Is the modern Proletariat, in Western countries, still capable of revolution?

[Comrade Chernov]

This is a theory that I've been brooding on for quite some time. Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution. When the Manifesto was written in the 1840s, the average worker had little rights, horrid pay, and very few benefits within their work environment. This, of course, allowed them to actually become angry at their Bourgeois overlords. However, nowadays, the average worker, though still arguably an economic slave to their employers based on wages vs. cost of living, has things such as the 40-hour workweek, medical coverage, vacation, etc. With these, do the Workers still have the necessary resentment towards their employers that the success of Communism so dearly hinges on?

Personally, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that, if a Revolution is to begin, its focus must be redirected - Not onto the entirety of the lower classes, but specifically, on those the Capitalist system currently, for lack of a better term, shits on, the most; Minorities, Women, Gays & Lesbians, Transgender people, and the Homeless. Of over a dozen Leftist blogs I've seen before coming on this website, three were owned by Transgender people, two by people of color, two by Gays, and four by Women. Only one was owned by a white cisgendered male, and he's from a rural part of Australia, where politics, though still Capitalist, lean more heavily to the left anyway.

Opinions? Thoughts? Rebuttals?

[Red HalfGuard]

I know I just recommended it in another thread but here's a free pdf of Sakai's Settlers: Mythology Of The White Proletariat: indybay.org/uploads/2005/10/28/sakaisettlersocr.pdf

It goes into detail on those exact questions.

[Comrade Jacob]

I believe the capitalist system and bourgeois democracy will have to totally make life in the west a hell-hole from it's inability to continue funding itself before we get off our asses. I am not sure my attitude of "sit back and let things go to shit for motivation" is the most ethical way to have it done but history has shown it's the most effective. Most people aren't willing to learn Marxism and most Marxists aren't willing to fight alone. Once mass poverty flows over the western working-class and the peasantry they will be intrigued into anti-capitalism. Sadly they sometimes are intrigued into fascism, this is something else we must combat, the revolutionary classes must not have their minds polluted.

[Zergling]

Welfare exists for this reason alone. To keep people complacent of their situation. I may be poor, but at least I have food and shelter thanks to the government. That is the mindset of a lot of people these days. If the government were to not have these incentives to give to people or what is most likely to happen, the government simply can't afford to feed and shelter these people anymore, then we'll see the riots in the streets.

There are talks about cutting back on food stamps here in the US by the GOP. It won't pass and I'm sure the Republicans realize this and are doing it on "principle" alone, but if that were to pass and people couldn't afford to eat, the media would have a hard time lying to us about the food riots that would be taking place all around us.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, I hope so. Otherwise I would go make other interesting things, such as trying to earn as much money as possible. What is the point of being a revolutionary if we believe revolution is impossible?

Luís Henrique

[Igor]

Welfare exists for this reason alone. To keep people complacent of their situation. I may be poor, but at least I have food and shelter thanks to the government. That is the mindset of a lot of people these days. If the government were to not have these incentives to give to people or what is most likely to happen, the government simply can't afford to feed and shelter these people anymore, then we'll see the riots in the streets.

There are talks about cutting back on food stamps here in the US by the GOP. It won't pass and I'm sure the Republicans realize this and are doing it on "principle" alone, but if that were to pass and people couldn't afford to eat, the media would have a hard time lying to us about the food riots that would be taking place all around us.

while this might be the case to an extent, working welfare systems are still by far a net positive for us and every inch of welfare should be defended - accelerationism is an extremely dangerous idea that has no real historical precedents. where's the left-ward turn from the systematical crumbling of the welfare state since the 1980s? yeah. legacy of thatcher and reagan was an even more toxic right-wing political atmosphere, not a class-conscious counter-reaction to their policies. not to mention how well 'first hitler then us' worked out for everyone

when riots are really the last one option for literally starving we're already in the deepest shit as riots can be crushed and people rising up can be shot and there's no guarantee of anything permanent actually resulting from them

[Questionable]

I've answered this question before in greater detail, but I'll just give the summary of it; the answer to your question is yes. The crisis of the working-class is a crisis of leadership. There hasn't been a genuine socialist party in the United States that had its head screwed on right since the 1930s-40s. Historical conditions, such as the massive material and psychological war waged against communists, are what has given communism a bad name. Yes, reforms can dampen class struggle, but they cannot change the essential nature of capitalism, especially in the era of austerity that we're entering. What you're suggesting is third-worldism, which is a dead end. Without a revolutionary party armed with a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've answered this question before in greater detail, but I'll just give the summary of it; the answer to your question is yes. The crisis of the working-class is a crisis of leadership. There hasn't been a genuine socialist party in the United States that had its head screwed on right since the 1930s-40s. Historical conditions, such as the massive material and psychological war waged against communists, are what has given communism a bad name. Yes, reforms can dampen class struggle, but they cannot change the essential nature of capitalism, especially in the era of austerity that we're entering. What you're suggesting is third-worldism, which is a dead end. Without a revolutionary party armed with a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.

That seems like a dishonest simplification, insofar as women, queers, and POC aren't "the third world". If anything, I think it runs the risk of "movementism" - tailing various struggles for equality of workers within capitalism. That said, I don't think acknowledging the misleadership of the white left in the metropole, or lack of revolutionary aspirations within privileged sections of the working class necessarily leads to any such conclusions. It simply requires that we take a longer view, that we grapple effectively with imperialism as a fundamental dynamic of world capitalism, and that we confront conceptions of the proletariat that put white workers at the imperial centre at the centre of world revolution in the short term.

Re: "It's a crisis of leadership" - from where do you reckon these crises emerges? The subjective anticommunism (or, at best, opportunism) of "leaders"? No - it comes out of the real dynamics of class struggle. While I do believe in the potential for the transformation of the working class in struggle into a revolutionary proletariat, it's not that it's composed by a bunch of suckers. The reactionary leadership reflects the reactionary base. This only changes in moments of crisis and upheaval that force the working class to transform itself. It's out of these moments that revolutionary theory can be clarified and revolutionary leadership emerges. Not out of the programmes of "communist" sects.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm pessimistic about revolutionary prospects too for my region (North-Western Europe), but certain Southern European countries (now entering a period of protest fatigue it seems) showed that labour militancy is not by definition dead. With relative socio-economic stability for the working class it is not in their interest to revolt as they could lose everything. However, remember that the communist revolution is global. If it starts in Brazil and spreads around the Americas, and shows commendable gains (that is, it doesn't starve millions!) Europe, the first world, and the rest of the world will see a "socialist renaissance". Even if Europe will lag behind all other world regions it will have to submit to socialism once encircled.


I know I just recommended it in another thread but here's a free pdf of Sakai's Settlers: Mythology Of The White Proletariat: indybay.org/uploads/2005/10/28/sakaisettlersocr.pdf

It goes into detail on those exact questions.

I don't have enough time to go into detail, but the premise (admittedly solely derived from the title) appears laughable: that we can deduce from an arbitrary racial category the socio-economic question of that person. Is a Japanese worker a proletarian because he is "yellow"? Certainly Japan and South Korea surpass many "white" countries in terms of socio-economic development. The GCC-countries are on their way to surpass many "white" countries. If we look at Ukraine, the lowest "white" country on the HDI-list, we see that Peru, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Argentina, Barbados, Costa Rica, etc. all surpass Ukraine in terms of human development. So is Barbados' is working class proletarian because they are predominantly "black" while Barbados is more advanced than Ukraine (and Macedonia, Poland, etc. for that matter).

I'm willing to accept that the first world has a large labour aristocracy, maybe even outnumbering the proletariat, but to say that "whites" are all non-proletarian is ridiculous.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't have enough time to go into detail, but the premise (admittedly solely derived from the title) appears laughable: that we can deduce from an arbitrary racial category the socio-economic question of that person. Is a Japanese worker a proletarian because he is "yellow"? Certainly Japan and South Korea surpass many "white" countries in terms of socio-economic development. The GCC-countries are on their way to surpass many "white" countries. If we look at Ukraine, the lowest "white" country on the HDI-list, we see that Peru, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Argentina, Barbados, Costa Rica, etc. all surpass Ukraine in terms of human development. So is Barbados' is working class proletarian because they are predominantly "black" while Barbados is more advanced than Ukraine (and Macedonia, Poland, etc. for that matter).

I'm willing to accept that the first world has a large labour aristocracy, maybe even outnumbering the proletariat, but to say that "whites" are all non-proletarian is ridiculous.

Yeah, obviously you've looked at the title and not read the book. Good try tho.
For one, it concerns, in particular, the dynamics within settler-colonial societies in particular (the US and Canada in particular, but also Israel, formerly South Africa, etc.). Secondly, it doesn't start from a biological/determinist notion of "race" - rather, it looks at the historical construction of race, and, in particular, the use of "race" by capitalists in settler-colonies to "colour-code" the working class, both legally/systematically and systemically. It examines in a particular interesting way the "becoming white" of various ethnic groups (Italians, Irish, eastern Europeans) in the United States in relation to their class composition.
It's for this particular reason that your example falls really flat. "Race" doesn't have the same character globally, since it's shaped by particular juridico-political projects (slavery in the states, the "Indian Act" in Canada, etc.): "Black" in the United States isn't the same thing as someone with the same skin tone in Trinidad.

[Thirsty Crow]

The insistence on a supposed crisis of leadership is a cop-out, at best. No, the cause of the passivity of the working class isn't bad leadership or a lack of the party.
Rather, the causes need to be looked for "down there", in day to day reality of capitalist exploitation and the restructuring of class relations and dominant ideology, starting with the post-war boom and entering another period after the crisis of the 70s.

[SonofRage]

I'm willing to accept that the first world has a large labour aristocracy, maybe even outnumbering the proletariat, but to say that "whites" are all non-proletarian is ridiculous.

It's been a while since I read Sakai's piece, but I don't think he argued that there's no white proletariat but rather that it's largely bought off in the United States and had ceased to be a revolutionary class.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[ed miliband]

The insistence on a supposed crisis of leadership is a cop-out, at best. No, the cause of the passivity of the working class isn't bad leadership or a lack of the party.
Rather, the causes need to be looked for "down there", in day to day reality of capitalist exploitation and the restructuring of class relations and dominant ideology, starting with the post-war boom and entering another period after the crisis of the 70s.

and, if i may suggest, a text you quote in your signature makes a good attempt at looking "down there"...

http://www.kosmoprolet.org/node/52

better than the maoist, third-worldist shite.

[Thirsty Crow]

and, if i may suggest, a text you quote in your signature makes a good attempt at looking "down there"...

http://www.kosmoprolet.org/node/52

better than the maoist, third-worldist shite.

Yeah, I'd wholeheartedly recommend that text.

[Questionable]

That seems like a dishonest simplification, insofar as women, queers, and POC aren't "the third world".

You're right. That was an incorrect usage on my term. A better term would have been "identity politics."


It simply requires that we take a longer view, that we grapple effectively with imperialism as a fundamental dynamic of world capitalism, and that we confront conceptions of the proletariat that put white workers at the imperial centre at the centre of world revolution in the short term.

Before you go any further, let it be known that I never suggested such a thing. I'm not saying you'll do it, but I've encountered many people with similar ideological views of yours who seem to think anyone disagrees with them is expecting an all-white American revolution to save the world. It's a strawman.


from where do you reckon these crises emerges? The subjective anticommunism (or, at best, opportunism) of "leaders"?

Just to correct you, by "leaders" I do of course mean parties organically composed of the working class. Your statement here implies that I'm suggesting an individualistic approach to revolutionary struggle wherein brave leaders awaken the lulled masses. Not so.

Anyway, yes. The absence of a revolutionary party leads to the workers seeking answers in parties with reactionary and/or reformist programmes, as that is all they have.


While I do believe in the potential for the transformation of the working class in struggle into a revolutionary proletariat, it's not that it's composed by a bunch of suckers

I never said they were "suckers." The American proletariat are neither pitiful victims, nor romantic heroes. I'm only stating what's happening - in the absence of a socialist alternative to capitalism, the proletariat is following the trail of reformists and reactionaries who are better organized than the Left currently is at the moment, and thus are more capable of carrying out their programme and recruiting workers.


The reactionary leadership reflects the reactionary base. This only changes in moments of crisis and upheaval that force the working class to transform itself. It's out of these moments that revolutionary theory can be clarified and revolutionary leadership emerges.

So your proposition is that the Western proletariat has bad parties because the proletariat is bad, yes? I find that to be vulgar materialism, as it ignores the ideological component of waging class struggle, which is very real.


Not out of the programmes of "communist" sects.

Sects that, as Marx said, try to mold the proletariat of course fail. It is the party that actually represents their interests that will rise to the position of the vanguard.

[CyM]

The welfare state is a social wage, won by hard struggle by the proletariat as a whole, taken from all employers as a whole.

That social wage was only possible because the capitalists in the advanced capitalist countries had a certain margin to manoeuvre after the second world war. This was because of a few key factors:

1. A wave of revolutions swept through Europe when the Capitalist state in the form of the Nazi army collapsed. This wave was betrayed by the Stalinist parties who entered into coalition governments with the bourgeoisie in country after country in "popular front" governments. Counterrevolution in a democratic form was carried out, and the immediate danger was removed. This created the political prerequisites for the boom: a return to work.

2. One of the economic prerequisites was prepared by the war itself: a massive destruction of Capital and products which went far beyond destroying just the "surplus", creating a vacuum which must be filled.

3. Another economic prerequisite was world trade, prepared the destruction of the empires, and their subordination to one empire which could force them all to open their borders.

4. Then of course there's the new industries: electronics, plastics, chemicals.

All of this unleashed a boom unlike any before seen in Capitalism. Much like a dying man can have a sudden burst of energy just before he passes. This, combined with the Soviet danger next door, encouraged the Capitalists to make concessions more easily (though not without a fight), in order to maintain the system at home. They exploited the colonies, and gave certain concessions at home. It is important to note, though, that at no point did these concessions become more valuable than the surplus value extracted from the western worker. So any idea that the workers here are "privileged" is a reactionary lie: they are still exploited, just not as heavily.

This boom more or less came to an end in the 70's. See capitalism has cycles of boom and bust. It is a fundamental flaw in the system, which drives it into crisis. The cycle is caused by overproduction.

To explain quickly, the capitalist sees a niche, builds factories to fill the niche, makes a quick buck. He plans his investments impeccably well. But he does not plan with the other capitalists. Who, seeing that he's making money, decide that's a good market to invest in. So they too build a bunch of factories. And they all make money. There's a problem though. Their profit is made from paying their workers less than the products they produce are worth. So that means that all the workers in the country can't buy back all the products they are paid to produce. And the capitalists don't consume enough to buy them all either (why would a multi-billionaire buy a thousand fords when he could have a few dozen Ferraris, Lamborghinis and the like?). This is where world trade comes in, as Marx predicted.

The Capitalists, by the very logic of their system, are driven to export capital and goods elsewhere. This delays the crisis.

The post-war boom lasted so long because the capitalists were able to conquer the whole globe. Not a corner was left, except for the Degenerated and Deformed workers' states: the USSR, Cuba, China, etc...

In the 70's, they reached the limit, no new markets left to conquer. Overproduction caught up with them. Suddenly, the realisation that they were producing too much for the market to handle. And Keynesian economics only made the crisis worse, because of inflation. The only way out? Cut production, get rid of the excess. Hence, mass layoffs, unemployment. But that only cuts the market further, etc... As Marx said, like the hangover after a big party. The bigger the party, the worse the hangover. And the postwar boom was a huge party.

Anyways, to make it simple, the last revolutionary wave that touched the advanced capitalist countries was precisely in the 70's.

But again, betrayals, lack of leadership, destroyed the revolution.

Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney, all these right-wing bourgeois came in after this. Their politics were to trim the welfare state, because there was no more base for it.

Then came the fall of the Berlin wall, and suddenly a billion new clients on the market. This took the pressure off for a little longer. So the crisis that was to erase the gains of the postwar boom was delayed by a combination of new markets and massive consumer debt: fake money.

Well here we are. We have been in capitalism's longest crisis since 2008, no other recession has lasted this long. And it is actually deeper than the depression was, but people think that just because we don't hitch lifts on trains that it isn't as bad. The capitalists have no choice but to cut, cut, cut. But we're already on the edge! The youth of today are the first generation since the great depression who will live worse off than their parents' generation.

This is a recipe for class struggle. And we can already see it: McDonald's workers in the US going on strike! Occupy! Indignados in Spain! Greece!

The previous period of social peace is over. It is our task to prepare for the times ahead. We have entered into an epoch of revolutions, counterrevolutions, and wars. No one can deny this.

We must ensure this revolutionary situation is not wasted like so many before.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Perhaps Comrade Chernov it's not that we in the "lower classes" are complacent ... it's that we want to have nothing to do with your "revolution". Can you be more classist, more instrumental? We do not exist merely to further your cause.

I would strongly suggest you contemplate Eugene Debs statement: "I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it".


Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a theory that I've been brooding on for quite some time. Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution. When the Manifesto was written in the 1840s, the average worker had little rights, horrid pay, and very few benefits within their work environment. This, of course, allowed them to actually become angry at their Bourgeois overlords. However, nowadays, the average worker, though still arguably an economic slave to their employers based on wages vs. cost of living, has things such as the 40-hour workweek, medical coverage, vacation, etc. With these, do the Workers still have the necessary resentment towards their employers that the success of Communism so dearly hinges on?


Well I don't think lack of resentment is a real problem both in the sense that it is resentment that would be the motivating "ingredient" as well as in the sense that I don't think there is a lack of resentment at all among workers. On an annecdotal level, most workers in a variety of positions have more than just a little angst or gripe about their work; it may manifest as "slacking off" or demoralization or even in more anger towards their co-workers or depression. On a broader level, though working class organization (not union only, but any self-organization as well) is generally absenst, I think we can get a sense of the alienation in the numbers of workers who wish they were something else and dream or even attempt at being a professional artist (singer, or sports player) or more commonly having their own business. An apparent lack of collective class alternatives to the class conditions leads many people to see this as the next best alternative - even if chances of sucess are slight.

Also annecdotally, I know service workers with no benifits and no recourse against their bosses at work and their attitude is: "well what can you do?". Conversly there are union members I know with good pay and benifits (that I would jump at the chance to have) who are really militant and never take shit from their managers. So I think expectations (which are related to a generalized sense of actual ability of people to effectivly fight back) play a really big part - French workers, for example, have better conditions than American ones, and French workers strike over things that people in the US wouldn't even bat an eye at.

What other people have said about structural changes is very important - and I think (at least for the US) more subjective things like the specific conditions of the union movement here and the effect of the Democratic Party also play a role in connection with the bigger structural changes. I think some arguments around structural changes take this too far in suggesting that renewed class insurgency is impossible - or even that it's impossible in the workplace. Capitalism is always changing and so there are no tactical formulas that are always true, there are no forms of organization that are always best and since workers are not a hive-mind and there's lots of pressures keeping us autonomous and divided, it's hard for our class to learn and adapt and find workable means. But fundamentally, as long as capitalism is a system of surplus on the one hand and working class exploitation on the other, the proletariet are the revolutionary class in an objective sense.

What worked for a worker's movement at one time will not work in other conditions. What craft workers could do, became ineffective with the rise of industrial methods, what worked in the large factories of the 30s doesn't work today necissarily, etc. But the fundamental dynamics and tasks remain the same: somehow to create an independant working class movement that can move beyond the logic of capitalism and towards self-emancipation.


Personally, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that, if a Revolution is to begin, its focus must be redirected - Not onto the entirety of the lower classes, but specifically, on those the Capitalist system currently, for lack of a better term, shits on, the most; Minorities, Women, Gays & Lesbians, Transgender people, and the Homeless. Of over a dozen Leftist blogs I've seen before coming on this website, three were owned by Transgender people, two by people of color, two by Gays, and four by Women. Only one was owned by a white cisgendered male, and he's from a rural part of Australia, where politics, though still Capitalist, lean more heavily to the left anyway. Well I disagree that fighting oppression is somehow an issue to the side of the class struggle rather than an aspect of it, but I think I agree in general that revolutionaries and class militants need to incorporate struggles against oppression into the heart of their practice. Something I think Rosa Luxembourg talked about is the continutiy of the economic and social struggle and how one flows into the other and back - I think this is true because ultimately these issues are linked in class society. Class rule depends on things like diciplining the population and ensuring that we stay in line and reproduce ourselves and future workers and so central to this is diciplining gender, sex, etc. It also depends on keeping people isolated and divided and so as long as capitalism exists, there will be incentives for the capitalists to oppress particular groups to either break solidarity or to create a layered workforce so that they can get away with increasing exploitation on some without provoking a class-wide responce. So movements against bigotry and oppression counteract efforts by the ruling class, create solidarity among people who are oppressed under the same rule and all this helps build a more united working class and a more confident one.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Which western countries?

There's a big difference between the USA and ,say, Spain or S. Korea (by 'western' I assume you mean developed).

[G4b3n]

Perhaps Comrade Chernov it's not that we in the "lower classes" are complacent ... it's that we want to have nothing to do with your "revolution". Can you be more classist, more instrumental? We do not exist merely to further your cause.

I would strongly suggest you contemplate Eugene Debs statement: "I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it".

Not only do we the workers need to ensure that revolution is carried out but we also need to protect it from the elitists, this is a major challenge in itself, the egalitarians will surely have a majority though.

I believe revolution will be born through capitalism's self destructive tendencies, something similar to the 2008 ordeal, simply a grosser example of the greed portrayed in its causes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The welfare state is a social wage, won by hard struggle by the proletariat as a whole, taken from all employers as a whole.

That social wage was only possible because the capitalists in the advanced capitalist countries had a certain margin to manoeuvre after the second world war. This was because of a few key factors:

1. A wave of revolutions swept through Europe when the Capitalist state in the form of the Nazi army collapsed. This wave was betrayed by the Stalinist parties who entered into coalition governments with the bourgeoisie in country after country in "popular front" governments. Counterrevolution in a democratic form was carried out, and the immediate danger was removed. This created the political prerequisites for the boom: a return to work.

2. One of the economic prerequisites was prepared by the war itself: a massive destruction of Capital and products which went far beyond destroying just the "surplus", creating a vacuum which must be filled.

3. Another economic prerequisite was world trade, prepared the destruction of the empires, and their subordination to one empire which could force them all to open their borders.

4. Then of course there's the new industries: electronics, plastics, chemicals.

All of this unleashed a boom unlike any before seen in Capitalism. Much like a dying man can have a sudden burst of energy just before he passes. This, combined with the Soviet danger next door, encouraged the Capitalists to make concessions more easily (though not without a fight), in order to maintain the system at home. They exploited the colonies, and gave certain concessions at home. It is important to note, though, that at no point did these concessions become more valuable than the surplus value extracted from the western worker. So any idea that the workers here are "privileged" is a reactionary lie: they are still exploited, just not as heavily.

This boom more or less came to an end in the 70's. See capitalism has cycles of boom and bust. It is a fundamental flaw in the system, which drives it into crisis. The cycle is caused by overproduction.

To explain quickly, the capitalist sees a niche, builds factories to fill the niche, makes a quick buck. He plans his investments impeccably well. But he does not plan with the other capitalists. Who, seeing that he's making money, decide that's a good market to invest in. So they too build a bunch of factories. And they all make money. There's a problem though. Their profit is made from paying their workers less than the products they produce are worth. So that means that all the workers in the country can't buy back all the products they are paid to produce. And the capitalists don't consume enough to buy them all either (why would a multi-billionaire buy a thousand fords when he could have a few dozen Ferraris, Lamborghinis and the like?). This is where world trade comes in, as Marx predicted.

The Capitalists, by the very logic of their system, are driven to export capital and goods elsewhere. This delays the crisis.

The post-war boom lasted so long because the capitalists were able to conquer the whole globe. Not a corner was left, except for the Degenerated and Deformed workers' states: the USSR, Cuba, China, etc...

In the 70's, they reached the limit, no new markets left to conquer. Overproduction caught up with them. Suddenly, the realisation that they were producing too much for the market to handle. And Keynesian economics only made the crisis worse, because of inflation. The only way out? Cut production, get rid of the excess. Hence, mass layoffs, unemployment. But that only cuts the market further, etc... As Marx said, like the hangover after a big party. The bigger the party, the worse the hangover. And the postwar boom was a huge party.

Anyways, to make it simple, the last revolutionary wave that touched the advanced capitalist countries was precisely in the 70's.

But again, betrayals, lack of leadership, destroyed the revolution.

Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney, all these right-wing bourgeois came in after this. Their politics were to trim the welfare state, because there was no more base for it.

Then came the fall of the Berlin wall, and suddenly a billion new clients on the market. This took the pressure off for a little longer. So the crisis that was to erase the gains of the postwar boom was delayed by a combination of new markets and massive consumer debt: fake money.

Well here we are. We have been in capitalism's longest crisis since 2008, no other recession has lasted this long. And it is actually deeper than the depression was, but people think that just because we don't hitch lifts on trains that it isn't as bad. The capitalists have no choice but to cut, cut, cut. But we're already on the edge! The youth of today are the first generation since the great depression who will live worse off than their parents' generation.

This is a recipe for class struggle. And we can already see it: McDonald's workers in the US going on strike! Occupy! Indignados in Spain! Greece!

The previous period of social peace is over. It is our task to prepare for the times ahead. We have entered into an epoch of revolutions, counterrevolutions, and wars. No one can deny this.

We must ensure this revolutionary situation is not wasted like so many before.

This is a quite excellent overview of the chronology of the post-war capitalist boom, from the perspective of Marxian economics.

However, it's still a cop out to say that the sole, or even main, reason that the revolution period of the late 60s/early 70s failed was just due to betrayal and lack of leadership. Especially if you mean within the western working class. The greatest betrayals came from the communist parties of the Soviet Union, who crushed dissent in Hungary, Czechslovakia, situations which could have led to a 'domino' effect of revolution across the developed world, had they been allowed to develop.

[CyM]

It was a summary, but you are correct that Hungary and Czechoslovakia's political revolutions could have had a massive effect on the course of history. Then again, revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries would have also had a domino effect in the Soviet Union and the deformed workers' states.

So it's dialectical, one could have sparked the other.

[LeninistRevolutionary]

This is a theory that I've been brooding on for quite some time. Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution. When the Manifesto was written in the 1840s, the average worker had little rights, horrid pay, and very few benefits within their work environment. This, of course, allowed them to actually become angry at their Bourgeois overlords. However, nowadays, the average worker, though still arguably an economic slave to their employers based on wages vs. cost of living, has things such as the 40-hour workweek, medical coverage, vacation, etc. With these, do the Workers still have the necessary resentment towards their employers that the success of Communism so dearly hinges on?

Personally, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that, if a Revolution is to begin, its focus must be redirected - Not onto the entirety of the lower classes, but specifically, on those the Capitalist system currently, for lack of a better term, shits on, the most; Minorities, Women, Gays & Lesbians, Transgender people, and the Homeless. Of over a dozen Leftist blogs I've seen before coming on this website, three were owned by Transgender people, two by people of color, two by Gays, and four by Women. Only one was owned by a white cisgendered male, and he's from a rural part of Australia, where politics, though still Capitalist, lean more heavily to the left anyway.

Opinions? Thoughts? Rebuttals?

It begs the question, who is the real proletariat in the world today? Being poor in the United States is still much better than being well off in many other places, and that knowledge combined with healthy doses of nationalism, religion and discouragement of alternative thought, not to mention biased media, has served to keep lower class Americans in line. Personally, I believe that with a charismatic leader there could still be a revolution in the USA, or anywhere else in the West, especially if the self destructive austerity continues. But at the same time, it may be easier, and more likely, that something happens in the third world, where brutal manual labor and abuse (the things which inspired Marx) are more common.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Personally, I believe that with a charismatic leader there could still be a revolution in the USA, or anywhere else in the West, especially if the self destructive austerity continues. But at the same time, it may be easier, and more likely, that something happens in the third world, where brutal manual labor and abuse (the things which inspired Marx) are more common.

If only Jim Jones was alive today. Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? Feudalism had plenty o' brutal manual labor and abuse. It was the dynamism of capitalism that convinced Marx that a socialist revolution was possible.

[bcbm]

It begs the question, who is the real proletariat in the world today? Being poor in the United States is still much better than being well off in many other places, and that knowledge combined with healthy doses of nationalism, religion and discouragement of alternative thought, not to mention biased media, has served to keep lower class Americans in line. Personally, I believe that with a charismatic leader there could still be a revolution in the USA, or anywhere else in the West, especially if the self destructive austerity continues. But at the same time, it may be easier, and more likely, that something happens in the third world, where brutal manual labor and abuse (the things which inspired Marx) are more common.

if we believe that capitalism creates the proletariat whose historical role is to destroy class society, it really doesnt matter what 'healthy doses' of anything we have. the contradiction between our interest and the boss' will drive things to a head

[SonofRage]

if we believe that capitalism creates the proletariat whose historical role is to destroy class society, it really doesnt matter what 'healthy doses' of anything we have. the contradiction between our interest and the boss' will drive things to a head

I don't believe that. :)

I think the proletariat has a tendency to rebel under capitalism, but not that communist revolution is some inevitably that we have this "historic role" in.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't believe that. :)

I think the proletariat has a [I] tendency [/] to rebel under capitalism, but not that communist revolution is some inevitably that we have this "historic role" in.

The bit about the historical role can be interpreted to mean the role in production, vis-a-vis capital.

[SonofRage]

The bit about the historical role can be interpreted to mean the role in production, vis-a-vis capital.

I tend to think of that as a strategic position. Historic role comes off deterministic.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

[Fred]

I think any notion that the revolution can be made by forces other than the proletariat are simply wrong. Why? Because it begs the question of social power. Only the proletariat has the social power to bring down capitalism (along with the self-interest). Students, gays, transgender people, etc. organized along those lines have very little social power. This social power stems from the fact that it is the proletariat that creates value in capitalism. Isaac Deutscher made a great comment in reference to a spate of large anti-war demonstration in the late 60s, "I would gladly trade all of the anti-war marches for one dockers strike against the war."

The idea of the white proletariat being bought off by high wages is not a new one. It was quite popular in the 60s when, at least in the US, there were plentiful high-paying industrial jobs (mostly unionized). While there is certainly still a very large proletariat in the US, they are paid far less and the unions have been in retreat for four decades. As others have mentioned, btw, the proletariat in industrial countries is not homogeneous. In the US, blacks are over-represented in the proletariat.

Capitalism has shown itself to be more resilient than Marx, Engels, Lenin and even Trotsky believed. But since the declining rate of profit is still THE insoluble problem for capitalism, I don't think they were wrong about its inevitable destruction. Trotsky put it well, "The Objective circumstances for socialist revolution are more than ripe, they are overripe." However, the subjective conditions, strong communist parties dedicated only to revolution, does not exist. We are well into a period of general political reaction. The pendulum will swing the other way and it will be time for increased action. Maybe we are seeing signs of it.

Finally, I don't really think that people are bought off, so much as politically demoralized. If the working class begins to feel its own power, you will begin to see movement. Even well-off petite bourgeois families in the US face tremendous financial insecurity with regard to things like health care and retirement. The proletariat has seen its real income fall back to levels not seen in 50 years or more. Unemployment is very high and the social safety net, such as it is, is pathetic. In the end, upsurges tend to come not when things are at their worst, but when rising expectations on the part of the proletariat are not met.

[SonofRage]

Finally, I don't really think that people are bought off, so much as politically demoralized. If the working class begins to feel its own power, you will begin to see movement. Even well-off petite bourgeois families in the US face tremendous financial insecurity with regard to things like health care and retirement. The proletariat has seen its real income fall back to levels not seen in 50 years or more. Unemployment is very high and the social safety net, such as it is, is pathetic. In the end, upsurges tend to come not when things are at their worst, but when rising expectations on the part of the proletariat are not met.

I don't find the phrase "bought off" to be useful. I question its accuracy (I'm don't buy the argument that the proletariat in imperialist countries is paid above the value they produce) and I think it implies that there is a conscious decision on the part of the proletariat to enter into this deal.

However, I do think there are psychological "wages" that lead to a tendency in white workers to see their interests as different from black workers and in workers in imperialist countries to not necessarily align themselves with the international proletariat.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

[Fred]

I don't find the phrase "bought off" to be useful. I question its accuracy (I'm don't buy the argument that the proletariat in imperialist countries is paid above the value they produce) and I think it implies that there is a conscious decision on the part of the proletariat to enter into this deal.

However, I do think there are psychological "wages" that lead to a tendency in white workers to see their interests as different from black workers and in workers in imperialist countries to not necessarily align themselves with the international proletariat.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

I agree, comrade. And, yes -- that is precisely what the bourgeoisie want. Divide and conquer is an oft-used technique to keep the proletariat down

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't find the phrase "bought off" to be useful. I question its accuracy (I'm don't buy the argument that the proletariat in imperialist countries is paid above the value they produce) and I think it implies that there is a conscious decision on the part of the proletariat to enter into this deal.

Actually, if you look at the historical relationship of the unions to capital and the state, at least in Canada and the U$, this is actually made explicit by labour (mis)leaders repeatedly. It's also pretty apparent in the Rand Formula and the various legal structures governing those relationships.


However, I do think there are psychological "wages" that lead to a tendency in white workers to see their interests as different from black workers and in workers in imperialist countries to not necessarily align themselves with the international proletariat.

I'm not entirely sold on the "psychological wages" thing, because it tends to gloss over, well, wages. It remains the case that in terms of wages, access to credit, education, etc. there remain racialized divisions within the working class. I'm not disputing that this has serious ideological implications - I agree. I just wonder about calling them "wages".

[SonofRage]

Actually, if you look at the historical relationship of the unions to capital and the state, at least in Canada and the U$, this is actually made explicit by labour (mis)leaders repeatedly. It's also pretty apparent in the Rand Formula and the various legal structures governing those relationships.



Which is explicit? The intention or three getting more value then their labor is producing?



I'm not entirely sold on the "psychological wages" thing, because it tends to gloss over, well, wages.

Can you expand on what you mean here?


It remains the case that in terms of wages, access to credit, education, etc. there remain racialized divisions within the working class. I'm not disputing that this has serious ideological implications - I agree. I just wonder about calling them "wages".

I agree, which is why I put it in quotes. Typically, I'd call it white/imperial privilege, but some immediately attack this as the politics of guilt instead of looking at the substance of the argument, which for me is that these divisions in the working class can lead to one segment aiding in the oppression of the other and that attacking this system of privilege may be strategic in terms of increasing class unity in a real way (instead of leaving it for "after the revolution").



Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Which is explicit? The intention or three getting more value then their labor is producing?

Well, the "getting more than the value of their labour" part isn't explicit, but, of course, it wouldn't be, insofar as labour theory of value isn't really part of mainstream discourse, even within labour. I would say that it's implicit, however, in discourses of "national" and "economic" interests pushed by labour - that white dominated organized labour in North America works consistently to maintain the social peace on which both their own relative prosperity and imperialism are reliant. The calls for social peace and conciliatory relationship between capital and labour are what I meant was explicit. Of course, there are exceptions (CUPW being somewhat notable in terms of the big unions, if still falling short of something revolutionary).


Can you expand on what you mean here?

I guess my point was that "psychological wages" is something I've heard within liberal discourses on race/racism that fail to grapple with their material reality. Obviously, I don't think you're a liberal, or are using it in this context. I just like to avoid it because so often it's part of a conception of white supremacy that sees it as a subjective characteristic, rather than a foundational material aspect of North American capitalism.


I agree, which is why I put it in quotes. Typically, I'd call it white/imperial privilege, but some immediately attack this as the politics of guilt instead of looking at the substance of the argument, which for me is that these divisions in the [working] class can lead to one segment aiding in the oppression of the other and that attacking this system of privilege may be strategic in terms of increasing class unity in a real way (instead of leaving it for "after the revolution").

^Oh my god. Yes. This. Exactly. Thank-you.

[SonofRage]

It's kind of funny that the psychological wages of whiteness" can be associated with liberals now. As far as I know, this term was first used by W.E.B. Dubois in Black Reconstruction in America . :)

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk 4

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's kind of funny that the psychological wages of whiteness" can be associated with liberals now. As far as I know, this term was first used by W.E.B. Dubois in Black Reconstruction in America . :)

I don't know if "funny" is the word I'd chose so much as "an expression of the terrifying power of liberal hegemony".

See also: "Privilege" and "Oppression" as staples of university room-booking policies.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is a theory that I've been brooding on for quite some time. Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution.

Lql, wut?


When the Manifesto was written in the 1840s, the average worker had little rights, horrid pay, and very few benefits within their work environment.

How has this changed? Look at the workers in the meat industry in the US; they have one of the most dangerous jobs in America, receive little pay and work in the most biologically hazardous and gross jobs, literally the conditions are blood, shit, and all other body fluids, everyday, swinging around sharp instruments, in the same sequence, for hours upon hours. The Jungle is still some real ass shit.

Even farmers, any farmer that is under Monsanto, can't even collect their own seeds as has been traditionally down since farming began. If Monsanto catches any farmer, collecting their own seeds, they can find themselves in a world of shit, legally and after Monsanto is done ruining said farmer, they will be blacklisted. These are also just a few off the top of my head examples, really, not that much has changed, people just have a rosey image of how their society operates that doesn't match up to reality. Imperial hegemony and propaganda in America is astounding. It's class Stockholm syndrome.

Not mentioning the horrible conditions of off the books immigrant workers.


This, of course, allowed them to actually become angry at their Bourgeois overlords. However, nowadays, the average worker, though still arguably an economic slave to their employers based on wages vs. cost of living, has things such as the 40-hour workweek, medical coverage, vacation, etc. With these, do the Workers still have the necessary resentment towards their employers that the success of Communism so dearly hinges on?

I think you have a rosier view of how things actually are, no offense. Not all workers enjoy such benefits, either.

I don't have medical insurance, I work more than 40 hours, I don't get any vacation times, etc.


Personally, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that, if a Revolution is to begin, its focus must be redirected - Not onto the entirety of the lower classes, but specifically, on those the Capitalist system currently, for lack of a better term, shits on, the most

The lumpenproletariat? Have you ever read Bakunin?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Lql, wut?

How has this changed? Look at the workers in the meat industry in the US; they have one of the most dangerous jobs in America, receive little pay and work in the most biologically hazardous and gross jobs, literally the conditions are blood, shit, and all other body fluids, everyday, swinging around sharp instruments, in the same sequence, for hours upon hours. The Jungle is still some real ass shit.

I think it's worth pointing out that slaughterhouse work is wildly stratified along racial lines. The number of WASPs working on killing floors is miniscule, with, in the U$, close to 40% of workers born outside the country. This is even more pronounced in the bottom rungs of agricultural labour. I would assume that this thread is about the white working class - the part of the working class that is relatively affluent, and not the racialized working class which I don't think anybody would dispute the properly proletarian potentialities of.


Even farmers, any farmer that is under Monsanto, can't even collect their own seeds as has been traditionally down since farming began. If Monsanto catches any farmer, collecting their own seeds, they can find themselves in a world of shit, legally and after Monsanto is done ruining said farmer, they will be blacklisted. These are also just a few off the top of my head examples, really, not that much has changed, people just have a rosey image of how their society operates that doesn't match up to reality. Imperial hegemony and propaganda in America is astounding. It's class Stockholm syndrome.

To be fair, "small farmers" are undeniably, by definition, petit bourgeois. That's not to say that their increasing immiseration and indebtedness is a matter of no concern (it certainly is!) - but it doesn't speak directly to the condition of workers.


Not mentioning the horrible conditions of off the books immigrant workers.

Again, third world workers ripped from their countries and forced into virtual slave labour don't have much immediately in common with white American workers.


I don't have medical insurance, I work more than 40 hours, I don't get any vacation times, etc.

Of course, the situations I'm describing are by no means static. I think the possibility of a properly proletarian white working class is seeming increasingly likely.

(Que third-worldists calling me an imperialist lackey.)

[Yuppie Grinder]

The west as it is today will see no revolution from how I see it.
However, the West as it is today is totally unsustainable so who knows.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think it's worth pointing out that slaughterhouse work is wildly stratified along racial lines. The number of WASPs working on killing floors is miniscule, with, in the U$, close to 40% of workers born outside the country. This is even more pronounced in the bottom rungs of agricultural labour.

I find this interesting and I'm not doubting you at all but sources would be cool cuz I'm lazy, kthnx.


I would assume that this thread is about the white working class - the part of the working class that is relatively affluent, and not the racialized working class which I don't think anybody would dispute the properly proletarian potentialities of.

I honestly didn't assume the OT of this thread implied the white working class and I'm not disputing issues such as white privilege but I mean, how are we defining affluent here exactly? I still say, in general we often have a rosier view of the plight of the working class both white and otherwise. I don't hold this view that the majority of the white working class are affluent or bourgy assholes incapable of being pissed off at the capitalist system and feeling the effects therefrom.


To be fair, "small farmers" are undeniably, by definition, petit bourgeois. That's not to say that their increasing immiseration and indebtedness is a matter of no concern (it certainly is!) - but it doesn't speak directly to the condition of workers.

Tenant farmers and sharecroppers still make up a sizable percentage of overall farming and couldn't hardly be called petty bourgeois but otherwise I would agree with you.


Again, third world workers ripped from their countries and forced into virtual slave labour don't have much immediately in common with white American workers.

This still doesn't exclude them from the American working class proper when considering the revolutionary potential of the working class in America in general which is why I mentioned it.


Of course, the situations I'm describing are by no means static. I think the possibility of a properly proletarian white working class is seeming increasingly likely.

Again, white privilege aside I'm not the cynical of the white proletariat, necessarily.

[Comrade Chernov]

Oh, yes, I should have specified, I meant that the white working class is the complacent part. Whites tend to be less inclined towards revolution due to their higher de facto standing in society as it is.

Sadly, I don't think a revolution is possible in the U.S. today, and won't be for some time, though it would have to happen in order to secure the safety of other revolutions across the globe. (The U.S. loves "intervening" in such wars.)

[Popular Front of Judea]

Sadly, I don't think a revolution is possible in the U.S. today, and won't be for some time, though it would have to happen in order to secure the safety of other revolutions across the globe. (The U.S. loves "intervening" in such wars.)

We finally have something we can agree on.

[Questionable]

Sadly, I don't think a revolution is possible in the U.S. today, and won't be for some time, though it would have to happen in order to secure the safety of other revolutions across the globe. (The U.S. loves "intervening" in such wars.)

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc, all survived initial imperialist interventions.

They're not so tough.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I find this interesting and I'm not doubting you at all but sources would be cool cuz I'm lazy, kthnx.

Source (http://www.foodispower.org/slaughterhouse-workers/)

[d3crypt]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc, all survived initial imperialist interventions.

They're not so tough.

Yah but these days America has cruise missiles and drones. Don't forget nukes!

[Questionable]

Yah but these days America has cruise missiles and drones. Don't forget nukes!

None of these things have helped them defeat multiple insurgencies in the Middle East.

Advanced weapons are simply another part of the class struggle. They do not change its fundamental character.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sadly, I don't think a revolution is possible in the U.S. today, and won't be for some time, though it would have to happen in order to secure the safety of other revolutions across the globe. (The U.S. loves "intervening" in such wars.)

I don't think one necessarily needs to be so grim about things. For one, the functioning of capitalism doesn't really depend on the white American working class, insofar as most primary and secondary industry isn't the business of white America (definitely there are some exceptions). Consequently, we don't really need to wait on white American political consciousness for shit to start getting pretty real. Secondly, as this starts to happen, I think we can expect pretty rapid change in consciousness of white American workers, as they are either "re-proletarianized" (forced to leave their bureaucratic, managerial, and service jobs for production) or pauperized - thrown out in the cold and suddenly with nothing to lose.
I think this is already happening. I think we're seeing a weakening of global American military hegemony, we're definitely seeing an upswing of working class combativity in centres of global production (e.g. China), the collapse of European economies, etc., and it's coming out in some pretty inspiring upheavals (e.g. Occupy, Quebec 2012, etc.). Certainly, this isn't a revolutionary situation (and we shouldn't delude ourselves), but I do think that we need to start preparing for shit to get pretty wild over the next decade.

[d3crypt]

None of these things have helped them defeat multiple insurgencies in the Middle East.

Advanced weapons are simply another part of the class struggle. They do not change its fundamental character.

I suppose i'm just being cynical.

[Radio Spartacus]

The class politics behind this trend have been very intelligently explored by others in the thread and one should definitely take note of their sound reasoning because the OP isn't looking at things from a proper revolutionary perspective. Since that's already been done, some optimism:

I hate to use this example because I don't want to take away from the seriousness of the thread, but all that comes to mind is Star Wars. Remember when everyone in Star Wars mistrusted Jedi, and then Jedi started meaning "liberation from an evil empire" so the word had positive connotations again? Communism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The class politics behind this trend have been very intelligently explored by others in the thread and one should definitely take note of their sound reasoning because the OP isn't looking at things from a proper revolutionary perspective. Since that's already been done, some optimism:

I hate to use this example because I don't want to take away from the seriousness of the thread, but all that comes to mind is Star Wars. Remember when everyone in Star Wars mistrusted Jedi, and then Jedi started meaning "liberation from an evil empire" so the word had positive connotations again? Communism.

Remember when Star Wars was a movie that theoretically concerned the struggle of a whole host of peoples, human and non-human, against an empire ruled exclusively by white men, but then centred the story of a white boy's daddy issues? Luke Skywalker is like white workers in America, and George Lucas is a racist tool.

You should probably not try too hard to dissect that metaphor, since it wasn't meant to be a serious analysis of Star Wars, or a serious anything. More importantly, I want to know what you think is wrong with the OP, and their class politics.

[Radio Spartacus]

Remember when Star Wars was a movie that theoretically concerned the struggle of a whole host of peoples, human and non-human, against an empire ruled exclusively by white men, but then centred the story of a white boy's daddy issues? Luke Skywalker is like white workers in America, and George Lucas is a racist tool.

You should probably not try too hard to dissect that metaphor, since it wasn't meant to be a serious analysis of Star Wars, or a serious anything. More importantly, I want to know what you think is wrong with the OP, and their class politics.

We could debate whether the rebellion was a bourgeois revolution or a people's struggle if you'd like...

As for the op, I have thought such pessimistic thoughts before, but the nature of capitalism makes such periods of complacency temporary. I don't think the sort of complacency inducing government actions mentioned by the op can combat the contradictions of capitalism for long. Socialism isn't inevitable, that's in our hands, but the welfare state won't stop the fall of capital. Even in our western society in which the op fears a lack of resentment toward employers, I've seen disgust from most working people at their work experience. There is definitely class tension.

[Comrade Chernov]

You've also got to consider that the classes are divided along political boundries from within as much as between each other. There are left-wing and right-wing billionaires and left-wing and right-wing homeless people. That plays into the complacency factor as well; our goal as Revolutionaries should, ideally, include the persuasion of the more Liberal and Centrist elements to join us, and not the Reactionaries that we would, inevitably, be fighting against. A radical revolution can't work because there simply aren't enough of us...not right now, at least. Hopefully it'll change, though.

[Alv Erlingsson]

In this debate I think CyM has many good points, but the logic of the following should have been thought through before being posted:



All of this unleashed a boom unlike any before seen in Capitalism. Much like a dying man can have a sudden burst of energy just before he passes. This, combined with the Soviet danger next door, encouraged the Capitalists to make concessions more easily (though not without a fight), in order to maintain the system at home. They exploited the colonies, and gave certain concessions at home. It is important to note, though, that at no point did these concessions become more valuable than the surplus value extracted from the western worker. So any idea that the workers here are "privileged" is a reactionary lie: they are still exploited, just not as heavily.


Being privileged 're not opposed to being exploited The working class can be both, and it is in the West.

For example, some will argue that house niggers were a bit more privileged than field niggers back when the U.S. enslaved African people. Nevertheless, both groups were still slaves of their racist masters.


Is not precisely the significantly relieved exploitation of the Western working class, compared to their comrades in the south, the privilege the Western working class enjoys?


I also think it is strange of CyM to label it as reactionary to ask such questions as, is the (overpaid) Western working class privileged? In this respect, I think you display a technocratic and science hostile mindset that is more reminiscent of the one that often characterize what you call Stalinist parties.


CyM does neither manage to convince me that we live in a new revolutionary period in the history of the imperialist exploiter states. The empirical data are too weak.


Although there were many big strikes, student riots and many new revolutionary parties was formed and organized in the United States and around Europe in the late 1960s , neither the United States or Europe were near some revolutions then. Nor, it seems as if we are close to it now. It's good for McDonald's employees that they strike for better conditions , but that in itself is not a sign of increased revolutionary consciousness in the working class . Nor is it a sign that big things are about to happen, that some maladaptive individuals camp on the lawns outside the different stock exchanges.

Real revolutionary movements behaves and looks like what we have seen in North Africa , the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula over the past few years. What we have seen in Europe and North America in the past few years is only the instinctive and spontaneous struggle of the working class to maintain their wages and purchasing power. It is not revolutionary class struggle, it is at its best only seeds of it.


A really good article which takes up and answers some of the questions discussed herein are "There Will Come a Day ... Imperialism and the Working Class", by Gotfred Appel. If you google it you wil find it. I do not have access to post links.

[AmilcarCabral]

Comrade: You are 100000000000000% right about the behaviour patterns of the US working classes (including the low-wage blue-collar workers). I don't know if the morphing of the US working class, into an ultra-right wing working class has something to do with the Ronald Reagan neoliberalism revolution that began in the late 1970s, which included an egocentric narcissistic anti-union, anti-collectivism, anti-protesting, "you are on your own" philosophy of life.

Maybe the very powerful effect of mainstream capitalist TV channels, capitalist movies, the shopping centers, and the whole philosophy of life in America which is a sort of philosophy of life of role models like Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney and the role models America exercise on the oppressed have a very powerful effect on the minds of the slave, that work as a powerful impediment for the US poor people supporting third parties and becoming more interested in a change thru politics (They prefer garage sales than politics)

I say this because around where I live the workers of the supermarkets where I shop the groceries are damn egocentric, narcissistic and treat their costumers like human trash. Even the Wal Mart workers behave like that.

What a weird upsidedown nation America has become where the oppressed behave like right-wingers. And indeed, I have seen poor workers around where I live getting into new 20,000 to 25,000 dollars very expensive cars like Toyota Camry, Honda Accords, Toyota Avalon, Ford Fusion, luxury cars or recent years (2008-2013), in order to boost their egoes and to compete with the middle class bourgeoise jones. But at the end of the day we all know that most poor low-wage blue-collar workers cannot really sutain an extra payment of 200 dollars to 300 dollars a month of a luxury expensive car for 80 months (25,000 dollars divided into 300 dollars is about 80 months)

What a suicidal class, the lower oppressed class of America has turned out to be, a lower class that prefers garage sales than political activism. A lower class that even hates capitalist-reformist anti-war options like The Green Party.

And do not be surprissed that the lower classes of America will turn their backs to any third party (even to The Green Party), and they will all support Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Jeb Bush. Although I heard a comment by Ron Paul saying that the US economy will grind to a halt in about a couple of years, when foreign lenders like China, IMF etc. will quit lending money to US government




.




This is a theory that I've been brooding on for quite some time. Perhaps it's simply my inner pessimist, but...it's seeming, more and more, that the lower classes simply are too complacent to embark on the course of revolution. When the Manifesto was written in the 1840s, the average worker had little rights, horrid pay, and very few benefits within their work environment. This, of course, allowed them to actually become angry at their Bourgeois overlords. However, nowadays, the average worker, though still arguably an economic slave to their employers based on wages vs. cost of living, has things such as the 40-hour workweek, medical coverage, vacation, etc. With these, do the Workers still have the necessary resentment towards their employers that the success of Communism so dearly hinges on?

Personally, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that, if a Revolution is to begin, its focus must be redirected - Not onto the entirety of the lower classes, but specifically, on those the Capitalist system currently, for lack of a better term, shits on, the most; Minorities, Women, Gays & Lesbians, Transgender people, and the Homeless. Of over a dozen Leftist blogs I've seen before coming on this website, three were owned by Transgender people, two by people of color, two by Gays, and four by Women. Only one was owned by a white cisgendered male, and he's from a rural part of Australia, where politics, though still Capitalist, lean more heavily to the left anyway.

Opinions? Thoughts? Rebuttals?

[Conkercorner]

A class's material situation determines its consciousness which determines its actions, yes?

If I'm not mistaken, It was urgently in the material interest of the ruling classes to allow various reforms in the 20th century because the threat posed by the increasingly conscious working class was greater than the profit and power lost by the introduction of placating reforms. Make concessions to the workers or risk losing everything when they rebel. The capitalist classes could afford to do this and the risk outweighed the cost, so they did.

We've now reached a point where consciousness in the proletariat is low once again, and I believe that the old bourgeois class interests will begin to take priority because risk is low. The ruling classes no longer need to protect their material wellbeing against a conscious working class, so the class interests of the bourgeois now involve improving their material wellbeing by rolling back reforms, reducing the power of organized labour, etc. I live in the UK, we're already seeing this process as public services are transferred into private hands and the welfare rug is pulled from underneath the poor. A similar pattern is appearing all over Europe.

It's cyclical, in a way. If the bourgeois interests are "safely" pursued due to diminishing threat from the working class, working class consciousness may rise again as a result of changing material conditions. So while I don't believe the proletariat will be conscious for some time, the natural tendency of the bourgeois to pursue their own class interests will change this. Whether the ruling classes slow this with propaganda or not, material changes overshadow everything else and will win out in the end. So yes, the proletariat is still capable, it'll just take a while for the bourgeois to smash reforms and assert its dominance before resentment begins to rise again.

Those are my thoughts on the matter, anyway.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear friend, sorry but being poor in USA is one of the worst places of the world to live in poverty. Did you know that there are even third world countries with free public colleges where you can study medical science, law and philosophy for free? And even third world countries with free or real cheap very affordable medical care where you can get a real good dental treatment for 10 dollars (Like Bolivia and Nicaragua)? Not in America, in America if you are poor and you have a dental problem, you are doomed, and if you are poor and you are a young teen you can't even join a gym.

You don't have to be a psychiatrist, to see with your own eyes how depressed, and down most poor americans are in the streets, in Wal Marts. The face is the reader of the soul of people, and you can read their soul, if they feel happy, satisfied or down and anxious just by observing their facial expressions. America is a nation in silent sadness and desperation. The psychologist Abraham Maslow said that pleasures and entertainments are part of the human basic needs of people, and many people in America are completely totally barrned and banned from participating and enjoying very important activities for their well-being like dancing, operas, parties, discos, theme park for their children, music concerts, cultural events, cultural book-fairs, etc. (This must stop and that's why socialism and communism in USA and in the whole world, are needed as soon as possible, to save the poor classes from sadness and existential vacuum)

If you are poor in USA every thing is banned for you, and you are totally barred from doing any thing. Because USA is morphing into a sort of plutocratic India, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Being poor in America is a hell on earth, without social mobility.

There is zero absolutely zero social mobility in America for the poor. Even Michael Parenti has a video about the myths of USA, in which he claims that wealth-spreading is one of the big lies of American Capitalism, there has never been wealth spreading. In fact the USA is such a scam that there are people in this country that earn about 50,000 dollars a year, and the system is such a hell on earth, such a robbery, that those people who earn 50,000 a year still live a painful because of the fact that those 50,000 dollars does not belong to them, but they really belong to the mortgage corporations, to the banks, to the utility services, to IRS, to the US government in all the taxes that people have to pay.

So having said this, poor americans who are not interested in communism, are not interested in communism not because they are living great lives, but because of many other factors like fear, brainwashing from TV, self-destructive behaviour, nihilism, mental depression, poor low-self esteem, low self opinion, among many other factors that are caused by how USA is the worst country of the world to be poor



It begs the question, who is the real proletariat in the world today? Being poor in the United States is still much better than being well off in many other places, and that knowledge combined with healthy doses of nationalism, religion and discouragement of alternative thought, not to mention biased media, has served to keep lower class Americans in line. Personally, I believe that with a charismatic leader there could still be a revolution in the USA, or anywhere else in the West, especially if the self destructive austerity continues. But at the same time, it may be easier, and more likely, that something happens in the third world, where brutal manual labor and abuse (the things which inspired Marx) are more common.