Class Character of Ideologies

[Comrade #138672]

I'm trying to determine the class character of certain ideologies. Each seems tied to specific combinations and order of class interests.

I came up with the following:

Communism (according to Marxism): 1. Proletariat; 2. Lumpenproletariat.
Anarchism (according to Bakunin): 1. Lumpenproletariat; 2. Proletariat.
Liberalism: 1. Bourgeoisie; 2. Petty bourgeoisie.
Conservatism / Fascism: 1. Petty bourgeoisie; 2. Bourgeoisie.

What do you think? How would you determine this?

[ind_com]

Communism will have proletariat first and semi-proletariat second. Nowadays we use the word lumpen-proletariat to refer only to the degenerated elements of the proletariat who oppose the proletariat in class struggle. Semi-proletariat captures all the working classes and the unemployed/reserved workers.

Anarchism (anarcho communism) should have the same order of classes.

Both fascism and liberalism will have the bourgeois first and petty bourgeoisie as the second classes, but in case of liberalism we can number petty bourgeoisie as 1.5

Anarcho capitalism can have the petty bourgeoisie first and the bourgeoisie next.

[ind_com]

I've gone off on what I think is a more important tangent.

Trots= Students, most never worked a day in their life usually led by teachers or similar who are completely divorced from the mass of workers especially in manual or service jobs. A prime reason for the organisations being cult like, dictatorial, nothing to do with working people, shit politics and if they have a program it's for ruling over capital not abolishing it.

Leninists= Basically the same but usually older demographic with some actual real workers.

Anarchists= A broad mix for a broad set of ideas. Students again, drop outs, teenagers and at the more serious end workers who actually work. The 'radical' kids of the bourgeoisie and state bureaucrats.

Stalinists/Maoists= OAP's and younger people, so once again not a lot of people who actually work.

Left Communism= Apart from a few adherents from academia writing for obscure journals mostly working people who actually work. A mix of young and old who either have experience of work or generally come from working class backgrounds. Hence their ideas, programs, literature and practice is by far the best and most relevant to the working class.

This is pure fact without any bias whatsoever.

p.s All of this is country specific, it changes depending on where you are.

Why do I have the feeling that you're a left communist?

[subcp]

"All political consciousness is bourgeois" - Dupont, Nihilist Communism

I wouldn't characterize Marxism as an ideology; it's a science. Stalinism, Maoism, etc. are ideologies- all ideologies are the opponents of the transformation of all things (proletarian revolution abolishing classes, class society, the economy, law of value, etc. and building communism).

[Comrade #138672]

Communism will have proletariat first and semi-proletariat second. Nowadays we use the word lumpen-proletariat to refer only to the degenerated elements of the proletariat who oppose the proletariat in class struggle. Semi-proletariat captures all the working classes and the unemployed/reserved workers.Really? Can you back this up?


I've gone off on what I think is a more important tangent. This is pure fact without any bias whatsoever.Are you sure? :grin:

[Hit The North]

Nowadays we use the word lumpen-proletariat to refer only to the degenerated elements of the proletariat who oppose the proletariat in class struggle.


Can we avoid words like "degenerated" it makes you sound like a reactionary, right-wing, socially conservative nut-job. Meanwhile, i doubt that these unfortunate "elements of the proletariat" give a flying fuck about workers in struggle let alone have the wherewithall to oppose them.


"All political consciousness is bourgeois" - Dupont, Nihilist Communism


A political statement if ever there was one - and properly bourgeois in the manner in which it discourages the political engagement of the workers.


I wouldn't characterize Marxism as an ideology;To be fair to the OP, neither does s/he.

[Vanguard1917]

Communism (according to Marxism): 1. Proletariat; 2. Lumpenproletariat.

You should be aware that Marx didn't see the lumpenproletariat as a base for a communist movement.

'the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème...'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htm

Though later thinkers like Fanon, and groups like the US Black Panther Party, did attribute greater revolutionary potential to (what they saw as) lumpenproletarians.

[Comrade #138672]

A political statement if ever there was one - and properly bourgeois in the manner in which it discourages the political engagement of the workers.I agree.


To be fair to the OP, neither does s/he.Thank you. Indeed, I was careful not to categorize Marxism as an ideology, since I think of it as a scientific framework, even though it is closely tied with certain ideologies.

[Winkers Fons]

I don't think any of the leftist tendencies are that easy to categorize, Shuras. I suppose it may be true that some tendencies are younger/older than others on average, but I think the only reason for that is that theories go in and out of style over time, not because certain ideologies are more mature than others. I think it mostly has to do with whatever was the dominant trend in the time and place you became politically active more than anything else.

[Winkers Fons]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek but I think there is some truth to what I was saying. Clearly the position and class you come from/are has a big influence on individuals and organisations. It's no surprise student politics are usually the shittest around is it? The class character and class orientation of an organisation is vitally important in every respect really. I don't think I can understand anyone who would argue against this. It's hard enough to keep bourgeois ideology, opportunism etc at bay as it is, when your organisation is full of non workers and/or led by bourgeois or petty bourgeois elements you're on the road to nowhere or worse you are part of the problem.

You're right, it is a problem when organizations are dominated solely by students and not actual working people, but I don't think this problem is unique to any particular tendency. Like you said, these students are often just the rebellious children of the bourgeois. That's not a problem in itself, but people like that do tend to be less committed and more prone to useless theoretical nonsense than getting actual results.