"Enraged" Masses vs "Emboldened" Masses

[SocialismBeta]

I'm sorry, the title is a bit obscure. I simply could not think of a more succinct way of putting the issue. Let me try to be clear and concise.

When talking about workers movements, workers revolutions, and the like... social movements that could theoretically put capitalism to an end, there seems (to me at least) to be two schools of thought:

1) The poverty and welfare of the general population declines to a point of intolerability. In a quick fit of rage, the poor masses violently overthrow the ruling classes/government. (ergo, The French Revolution or The Russian Revolution)

2) Working class movements gain significant social safety nets, organize well, and confront the ruling class in a peaceful environment (relative to the previous scenario, at any rate). Because workers have more wiggle room, they become emboldened and make demands. Hypothetically, a strong workers movement could then decide to overthrow capitalists. (ex: pre-neoliberalism USA, where union strikes were very common. Think also the hypothetical scenario of a "universal basic income", liberating people from the need to be wage laborers).

Whiffs of either scenario seem to pop up in leftest literature, and sometimes in a single account! My question is this: what version of revolution should be used as a model for the overthrow of capitalism (of course, a mix might also be possible). Different strategies for different situations?

I do not believe it is possible for the socialist to engineer revolutions, mind you, but I do think this is worth discussing.

[Q]

This is a useful debate to have indeed. The far left seems to be struck mostly by the "enraged" school of thought. The Trotskyists for example explicitly follow this strategy of aiming to radicalise the workers movement, step by step as it were, by taking on more and furthergoing aims and demands. The idea here is that the workers movement will not reach socialist conclusions "abstractly", but only through struggle, where it will learn that capitalism cannot bring them what is needed and so socialist conclusions will be drawn.

Besides that capitalism can give lots of concessions and so this premise is simply wrong on that front, it organisationally leads to a party model that only needs to steer the workers movement by "correct slogans". As such, the party is very vertical in form, allowing less democratic forms than a typical bourgeois party has and a minority in society could very well take over the reigns of power in society.

On the other hand you could put the "emboldened" strategy of trying to organise the workers movement into mass organisations that aim for a written out minimum programme of workers power. In this strategy, political education and democratic forms that go way beyond bourgeois forms take presence. The proletariat, seen as the future ruling class, is seen to be able to incorporate high politics (in contrast to trade-unionist type politics) into its being.

This model of patiently building up the mass party would see a mass politicised movement being built long before any revolution would take place, consiting of trade unions, cooperatives, social institutions, neighbourhood organisations, educational collectives, etc. It would pose a serious threat to the existing order during a revolution as it would "put in place" its chess pieces in strategic positions, ready to strike when the time comes.

I would argue that, while it may not have appeared this way because of police state repression, the Bolsheviks were exactly following this kind of strategy. The Russian revolution, while of course "enraged" in itself as all revolutions tend to do, was deeply rooted in an "emboldened" strategy of the RSDLP.

[Sharia Lawn]

The Trotskyists for example explicitly follow this strategy of aiming to radicalise the workers movement, step by step as it were, by taking on more and furthergoing aims and demands.

I've never heard Trotskyists characterized this way. Do you mind elaborating?

[Q]

I've never heard Trotskyists characterized this way. Do you mind elaborating?
They mostly wouldn't by themselves. I'm paraphrasing what they call the "transitional method" in a rather sharp way. But this has two schools within the movement:

One is the "reformist" school whoch focuses on existing consciousness, which is under normal circumstances very low, "reformist" and based trade-union like politics. The idea here is that Trotskyists can go from here towards radicalising the movement more and more by taking on more radical demands as the "struggle" (strikes, demostrations, protests) grow. This would then lead toward the logic described earlier. The CWI and IMT are main proponents of this strategy.

What is missing from this view is the fact that this "reformist" level of politics, one that is negotiated by trade union bureaucrats or their social democxratic counterpart in parliament, is the norm within capitalism. Economics and politics after all appear to be two separate spheres. Fighting for democratic demands, working class hegemony, etc are not a logical consequence from this. You "logically" start from labour condition legislation, working hours, immigration controls, defending or building welfare state instititions (healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, etc), nationalising infrastructure, etc. This is all broadly compatible with capitalism as a mode of production, which is the point raised by the "emboldened" strategy "orthodox" Marxists.

The second school could be summarised as "keeping the flame going on". Here it is made a principle to keep as close as possible to the original of the transitional method, despite general political awareness. Here the groups just wait for the right "material conditions" before their slogans appear to get a traction in the wider movement. The Spartacists and their offshoots come to mind.

[Sharia Lawn]

They mostly wouldn't by themselves. I'm paraphrasing what they call the "transitional method" in a rather sharp way. But this has two schools within the movement:

One is the "reformist" school whoch focuses on existing consciousness, which is under normal circumstances very low, "reformist" and based trade-union like politics. The idea here is that Trotskyists can go from here towards radicalising the movement more and more by taking on more radical demands as the "struggle" (strikes, demostrations, protests) grow. This would then lead toward the logic described earlier. The CWI and IMT are main proponents of this strategy.

What is missing from this view is the fact that this "reformist" level of politics, one that is negotiated by trade union bureaucrats or their social democxratic counterpart in parliament, is the norm within capitalism. Economics and politics after all appear to be two separate spheres. Fighting for democratic demands, working class hegemony, etc are not a logical consequence from this. You "logically" start from labour condition legislation, working hours, immigration controls, defending or building welfare state instititions (healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, etc), nationalising infrastructure, etc. This is all broadly compatible with capitalism as a mode of production, which is the point raised by the "emboldened" strategy "orthodox" Marxists.

The second school could be summarised as "keeping the flame going on". Here it is made a principle to keep as close as possible to the original of the transitional method, despite general political awareness. Here the groups just wait for the right "material conditions" before their slogans appear to get a traction in the wider movement. The Spartacists and their offshoots come to mind.

The Trot groups I know don't partition their slogans into stages corresponding to consciousness, they just outright call for socialism while including "transitional" demands and other demands of the day. Then again, they are almost uniformly criticized for being dingbats for talking about revolution at all when it isn't on the immediate agenda. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.