutionary credentials or ability to contribute to a Socialist Party, even on an individual level, due to some petty distinction between worker and non-worker.

I can't remember who said it the other day, or what exact work it came from, but someone on here the other day reminded us that Marx's distinctions between working class, petty bourgeois and ruling class, whilst fairly defined, are not meant to be an exact science but a guideline. Indeed, it could be said that even Marx's in-exact categorisation of oppressed and oppressor has become somewhat dated in the past 100-150 years of Capitalist development, of proletarianisation, of raised living standards and technological progress that has meant that a member of the working class can own luxuries whilst a member of the petty bourgeoisie can barely get by on their meagre salary.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Students are important to the struggle in the context of modern society, but you're gonna see that any major unrest stemming from students' issues is a result of the structure of bourgeois education reproducing society's class differences within universities by tying up working-class students in debt and passing down capitalism's economic instability to these same students through tuition hikes, budget cuts, etc. etc.

As far as distinguishing between working-class and petty-bourgeois communists, the question isn't just whether they're communists -- it's whether they're going to stay communists. We've all seen self-described communists from (petty-)bourgeois backgrounds who eventually figure out that they're going to be a lot happier if they buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood and forget altogether about working-class politics. We have a lot to lose by giving people with no immediate experience of working-class issues too central a role in this fight. It's unfortunate that some people who are dedicated and knowledgeable comrades might feel left out because of this, but it's a necessity dictated by the reality of the struggle.

Sorry, that's just outright discrimination.

You have no right to question two comrades of equal Marxist education and dedication based on whether they were brought up by a factory worker or a doctor/lawyer.

It's outright idiocy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yep. that's the important bit - and so often, they don't.

How many of the 20th century 'Socialist States' were led by members of the petty bourgeoisie?

In fact you might say it (somewhat ironically) proves your point.;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How many of the 20th century 'Socialist States' were led by members of the petty bourgeoisie?All of them.


Sorry, that's just outright discrimination.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh:

[electro_fan]

heh.

i do think that a working class leadership is important though. working class NOW, not what their family may have done. im not bothered about people from pb backgrounds joining parties, im pb myself and i'd be a hypocrite if i cared about it. if they're not working class, if they don't face those kinds of struggles, then how are they gonna know what it's like, and how are they gonna be capable of leading a revolutionary party.

i also don't think it's really appropriate for someone whose an active socialist or anarchist and cares about their beliefs to be buying to let multiple houses or whatever. there are people in my family who do, but i'm not expecting them to join any party any time soon. if they agree and are somewhat supportive, as many upper middle class people are, that's great, but to be actively involved in socialism and doing that, then that's some serious cognitive dissonance

[nothing but left]

electro fan, thank you so much for this. I couldn't really talk to anyone else about it.
The problem with the petty bougeois and bourgeois is that they sometimes think they understand, but they don't. i know people who said "oh, why are they complaining, you always have some money with you" and I always replied "no, you don't sometimes/often/ever have some money!" and i never couldn't understand how they didn't realize this.
Maybe I understand because I am just like that, or maybe because I lived with my brother and father in another city just of his poor salary (he was a teacher). at the end of the month we didn't have anything to eat. and even when i lived with my mother only and my grandfather didn't help us out, we were doing okay but still had money problems and debts. I realize when my grandfather is gone and it should be pretty soon since he's old that we'll have much smaller income. but now, when i'm watching my grandfather and mother being so casual and completely not understanding how people live, it makes it harder for me to accept my class position. i can't really imagine being honest with my comrades in my organization and it's killing me to lie. but at the same time i know they would have see me with totally different eyes had i told them the truth. and i wouldn't blame them, since many people who have money adopt this non political semi luxurious lifestyle which is totally not me. should i tell my comrades the truth? i feel trapped, can't lie to them, can't be honest. i want to be honest but i can't. should i get out of this organization? i am sorry to bug you but i can't help myself, i'm in constant stress.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"the General Council was some months ago precluded from recognizing a Slavonian section exclusively composed of students"

--------

In the end you always get the same thing: "But what about me?!?" That's why it's not really worth spending a lot of time debating individual members of the petty-bourgeoisie on this question. It is important however to warn working-class movements about the dangers of petty-bourgeois saviors, managers, experts, etc., hijacking things and putting their own class interests at the forefront.

How is wanting to sub-ordinate one's interests to the interests of the working class 'putting their own class interests at the forefront'.

I recognise the danger identified in your James Connolly quote, yet at the same time would caution against going full circle by effectively banning the petty bourgeoisie from any serious involvement in revolutionary activity, as the answer.

[electro_fan]

at the end of the day the pb as it has existed since 1945 is over now. they're either going up or down, to the proletariat or in some cases even further than that. mostly down, but a substantial number are also going up. my kids aren't going to have the lifestyle i had growing up. nor are a lot of pb families. it's disappearing, the better off ones are going into the bourgeoisie.

i do agree with cenv to a large extent though. i think there is a danger, because some people from rich backgrounds do have a tendency to sort of hijack things because they feel more able to be confident, more naturally able to be leaders. and i think wanting to keep the leadership (not the members) economically working class is perfectly reasonable tbh.

[Welshy]

Over 1 million students are currently at University in the UK, with the figure ever rising.

Think about it like this. Students don't get education for free anymore. They are forced to indebt themselves to the ruling class in exchange for education, much as the working class are forced into bondage by the ruling class in exchange for a meagre salary. Obviously I won't be dis-respectful enough to say that the two are entirely comparable, but there has, over the past 10 years or so, been an element of convergence between the economic relations of the working class and of students.

It's not idiotic for me, as a Brit, to focus on students as a necessary component of any mass party in the short/medium term. In the past year, workers have been attacked on all fronts: healthcare, education, pensions, jobs, welfare transfers and indirectly through inflationary pressures as a result of the economic incompetence of the current government, particularly manifested through our idiotic Chancellor. Out of all the groups affected, it is the students who alone have shown the greatest degree of economic and political consciousness, the students who alone have been able to organise independent of existing leftist organisations and students who alone (perhaps discounting for the recent rioting episode) have made the ruling class shit themselves.

And yet, despite the clear consciousness and impressive self-organisation shown by the students, you choose to discount their revolutionary credentials or ability to contribute to a Socialist Party, even on an individual level, due to some petty distinction between worker and non-worker.



I think we are running into a disagreement because of the fact we live in two different countries whose situations are different (you in the UK and me in the US). I can tell you that at my university the students exhibit almost no consciousness, despite the massive cuts in funding over the years and recent tuition hikes. Our only student organization that could be capable of organizing any student wide events against these cuts and fee hikes is the Student Government association and that is controlled by a bunch of business majors and a conservative faction with in the SGA.

Also saying that I dismiss the ability of students to contribute to a socialist party is a mis-characterization of what I have said. If the student is from a working class background or if the field that they are studying would cause them to enter the working class (like nursing or teaching) then yes I think they can be full voting members of socialist party. But if they are from a non working class background and/or going into things like business then they all I think they can do is aid the working class movement and get involved in struggle that effects them and working class as students. In the end, as cenv said, the question is whether they will stay communists/socialist/anarchists and quite frankly I have some doubts about whether someone who will (re)enter into the petty bourgeoisie (especially upper crust) after graduation will stay a communist despite being disconnected from the working class and in some cases be forced to go against the working class's interests in their daily work. And if they stay a communist then great but I still don't think they should be allowed into positions of power with in left organization.

sorry if any of this doesn't make sense or my grammar is shit because I am a little drunk right now.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It makes sense but I think you really need to step back and think about what you are saying.

Do you really expect anyone - worker or petty bourgeois - to work for revolution if they are not allowed any decision making power or input? Why would they do that? Like i've said above, I recognise the dangers of outright petty bourgeois leadership of the working class, but the answer is surely not to ban every non-worker from having a democratic voice.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat should not extend itself to unnecessary oppression of non-counter revolutionary elements, nor to unnecessary levels of siege mentality. Casting off every member of the petty bourgeoisie makes no sense if the purpose is to avoid their taking over the leadership of revolutionary tasks and organisation.

[electro_fan]

it's also very dangerous to throw people out just because you don't like their background. are we just to abandon these people to the right??

i can imagine some of you checking everyone's hands at a roadblock to make sure they were "horny handed sons of toil"!

[Welshy]

It makes sense but I think you really need to step back and think about what you are saying.

Do you really expect anyone - worker or petty bourgeois - to work for revolution if they are not allowed any decision making power or input? Why would they do that? Like i've said above, I recognise the dangers of outright petty bourgeois leadership of the working class, but the answer is surely not to ban every non-worker from having a democratic voice.



I'm not saying that they should be denied membership to a left organization. Hell I'm a member of an organization that has rule like the one we are discussing. I think that petty bourgeois members should be allowed to give input and that said input should be taken seriously by the working class members, how ever I think the final decision making votes should be left up to the working class membership. Remember I come from a similar back ground as you. My parents are petty bourgeois and in fact my grandfather on my mother's side is bourgeois.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not saying that they should be denied membership to a left organization. Hell I'm a member of an organization that has rule like the one we are discussing. I think that petty bourgeois members should be allowed to give input and that said input should be taken seriously by the working class members, how ever I think the final decision making votes should be left up to the working class membership. Remember I come from a similar back ground as you. My parents are petty bourgeois and in fact my grandfather on my mother's side is bourgeois.

That's just lip service.

In any post-revolutionary society there is the potential for sympathetic comrades of all stripes to become bona fide members of the working class.

Where i'm particularly peeved is when people question the revolutionary credentials of a group like the students, when the evidence points to them actually being the most conscious group, by far, in the UK at the moment. To exclude them is absolute idiocy, especially when it comes from comrades of organisations which glorify petty bourgeois leadership.

[Welshy]

That's just lip service.

In any post-revolutionary society there is the potential for sympathetic comrades of all stripes to become bona fide members of the working class.

Where i'm particularly peeved is when people question the revolutionary credentials of a group like the students, when the evidence points to them actually being the most conscious group, by far, in the UK at the moment. To exclude them is absolute idiocy, especially when it comes from comrades of organisations which glorify petty bourgeois leadership.

In the US the only group of students that I really see as being politically conscious are Grad students who work as teaching assistants. Of the undergrads, the only students who come from working class families or the lower rung of the petty bourgeoisie have potential for progressive poltiical consciousness as they are the ones most hurt by the cuts and fee hikes. But even then the issue of education is just one of the numerous problems facing the working class and shouldn't be held higher than other issues like cuts in social programs that benefit the working class or attacks on unions.

And once again I'm not saying that students can't be a part of leftist organizations but just that because students can be rather diverse in their class background or the class that they will enter into, left organizations shouldn't focus on recruiting from them as group in place of recruiting form the working class.

But this is enough for me for tonight as I got work in the morning.

EDIT: I'm rather confused by your "that's just lip service" comment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I enjoyed reading the posts of a coordinator-class supporter of the Workers Party in America. Well said, Welshy!

NHIA: Where did Connolly say that? I'd like to include that in my commentary!


I recognise the danger identified in your James Connolly quote, yet at the same time would caution against going full circle by effectively banning the petty bourgeoisie from any serious involvement in revolutionary activity, as the answer.

Just because non-workers (coordinators, petit-bourgeoisie, etc.) shouldn't have voting membership rights in a worker-class party-movement doesn't mean they're precluded from being quite involved in revolutionary activism. Case in point: Welshy.


But if they are from a non working class background and/or going into things like business then they all I think they can do is aid the working class movement and get involved in struggle that effects them and working class as students.

Be careful with what you said there. There are lots of non-managerial, non-consultant, productive, working-class occupations associated with business education.

[Welshy]

Be careful with what you said there. There are lots of non-managerial, non-consultant, productive, working-class occupations associated with business education.

Which occupations would that be? Most of the specialties I know of with in my universities business program tend to be exclusively managerial or future small business owner oriented.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Which occupations would that be? Most of the specialties I know of with in my universities business program tend to be exclusively managerial or future small business owner oriented.

There are lots of non-managerial, non-consultant, productive jobs associated with accounting (like staff accountants and auditors, not just bookkeepers), human resource management (not just payroll clerks), management information systems (like full-time IT technicians), and marketing (like market research).

[cenv]

Sorry, that's just outright discrimination.

Yeah. Just like progressive taxation and affirmative action are discrimination.

But if you think that's bad, just wait til this revolution thing goes down. We're gonna discriminate against the bourgeoisie like sooooooo much. :)



You have no right to question two comrades of equal Marxist education and dedication based on whether they were brought up by a factory worker or a doctor/lawyer.
If you accept that Marxism is more than a purely academic endeavor, that it's about understanding and transforming the concrete situation of the working class, then it's very unlikely that a member of the proletariat and a member of the petty-bourgeoisie have "equal Marxist education."

It's not that an individual from a petty-bourgeois background doesn't have anything to contribute to the movement. I'm sure there are lots of examples on RevLeft alone of comrades from petty-bourgeois backgrounds who bring great ideas and energy to the table. But a key point of Marxism is the understanding that material experience shapes consciousness and that classes as groups tend to act in their own self-interest -- workers have been burned too many times to just ignore this for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings.

It's also worth pointing out that treating "students" as a homogeneous group only obscures the underlying class dynamics. Someone who has to work a job on the side and bury themselves in debt to get a degree clearly isn't in the same social group as a trust-fund kid who sails through college without a care in the world.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Like I said, i'm not advocating petty-bourgeois Socialism nor petty-bourgeois absolute leadership of any revolution or revolutionary vehicle.

I wasn't treating students as a homogeneous group outside of Marxist class classification. The point is that, even as a diverse group, the students in the UK managed to co-ordinate and self-organise themselves outside of the existing leftist organisations, which says to me that, even as a diverse group, there is absolutely nothing that suggests students who do not do part-time work do not have class interests which are rapidly aligning and converging with those of well-accepted members of the working class, so to speak.

And yeah, cenv, given your last sentence i'd absolutely agree, with my point being that, in my experience, the majority of students - especially outside of 4 or 5 certain universities known for being of bourgeois student membership - are debt-laden. I'm sure everyone would work a part-time job if they could, but the overwhelming majority of academic degrees are simply not tailored towards allowing real part-time work. Only a lucky few of us are able to work alongside our degree.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just because non-workers (coordinators, petit-bourgeoisie, etc.) shouldn't have voting membership rights in a worker-class party-movement doesn't mean they're precluded from being quite involved in revolutionary activism. Case in point: Welshy.


Why would anybody take active part in a movement that denies them democratic rights?

No worker, no co-ordinator, no small-shop owner would bother, because the likelihood is that if they are not allowed voting rights, then their person will not receive full fruits of the revolution. There are two great problems:

Firstly, who decides who exactly is working class? The criteria could very easily be maneouvred within the bounds of Marxist explanation for petty political ends, which is almost as much a danger to democracy as you are.

Secondly - and leading on from the first point - if the first point were to occur, you risk creating a new society of haves and have-nots, based on ability to participate politically and not. Now, obviously, I don't give a shit if the expropriated bourgeoisie is excluded, but arbitrary definitions risk alienating members sympathetic to our movement and indeed members of the working class and/or those who are otherwise aligned to our class interests. If we are going to have to stave off any counter-revolution and avoid the mistakes of the 20th century, then we need the broadest involvement of formerly oppressed people possible.

[RED DAVE]

The problem with the petty bougeois and bourgeois is that they sometimes think they understand, but they don't. i know people who said "oh, why are they complaining, you always have some money with you" and I always replied "no, you don't sometimes/often/ever have some money!" and i never couldn't understand how they didn't realize this.The ignorance of people with money towards people who don't have it is sometimes amazing.


Maybe I understand because I am just like that, or maybe because I lived with my brother and father in another city just of his poor salary (he was a teacher). at the end of the month we didn't have anything to eat. and even when i lived with my mother only and my grandfather didn't help us out, we were doing okay but still had money problems and debts. I realize when my grandfather is gone and it should be pretty soon since he's old that we'll have much smaller income. but now, when i'm watching my grandfather and mother being so casual and completely not understanding how people live, it makes it harder for me to accept my class position.Comrade, you have to drop the guilt. It ain't your fault how your family lives.


i can't really imagine being honest with my comrades in my organization and it's killing me to lie.If they can't accept you because of your class position, they are fools and not worth associating with.


but at the same time i know they would have see me with totally different eyes had i told them the truth. and i wouldn't blame them, since many people who have money adopt this non political semi luxurious lifestyle which is totally not me.For your own sake, stop projecting. If you don't know what their attitudes will be, stop using your guilt as a guide.


should i tell my comrades the truth?Absolutely. Fuck 'em if they can't handle it.


i feel trapped, can't lie to them, can't be honest. i want to be honest but i can't. should i get out of this organization? i am sorry to bug you but i can't help myself, i'm in constant stress.You need to be honest and tell your comrades the truth. This will relieve your stress, and if they are really comrades, they deserve and can handle the truth.

Your situation is not unique. Huge numbers of comrades, especially at this early stage in the revival of class struggle, are petit-bourgeois. Class origins are not a criteria. Class allegiance is what's key. Hang in there, and tell the truth. I suspect you are a young comrade.

Relax and smell some flowers. It's still summer (and the hurricane will be gone in a day or two). :D

RED DAVE

[nothing but left]

Thanks a lot :) I'm still under a lot of stress and still can't imagine telling them. But if I do, I'm gonna have to give it all up and start supporting myself. I just can't talk about worker's rights and live like this. It wouldn't be honest. For example, there is this one comrade whose parents are haute bourgeoise (I am nothing in comparison), and he goes with his comrades on his fathers yacht to talk about communism. I mean, isn't this weird? I think it's dishonest. I know, it's not his fault that his father is in high bourgeoise, but in his place, I couldn't imagine being on a yacht and saying: "Last week 5 more workers have been fired from their jobs and they have credits and families to support. they are desperate. more caviar?" :) that's not of course case for me, i am not from high bourgeoise, but still. you get the picture.
and as for my family...i don't know what to think of them anymore. i feel disgust, but still i love them, they are my family. i don't know how to act in front of them. i told my mother, when my grandfather dies, you will have 4 apartments and with your pension, you will be able to support yourself if you rent only one apartment. give the other two to the people who need it. she told me to shut up. and yes, i understand that to a certain extent; why would she give something up if she could live better with it? but she's not a leftist. I am. And I can't participate in that renting, i just couldn't take that money. but at the same time, unemployment is very high, what if I fail to support myself? Killing myself over my leftist ideological principals is kinda reactionary :D
But please, tell me this. I have googled the UN and couldn't find anything much, except that horrible thing in Rwanda in the 90's. Did UN conduct more crimes before? My grandfather worked for them in the 50's, 60's and 80's. Thank you again.

[Welshy]

Why would anybody take active part in a movement that denies them democratic rights?

No worker, no co-ordinator, no small-shop owner would bother, because the likelihood is that if they are not allowed voting rights, then their person will not receive full fruits of the revolution.




First off why would worker not join a group where they are guaranteed full voting rights, out of fear they would be denied voting rights?

Secondly, I don't feel that my democratic rights are being denied since as a member of the WPA's supporter organization I have a lot of freedom in what I do. I am free to organize in my area as I see fit, I am able to create documents for the supporters organization, and once I build up the supporters organization in my area so it's more than just me then I'll be able to have a vote in how it runs. Plus the WPA itself is a rather decentralized party giving locals a lot of autonomy. It is just when it comes to decisions being made in the WPA proper, my opinion is welcome in decision making but it's ultimately the full members (working class members who have the time to fulfill the responsibilities of a member) who get to make the final decision. This to be honest more democratic that the last organization I was in (ISO) where it was the local branch committee made all the decisions from our involvement in local events/coalitions and what goes on each meeting to who would replace committee members who left and who gets sent to the convention. They would hold votes but some of them would be done with little time to actually debate or make a new plan if the old one was voted down.

So I guess I would have a problem with a party that had a working class membership only policies if it didn't have a supporters system or organization that would allow non-working class members to be involved in struggle and to be able to exercise their democratic right.

Also back to the student thing, as I said before we live in two different countries with different situations. In the UK given the consciousness of the students, a party should included them in voting membership while focusing on the working class elements of them. But in the US from my experience the days of large groups of radicalized students are gone. My university for example has very low consciousness and the only time there was a mass event by the students it was riot in my residential area (which houses about 5,000 students, I believe) in celebration of Osama's death. There have also been rules enacted that restrict protests to a small area incapable of holding a rally of any size. And if you do move elsewhere, especially the university offices, you run the risk of being expelled from the university. This was actually passed after a successful occupation of the university offices against fee increases during either the 90's or early 00's.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So I guess I would have a problem with a party that had a working class membership only policies if it didn't have a supporters system or organization that would allow non-working class members to be involved in struggle and to be able to exercise their democratic right.

I don't have a problem with some sort of supporters organization, like the relationship between the Bolsheviks and the early Komsomol, and unlike the German situation of the pre-war SPD not having a peasant-and-middle-class supporters organization (a bone thrown the way of the pro-peasant revolutionary Bebel and equally pro-peasant reformist Von Vollmar).

[LewisQ]

It's kind of fitting that much of the ultra-left posturing in this thread is underpinned by a quote from Connolly, who was killed (along with many other working-class revolutionaries, present at his behest) fighting for an organisation led by avowedly bourgeois nationalists.

Comrades should reflect on the blindingly obvious difference between individual members of the petit-bourgeoisie participating in revolution, and the participation of the petit-bourgeoisie as a class.

[RHIZOMES]

Political organisations that stigmatise people from joining if they don't fit their particular conception of what it means to be 'working class' are not revolutionary. They are rather partaking in a form of shallow identity politics - in this case workerist identity politics.

[Welshy]

To those who oppose this kind of policy, how would you suggest preventing an organization from being run almost exclusively by it's petty bourgeois members or to ensure that it focuses on recruiting from the working class?

[RHIZOMES]

You don't understand the Erfurtist strategy from the days of the original Socialist International (the Second):

1) Build a working-class base of support.
2) Obtain support from more workers.
3) Hegemony / Volkspartei ("people's party"): Only after 1) and 2) are done can the party-movement accommodate non-worker issues, to the extent that those issues don't conflict with worker issues and to the extent that non-workers still don't have voting rights.

That strategy is completely idiotic, no wonder the Second International weren't successful. If you only recruit workers without at least some sort of intellectual base, you risk creating a party without a healthy theoretical backbone. And as the old Marxist maxim goes, bad theory is bad practice.

Not that I advocate intellectuals dominating the discourse of a socialist party either, that would be equally unhealthy. But they are still a vital component of any successful revolutionary movement.

Such a position may seem at first condescending. It isn't. For example, the ideas of Marx and Engels didn't come out of thin air, they emerged from their concrete social positioning as part of the European middle-class intelligentsia. The Bolsheviks too were part of the Russian intelligentsia. I admire the working class, I myself come from a working class background. But due to the dire social conditions that are imposed on them by capitalism, it often means they have to concern themselves more with paying the next bill and feeding their family than comprehensive theoretical self-education. You need intellectuals as much as you need workers for a truly organic and successful revolutionary movement to grow.


To those who oppose this kind of policy, how would you suggest preventing an organization from being run almost exclusively by it's petty bourgeois members or to ensure that it focuses on recruiting from the working class?

I think such a question presupposes a false equivalence. It equals being a worker to always being right, shifting from a materialist view of workers being a revolutionary class to an idealist view of workers being somehow 'perfect'. Working and middle class members all have something unique to offer to a socialist organisation, both in terms of the perspectives and abilities they can contribute. When you shut out members due to their perceived class character, you are basically shutting out healthy debate. Workers have their concrete experience of the worst that capitalism has to offer. Middle-class left intellectuals have had the privilege to get a high-enough quality education in which they can help articulate some of the shit that is wrong with capitalism.

Emphasis especially on perceived, because defining who is and isn't "working class" on a purely individualist basis can be a bit subjective nowadays.

Contradictions will exist between the workers and the intelligentsia, sure. I don't claim to have all the answers unlike some members of this forum. But there are better ways to sort out such a contradiction than simply stifling healthy socialist discourse.

[Welshy]

That strategy is completely idiotic, no wonder the Second International weren't successful. If you only recruit workers without at least some sort of intellectual base, you risk creating a party without a healthy theoretical backbone. And as the old Marxist maxim goes, bad theory is bad practice.

Not that I advocate intellectuals dominating the discourse of a socialist party either, that would be equally unhealthy. But they are still a vital component of any successful revolutionary movement.

Such a position may seem at first condescending. It isn't. For example, the ideas of Marx and Engels didn't come out of thin air, they emerged from their concrete social positioning as part of the European middle-class intelligentsia. The Bolsheviks too were part of the Russian intelligentsia. I admire the working class, I myself come from a working class background. But due to the dire social conditions that are imposed on them by capitalism, it often means they have to concern themselves more with paying the next bill and feeding their family than comprehensive theoretical self-education. You need intellectuals as much as you need workers for a truly organic and successful revolutionary movement to grow.

Why can't the role of the intelligentsia be play by the workers who have done a lot of theoretical self-education? Why can't those members of the party set up educational programs for theory? That's what the WPA is doing with its members who have a stronger basis in theory. The workers shouldn't have to rely on some group of educators from on high to enlighten them instead of doing it themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That strategy is completely idiotic, no wonder the Second International weren't successful. If you only recruit workers without at least some sort of intellectual base, you risk creating a party without a healthy theoretical backbone. And as the old Marxist maxim goes, bad theory is bad practice.

The Second International did have a worker-intellectual base. Kautsky was originally petit-bourgeois, since he owned Die Neue Zeit as a small media business of sorts, but then sold the paper to the party.

Also, it was more successful in organizing the working class than the Third International was, at least before the immediate years leading to WWI. Just look at the membership of the pre-war SPD, and compare it to the WWI years after the betrayal: about a million, then down to one or two hundred thousand!


Not that I advocate intellectuals dominating the discourse of a socialist party either, that would be equally unhealthy. But they are still a vital component of any successful revolutionary movement.

Again, what about worker-intellectuals? :confused:


Such a position may seem at first condescending. It isn't. For example, the ideas of Marx and Engels didn't come out of thin air, they emerged from their concrete social positioning as part of the European middle-class intelligentsia. The Bolsheviks too were part of the Russian intelligentsia. I admire the working class, I myself come from a working class background. But due to the dire social conditions that are imposed on them by capitalism, it often means they have to concern themselves more with paying the next bill and feeding their family than comprehensive theoretical self-education. You need intellectuals as much as you need workers for a truly organic and successful revolutionary movement to grow.

Kautsky's famous or infamous quote about intellectuals actually emphasized the educated worker's role in between the "bourgeois" intelligentsia (he got the wrong class) and the worker-class movement.

I agree with your last two sentences, particularly in light of "precarious" changes to the modern workforce and to the modern pensioner. We need dedicated intellectuals, but they should have a past working-class background and also carry this background forward (by not hiring staff or bossing them around, for instance).

[Welshy]

I think such a question presupposes a false equivalence. It equals being a worker to always being right, shifting from a materialist view of workers being a revolutionary class to an idealist view of workers being somehow 'perfect'. Working and middle class members all have something unique to offer to a socialist organisation, both in terms of the perspectives and abilities they can contribute. When you shut out members due to their perceived class character, you are basically shutting out healthy debate. Workers have their concrete experience of the worst that capitalism has to offer. Middle-class left intellectuals have had the privilege to get a high-enough quality education in which they can help articulate some of the shit that is wrong with capitalism.

Emphasis especially on perceived, because defining who is and isn't "working class" on a purely individualist basis can be a bit subjective nowadays.

Contradictions will exist between the workers and the intelligentsia, sure. I don't claim to have all the answers unlike some members of this forum. But there are better ways to sort out such a contradiction than simply stifling healthy socialist discourse.

Never have I claimed that workers were perfect, if it seems like that I apologize for not making that clear. I guess my problem is with having petty bourgeois members in leadership positions is that as struggle sparks up we are putting faith in members whose class interests are to maintain bureaucracy and private property. What I worry is that they might hold the worker back from challenging the sections of the petty bourgeoisie that they come from so that after the revolution they may maintain their privileged position. To believe that people will act against their class interests is pretty idealist, IMO. Some sections of the petty bourgeoisie probably won't have this problem, like doctors, but large sections of the class probably will. I can tell you from talking to my father, who is somewhat sympathetic to communism, that he is very against the idea of taking him out a privileged managerial position and to have administration in the work place be elected.

And I agree that sometimes the line between petty bourgeoisie and working class can be blurry. I mean I'm planning on becoming a professor and depending on whether you have tenure or not the line can be very blurry. But I guess my big problem is letting in managers and small business owners into left organizations, rather than letting intellectuals in.

[RHIZOMES]

Why can't the role of the intelligentsia be play by the workers who have done a lot of theoretical self-education? Why can't those members of the party set up educational programs for theory? That's what the WPA is doing with its members who have a stronger basis in theory. The workers should have to rely on some group of educators from on high to enlighten them instead of doing it themselves.

Not really my point, I agree a socialist party shouldn't really fall into that trap either. If the workerist identity politics so prevalent on this topic is on one end of the scale, than this intellectualist ivory tower elitism is on the other end.

The problem is that, at least in my own limited experience dealing with socialist groups, parties with a strong 'workerist identity politics' component to them tend to treat Marxism as a sect of doctrinal beliefs instead of a body of social theory that can be creatively applied. What you end up with in these sort of programs is a lot of workers who know the basics of Marxism, but not the nitty-gritty stuff that can make or break the success of a party. This isn't due to any flaw on behalf of the workers, nor am I saying educational programs are a bad idea (in fact, they're a very good idea), as much as a whole stew of organisational factors that keep such educational programs fairly basic:

a) new members joining all the time means that organisational preference is given to "intro" courses rather than in-depth ones
b) this is due to the limited manhours an activist base of full-time workers can put into making educational programs actually run smoothly
c) not having anyone who is contributing their ideas to such a program from a perspective of 3-4+ years of full-time education in philosophy or social theory can pose problems - it can lead to a "blind leading the blind" scenario when people interpret Marxist texts without having much training in how to do so. This can lead to very sloppy and counterproductive understandings of Marxist thought that relies more on commonsensical BS than philosophical understanding.

I don't advocate the intelligentsia dominating the organisation or leadership of a party, I more believe that their social positioning gives them a certain perspective that is indispensible. Every left-wing reading group I've been in where there's someone with an MA in the room has usually been far more fruitful and insightful than ones without such people.

In short: I am opposed to intellectual leadership, I am for intellectual involvement.

EDIT: Sorry that I can't respond to the second half of your post, or DNZ's post, it's currently 2am and I've got an important day tomorrow. :S

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really my point, I agree a socialist party shouldn't really fall into that trap either. If the workerist identity politics so prevalent on this topic is on one end of the scale, than this intellectualist ivory tower elitism is on the other end.

The problem is that, at least in my own limited experience dealing with socialist groups, parties with a strong 'workerist identity politics' component to them tend to treat Marxism as a sect of doctrinal beliefs instead of a body of social theory that can be creatively applied. What you end up with in these sort of programs is a lot of workers who know the basics of Marxism, but not the nitty-gritty stuff that can make or break the success of a party. This isn't due to any flaw on behalf of the workers, nor am I saying educational programs are a bad idea (in fact, they're a very good idea), as much as a whole stew of organisational factors that keep such educational programs fairly basic:

a) new members joining all the time means that organisational preference is given to "intro" courses rather than in-depth ones

That, comrade, is common to both actual workerist groups and hyper-activist Student Left groups. Having written what I've already written about physical bodies without heads (let alone clear-thinking heads), I'm very much against combining my voting membership policy with crude recruitment and candidacy procedures.


b) this is due to the limited manhours an activist base of full-time workers can put into making educational programs actually run smoothly

Have you considered online material? Online discussions?


c) not having anyone who is contributing their ideas to such a program from a perspective of 3-4+ years of full-time education in philosophy or social theory can pose problems - it can lead to a "blind leading the blind" scenario when people interpret Marxist texts without having much training in how to do so. This can lead to very sloppy and counterproductive understandings of Marxist thought that relies more on commonsensical BS than philosophical understanding

Believe me, I go way past this when it comes to qualifications for a program committee:

"Educate" in "Educate, Agitate, Organize": what about Renaissance education? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/educate-educate-agitate-t143439/index.html)


Sorry that I can't respond to the second half of your post, or DNZ's post, it's currently 2am and I've got an important day tomorrow. :S

Take your time. :)

[Welshy]

a) new members joining all the time means that organisational preference is given to "intro" courses rather than in-depth ones

This has been my experience with the last group I was in where there was a constant flow of new members, to the point were we had several introductory meetings on the basics of marxism with out going that far into theory.



b) this is due to the limited manhours an activist base of full-time workers can put into making educational programs actually run smoothly

That's the beauty of online educational programs and videos.



c) not having anyone who is contributing their ideas to such a program from a perspective of 3-4+ years of full-time education in philosophy or social theory can pose problems - it can lead to a "blind leading the blind" scenario when people interpret Marxist texts without having much training in how to do so. This can lead to very sloppy and counterproductive understandings of Marxist thought that relies more on commonsensical BS than philosophical understanding. Fair enough, but there are leftist teachers out there who can provide such insight and would be allowed to be a full member in the WPA.




I don't advocate the intelligentsia dominating the organisation or leadership of a party, I more believe that their social positioning gives them a certain perspective that is indispensible. Every left-wing reading group I've been in where there's someone with an MA in the room has usually been far more fruitful and insightful than ones without such people.

In short: I am opposed to intellectual leadership, I am for intellectual involvement.

In the case of the WPA, intellectuals would still be involved but through the supporters organization. Also it's not like the WPA tells them to go into the supporters organization and then ignores them completely. The party still looks for input from the supporters about issues and a lot of how close the supporter is to the party depends on how much help they want to provide. If you want more specifics about the relationship between the supporters organization and the WPA, you will have to ask Miles or Children of the Revolution or some other member on revleft, as I am a new supporter.

And as a side note, it's always possible that someone whose a worker may also have a degree in philosophy or sociology or even economics, because either they are a teacher, just couldn't find a job with those degrees, or they decided to enter the working class (or we sent there like I've heard the IS doing back in the 70's).




EDIT: Sorry that I can't respond to the second half of your post, or DNZ's post, it's currently 2am and I've got an important day tomorrow. :S

No worries, I can wait. I've enjoyed your contributions so far.

[robbo203]

It seems to me that a distinction can be drawn between being a member of the working class and being a revolutionary socialist. The one is a matter of economic compulsion (having little or no capital to live upon and, therefore, being compelled to work; the other is a matter of political choice.

While revolutioinary socialism as an end is essentially something that is in the interests oof the working class and ipso facto against the interests of the capitalists, I see no reason why in principle non-workers should not be able to join and fully participate in the democratic running of a revolutionary socialist organisation (one thinks obviously of the much cited case of the capitalist, Fred Engels, in this regard). We need to eshew the kind of cloth-capped workerist essentialistic thinking which holds that just because one is a "worker" one is more likely to become or remain an authentic socialist. Workers are just as likely to deviate or stray - if I might put it like that - as non workers and we should never prejudge any particular individual. Capitalism only exists becuase our class acquiesces in it and even occasionally enthusiastiucally endorses it

There is also the question of how exactly do you define "working class" in the first place. I take a broad view on the matter and consider the fundamental criterion to be whether of not you possess suffiicient capital to live upon without the need to work for your lving. If you have enough capital then you are a capitalist ; if you have not , then you are working class. This last would include both the so called lumpenproletariat and the so called petit bourgeosie (who own or more usually rent only a small amount of capital and clearly not enough for them to avoid the need to work themselves - unlike the capitalists)

It is in our interest that the "working class" should be clearly and unequivocally seen as the immense majority of the population. Spliiting up, and subdividing, workers into numerous diverse separate categories on the pretext of offering up some pretentiously nuanced sociological analysis is all very well but it overlooks just how divisive this can all be and just how destructive to our efforts to create a society that would be in the interests of this immense majority.

Unity, as the saying goes, is strength...

[nothing but left]

I agree with the last post. it is, of course, expected especially from the working class to be revoutionary, nobody is expecting the class of exploiters to be revolutionary because that's opposite to their interests. that's common sense. but i think the spaces in between, petit bourgeoise in particular, need to be talked about and understood. for example, i know a lot of socialist and communist people my age from working class families who view landlords as class enemies. of course, technically, landlords take money from something that isn't labour, just like capitalists, but i think that insisting on this view wil alienate us, which is a goal of capitalism. i think it needs to be recognised that many landlords rent their apartments because their income in too small. for example, my mother rents it to pay for my sisters study. of course, there are landlords who are unfair, who rise prices of the rent without any need, who barge in on people who rent their places and so on. but even with that, they are not exploiting working class people and i think that these shades of grey need to be recognised and that socialists and communists should rise awarness to these kinds of people, not just working class.
and another thing. i don't agree that it is a danger wheather petit bourgeoise people will stay communists or wheather they would give up their poitical views, buy a descent house and continue with their lives. it's the same threat for working class people. I know, as time progresses, working class gets poorer and therefore you can count on their revolutionary potential, as Marx would say, but in this stage no. For example i have a friend who is very, very poor. She could start a revolution right away as far as she's concerned. but she dislikes communism and is not interested in social revolution, only in trying to better her own life. of course, how could i disagree with that, the girl lays in bed every night thinking what will she eat tomorrow. i completely understand that, but i'm just making a point. maybe for her tables will turn one day and maybe she'll become petit bourgeois. i think, as it is said before, it's all about political awarness. and by the time revolution comes, i think petit bourgeois and working class people will more or less be in the same basket. then all we'll need is a revolutionary spirit. :)