Lack of solidarity between workers

[Mr. Piccolo]

I recently had a discussion with a trucker about strikes and labor issues generally and I was surprised to hear that he did not support the efforts of fast food workers to increase their wages to $15/hour. He said that these people were just "burger flippers" and didn't deserve any more money and that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage for adults!:(

Needless to say, this trucker supports his own union and efforts to protect the wages and benefits of truckers. I hate to say this, but I find these types of views to be common even among unionized workers, especially those in the better paying trades.

As somebody who has worked on labor campaigns I find these attitudes so depressing it makes me want to give up. It is hard to make people see that ALL workers should support each other because ultimately we are in the same boat vs. capitalists.

Does anybody know of any good strategies to help develop solidarity between workers? Why do you think there is so much division between different types of workers? Is this an American thing or do you see it in other countries as well?

[Synergy]

People usually aren't aware of the root causes of these issues, especially if all they hear is red herrings on the radio or tv. Instead of realizing that many people are at a disadvantage due to capitalism they assume that low wage workers are simply lazy and failed to get a better job. If you can connect it altogether for them then you might be able to get through. If all else fails you can remind them that fast food workers and the like are necessary to keep the machine moving and that they are doing work that most people don't want to do.

[Thirsty Crow]

Does anybody know of any good strategies to help develop solidarity between workers? Why do you think there is so much division between different types of workers? Is this an American thing or do you see it in other countries as well?
I don't think there are such strategies, and yeah if you'd ask me the same question two years ago I might have offered a set of answers much dissimilar to this one.

The thing is, I don't believe anymore in an organized body of people spreading any good word. Nope, at best what we as pro-revolutionaries can do is make contacts and further contacts, the issue of solidarity being one of a direct encounter between the various working class strata under favorable conditions.

[Alan OldStudent]

I recently had a discussion with a trucker about strikes and labor issues generally and I was surprised to hear that he did not support the efforts of fast food workers to increase their wages to $15/hour. He said that these people were just "burger flippers" and didn't deserve any more money and that the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage for adults!

Needless to say, this trucker supports his own union and efforts to protect the wages and benefits of truckers. I hate to say this, but I find these types of views to be common even among unionized workers, especially those in the better paying trades.

As somebody who has worked on labor campaigns I find these attitudes so depressing it makes me want to give up. It is hard to make people see that ALL workers should support each other because ultimately we are in the same boat vs. capitalists.

Does anybody know of any good strategies to help develop solidarity between workers? Why do you think there is so much division between different types of workers? Is this an American thing or do you see it in other countries as well?
********

Tell your trucker friend that the notion that the minimum wage was always a “starter” wage or a “training” wage is utter hogwash, a lie that the special interests peddle to suckers and chumps like him. The National Industrial Recovery Act set the first national minimum wage in 1933, during the Roosevelt administration. Here’s what Mr. Roosevelt said about what the minimum wage was meant to be in his signing statement:


“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.” (http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html)


Ask your trucker friend if Roosevelt was talking about a “training wage” or “starter wage” (whatever that means) when he wrote those words in 1933 to explain the minimum wage. In truth, when instituted, the minimum wage was never meant to be a “training wage” or a “starter wage,” and your trucker friend is talking through his hat. It was meant to be a living wage.

Moreover, tell him that the term “burger flippers” is elitist and insulting, demeaning and trivializing. The proper term is “fry cook,” and like all honest work, it merits respect. So take your trucker buddy to a McDonald’s and ask him to observe how hard, how intently, and how rapidly the “burger flipper” must work. Being a fry cook is a demanding, dangerous job (unless you think rapid assembly work around hot oil and sharp tools is safe and easy).

Ask your trucker friend how he feel when some smart aleck tells him he’s just a “swamper,” a “warehouse jocky,” a “chicken hauler,” or “truck driver.” It’s uncool to treat a fellow worker who has a difficult and demanding job like he’s a shmuck.

The fry cook performs a valuable service for your trucker buddy. He takes a raw material (burgers, buns, oil, salad, tomatoes, condiments) assembles a finish product under dangerous circumstances. If he doesn’t think so, tell him to make his own goddamn hamburger.

Tell your truck driver friend that when workers like fry cooks get paid a living wage for working, they usually spend it locally, in stores and businesses. These stores and businesses then order more stock, which provides more opportunities for truckers.

***AOS***

[BIXX]

********

Tell your trucker friend that the notion that the minimum wage was always a “starter” wage or a “training” wage is utter hogwash, a lie that the special interests peddle to suckers and chumps like him. The National Industrial Recovery Act set the first national minimum wage in 1933, during the Roosevelt administration. Here’s what Mr. Roosevelt said about what the minimum wage was meant to be in his signing statement:



Ask your trucker friend if Roosevelt was talking about a “training wage” or “starter wage” (whatever that means) when he wrote those words in 1933 to explain the minimum wage. In truth, when instituted, the minimum wage was never meant to be a “training wage” or a “starter wage,” and your trucker friend is talking through his hat. It was meant to be a living wage.

Moreover, tell him that the term “burger flippers” is elitist and insulting, demeaning and trivializing. The proper term is “fry cook,” and like all honest work, it merits respect. So take your trucker buddy to a McDonald’s and ask him to observe how hard, how intently, and how rapidly the “burger flipper” must work. Being a fry cook is a demanding, dangerous job (unless you think rapid assembly work around hot oil and sharp tools is safe and easy).

Ask your trucker friend how he feel when some smart aleck tells him he’s just a “swamper,” a “warehouse jocky,” a “chicken hauler,” or “truck driver.” It’s uncool to treat a fellow worker who has a difficult and demanding job like he’s a shmuck.

The fry cook performs a valuable service for your trucker buddy. He takes a raw material (burgers, buns, oil, salad, tomatoes, condiments) assembles a finish product under dangerous circumstances. If he doesn’t think so, tell him to make his own goddamn hamburger.

Tell your truck driver friend that when workers like fry cooks get paid a living wage for working, they usually spend it locally, in stores and businesses. These stores and businesses then order more stock, which provides more opportunities for truckers.

***AOS***

The thing is I don't think people care about that. Humans as a species are too broken to want to let this hippy shit seep into them.

[Mr. Piccolo]

The thing is I don't think people care about that. Humans as a species are too broken to want to let this hippy shit seep into them.

But have people always thought like this, that is, like my trucker friend? Working-class movements used to be much stronger, even in the United States.

I suspect that the various Red Scares and Cold War McCarthyism helped to reduce the strength of communist and socialist movements. But the attitude of "I've got mine Jack" seems to be more troubling because it makes even mild social democracy a hard sell. Alan OldStudent's references to the New Deal are interesting because it shows how far the culture and public discourse has moved to the Right. How do we move the culture further to the Left?

Even a revolutionary Leftist would probably have to admit that making the general cultural milieu more receptive to radical ideas is helpful. Otherwise, it is very possible for reactionaries to take advantage of potentially revolutionary situations. Just look at how the populist Right is making gains in Europe and how Islamists seem to have benefited from the Arab Spring much more than left-wing groups.

[Ele'ill]

Maybe it has less to do with 'me and mine' as that specific caricature and more with there being very little worth in showing/receiving solidarity with the current state of things. A lot of the doubt and criticisms I've heard are not that far off from the mark albeit the conclusions may be wildly inappropriate. There's very little to trust, perhaps nothing at all.

[BIXX]

But have people always thought like this, that is, like my trucker friend? Working-class movements used to be much stronger, even in the United States.

I suspect that the various Red Scares and Cold War McCarthyism helped to reduce the strength of communist and socialist movements. But the attitude of "I've got mine Jack" seems to be more troubling because it makes even mild social democracy a hard sell. Alan OldStudent's references to the New Deal are interesting because it shows how far the culture and public discourse has moved to the Right. How do we move the culture further to the Left?

Even a revolutionary Leftist would probably have to admit that making the general cultural milieu more receptive to radical ideas is helpful. Otherwise, it is very possible for reactionaries to take advantage of potentially revolutionary situations. Just look at how the populist Right is making gains in Europe and how Islamists seem to have benefited from the Arab Spring much more than left-wing groups.

I would think that the changes we are seeing in the world are a result human damage, the more fucked up we are by the never ending violence/threats of violence with no way to resist (and trust me, leftism doesn't provide a real way to resist) has to show. The human ability to make healthy relationships is weak at best, nearly impossible seems more likely though.

I think Ele'ill is right that it isn't about a "I've got mine". IMO it is simply because our real ability to care for each other has been so damaged that even when people aren't doing well they still don't have their own ability to understand human relations and how they might fit into that, instead reverting back to moralism.

[Synergy]

When your success as a human being is measured by wealth and possessions, and you're told that you need to rely on your own skills to survive (bootstraps), then you start to view other people as obstacles and competition.

"Why do MY taxes have to pay for the laziness/mistakes of others?!"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The ruling class always rules using 'divide and conquer'. It's a classic strategy, but because it's so tried and tested and so omnipresent, I think it's something we sometimes overlook.

Solidarity is one thing, but we often tend to use solidarity as a weapon of defence: to defend minority and oppressed groups in times of strife. It seems to me that revolutionary movements of the past won success when they persuaded a wide range of workers to put aside their many social, cultural, and political differences and unite against our common enemy. While it's normally unhelpful yet incredibly fashionable to just mourn the demise of the left, I think actually one of the legitimate criticisms of the left is that we often fail to promote a 'positive' solidarity that persuades other workers to unite together towards a common goal; often our solidarity is a 'defensive' one based on thwarting the more obvious attempts by the ruling class to oppress a minority group in society.

[Mr. Piccolo]

The ruling class always rules using 'divide and conquer'. It's a classic strategy, but because it's so tried and tested and so omnipresent, I think it's something we sometimes overlook.

Solidarity is one thing, but we often tend to use solidarity as a weapon of defence: to defend minority and oppressed groups in times of strife. It seems to me that revolutionary movements of the past won success when they persuaded a wide range of workers to put aside their many social, cultural, and political differences and unite against our common enemy. While it's normally unhelpful yet incredibly fashionable to just mourn the demise of the left, I think actually one of the legitimate criticisms of the left is that we often fail to promote a 'positive' solidarity that persuades other workers to unite together towards a common goal; often our solidarity is a 'defensive' one based on thwarting the more obvious attempts by the ruling class to oppress a minority group in society.

Good point. Workers are always on the defensive these days. For better or for worse, people admire strength. If worker organizations could score even some mild reformist victories it might embolden people. Workers today are so demoralized that they think meaningful reform is impossible, much less revolution.

The thing that scares me, though, is the fact that workers are so isolated socially that it is hard for them to feel any kind of empathy for each other. Just for example, there was an interesting New York Times piece on the decline of friendship in the workplace.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/adam-grant-friends-at-work-not-so-much.html?_r=0

See also a study stating that younger workers would sacrifice a work friend for a promotion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/07/09/study-shows-millennials-place-greater-value-on-workplace-friendships-but-will-sacrifice-them-to-get-ahead/

If people cannot even make strong friendships in the workplace, how will you convince workers to make the immense sacrifices that are required to organize and fight capital? People seem to be increasingly adopting a "me (or my family) vs. the world" mentality that is good for capitalists because it reduces the chances of effective working-class organization. It reinforces the idea that struggle is an individual or at most familial endeavor.

Maybe I am blinded by being an American. Maybe things are better in other countries. But I think the Left is facing a really tough battle with this modern incarnation of "divide and conquer."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The thing that scares me, though, is the fact that workers are so isolated socially that it is hard for them to feel any kind of empathy for each other. Just for example, there was an interesting New York Times piece on the decline of friendship in the workplace.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/adam-grant-friends-at-work-not-so-much.html?_r=0

See also a study stating that younger workers would sacrifice a work friend for a promotion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/07/09/study-shows-millennials-place-greater-value-on-workplace-friendships-but-will-sacrifice-them-to-get-ahead/

If people cannot even make strong friendships in the workplace, how will you convince workers to make the immense sacrifices that are required to organize and fight capital? People seem to be increasingly adopting a "me (or my family) vs. the world" mentality that is good for capitalists because it reduces the chances of effective working-class organization. It reinforces the idea that struggle is an individual or at most familial endeavor.

Maybe I am blinded by being an American. Maybe things are better in other countries. But I think the Left is facing a really tough battle with this modern incarnation of "divide and conquer."

As a British person, I 100% recognise this phenomenon as well. Perhaps the fact that i'm a teacher means that i'm exposed to a particularly hierarchical workplace, where the people I work with are normally my direct or indirect line managers, and where actually I recognise the people I tend to get on best with are those who do not have direct authority over me.

I was watching the two 'Che' films today (the ones with Benicio del Toro) and the difference between the success of the Cuban revolution and the failure of el Che to foment revolution in Bolivia seemed to be that they couldn't persuade the poor peasants in Bolivia to support (directly by joining the armed struggle, or indirectly by selling them food and not cooperating with the government) their rebellion and not the government, whereas they were more successful in doing this in Cuba. The film seemed to show that the peasants in Bolivia either were persuaded by - or more likely were more scared by - the governments threats that they had to either directly or indirectly support the government and not support the rebels.

I think we see this in our everyday lives - the spectre of 'national security' is used to divide us along religious lines, the falsified stories of 'pressure' on national services by immigration divides us by nation and culture.

[Mr. Piccolo]

As a British person, I 100% recognise this phenomenon as well. Perhaps the fact that i'm a teacher means that i'm exposed to a particularly hierarchical workplace, where the people I work with are normally my direct or indirect line managers, and where actually I recognise the people I tend to get on best with are those who do not have direct authority over me.

I was watching the two 'Che' films today (the ones with Benicio del Toro) and the difference between the success of the Cuban revolution and the failure of el Che to foment revolution in Bolivia seemed to be that they couldn't persuade the poor peasants in Bolivia to support (directly by joining the armed struggle, or indirectly by selling them food and not cooperating with the government) their rebellion and not the government, whereas they were more successful in doing this in Cuba. The film seemed to show that the peasants in Bolivia either were persuaded by - or more likely were more scared by - the governments threats that they had to either directly or indirectly support the government and not support the rebels.

I think we see this in our everyday lives - the spectre of 'national security' is used to divide us along religious lines, the falsified stories of 'pressure' on national services by immigration divides us by nation and culture.

Yes, the issue of fear is a major one. People are afraid. Workers feel lucky that they have a job in the precarious economy so this makes them more docile and less willing to organize in the workplace for fear of getting fired and not being able to find a new job.

People are also afraid of the power of the State. I know the issue of CCTV cameras is big in Great Britain and they are becoming common in the United States too. There is a tremendous fear of the power of the State to punish you or have your name in a computer database somewhere.

Like you say, it is much easier to blame religious or ethnic minorities or whatever unpopular group is the subject of hate these days.

[John Nada]

“Secondly, the great Trades’ Unions. They are the organisations of those trades in which the labour of grown-up men predominates, or is alone applicable. Here the competition neither of women and children nor of machinery has so far weakened their organised strength. The engineers, the carpenters and joiners, the bricklayers, are each of them a power, to that extent that, as in the case of the bricklayers and bricklayers’ labourers, they can even successfully resist the introduction of machinery. That their condition has remarkably improved since 1848 there can be no doubt, and the best proof of this is in the fact that for more than fifteen years not only have their employers been with them, but they with their employers, upon exceedingly good terms. They form an aristocracy among the working-class; they have succeeded in enforcing for themselves a relatively comfortable position, and they accept it as final. They are the model working-men of Messrs. Leone Levi & Giffen, and they are very nice people indeed nowadays to deal with, for any sensible capitalist in particular and for the whole capitalist class in general. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/01/11.htm Sounds like the labor aristocracy, a small stratum of workers which have something of an alliance with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat proper. They're closer to the petit-bourgeoisie in outlook. Don't be surprised that workers under the influence of this strata have reactionary opinions. Just because they may be workers or even in a union doesn't mean they actually have the same short-term interests as the proletariat.

Instead of the worker elite like that mothertrucker, reach down deep into the core of the "real proletariat" that most will probably write off as "the lumpen". Like those with nothing to lose except their (fast food)chains.

The thing that scares me, though, is the fact that workers are so isolated socially that it is hard for them to feel any kind of empathy for each other. Just for example, there was an interesting New York Times piece on the decline of friendship in the workplace.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/op...much.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/adam-grant-friends-at-work-not-so-much.html?_r=0)

See also a study stating that younger workers would sacrifice a work friend for a promotion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathrynd...-to-get-ahead/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/07/09/study-shows-millennials-place-greater-value-on-workplace-friendships-but-will-sacrifice-them-to-get-ahead/)

If people cannot even make strong friendships in the workplace, how will you convince workers to make the immense sacrifices that are required to organize and fight capital? People seem to be increasingly adopting a "me (or my family) vs. the world" mentality that is good for capitalists because it reduces the chances of effective working-class organization. It reinforces the idea that struggle is an individual or at most familial endeavor.

Maybe I am blinded by being an American. Maybe things are better in other countries. But I think the Left is facing a really tough battle with this modern incarnation of "divide and conquer." As a British person, I 100% recognise this phenomenon as well. Perhaps the fact that i'm a teacher means that i'm exposed to a particularly hierarchical workplace, where the people I work with are normally my direct or indirect line managers, and where actually I recognise the people I tend to get on best with are those who do not have direct authority over me.Karl Kautsky, who'd later become the German labor aristocracy's chief revisionist ideologue, noted this peculiar immunity to radicalism in Anglo nations. He speculated it was due to England having its bourgeois revolution before other nations, while religion still had sway. And due to Protestantism allowing clergy to marry, this meant the bourgeois intelligentsia could remain and influence culture. This made the bourgeois ideology more entrenched in the national culture, including an empiricist outlook, and carried over to the US.

The emigrants carried the peculiar Anglo-Saxon mode of thought along with them across the ocean. They did not find anything on the other side that could have shaken them in their views. No class free from the work for a living was formed that could have cultivated arts and sciences for their own sake. We only find farmers and city dwellers whose maxim was that of the home country: Time is Money.


This also became the principle of the gradually arising proletariat for the simple reason that they did not feel as a proletariat, but considered their position only as a stage of transition for the purpose of becoming farmers, capitalists or at least lawyers, which was not unusual for many decenniums. To make money, in order to escape from their class, that was the ruling passion of the proletariat. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/09/farmers.htm I wonder if the fact that the US was for a long time a nation of petit-bourgeois farmers has an effect on modern class consciousness or lack thereof? Top that off with the US originating as a settler-colony still with internal colonies and a racial hierarchy.
I was watching the two 'Che' films today (the ones with Benicio del Toro) and the difference between the success of the Cuban revolution and the failure of el Che to foment revolution in Bolivia seemed to be that they couldn't persuade the poor peasants in Bolivia to support (directly by joining the armed struggle, or indirectly by selling them food and not cooperating with the government) their rebellion and not the government, whereas they were more successful in doing this in Cuba. The film seemed to show that the peasants in Bolivia either were persuaded by - or more likely were more scared by - the governments threats that they had to either directly or indirectly support the government and not support the rebels.Well those peasants didn't speak either Spanish or Quechua. A major fuckup. I'd imagine a group of strangers with guns shouting at me in both Farsi and Swahili won't convince me to join their armed cause, even if I 100% agreed with it in English.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've heard this argument before, that because of our peculiar history re: failed Republicanism and early industrialisation and rise of the bourgeoisie, and because we came through a short period of Republicanism and a longer period of industrialisation without 'revolutionary' change, we are somehow immune from revolutionary change in the future.

I have to say I don't buy this argument at all, for two reasons:

the first is purely ideological. If we accept the premise of this argument, then we are essentially accepting the moral premise that stability comes from monarchy, from the pre-eminence of the ruling class and ergo their continued rule = stability = something we should strive for. It's not difficult to see that the person who proposes this argument could easily transition themselves into the position of supporting reforms within, for example, a British Constitutional Monarchy;

the second argument against Kautsky's point is that he is arguing from an almost purely political historical viewpoint, viewing (lack of) change in British society as a product of (lack of) political change. It's an argument that only holds water if one ignores that British society first grew rich through empire and of course the slave trade, and was able to then use a combination of buying certain sections of the working class of and repressive social measures during industrialisation such as the workhouses and the police force, to reduce the likelihood of revolution. It doesn't logically follow that because of this, we British are naturally pre-disposed away from revolution. It's a total cop out of an argument.

[Sewer Socialist]

The ruling class always rules using 'divide and conquer'. It's a classic strategy, but because it's so tried and tested and so omnipresent, I think it's something we sometimes overlook.

Solidarity is one thing, but we often tend to use solidarity as a weapon of defence: to defend minority and oppressed groups in times of strife. It seems to me that revolutionary movements of the past won success when they persuaded a wide range of workers to put aside their many social, cultural, and political differences and unite against our common enemy. While it's normally unhelpful yet incredibly fashionable to just mourn the demise of the left, I think actually one of the legitimate criticisms of the left is that we often fail to promote a 'positive' solidarity that persuades other workers to unite together towards a common goal; often our solidarity is a 'defensive' one based on thwarting the more obvious attempts by the ruling class to oppress a minority group in society.

It is the task of the left to build a positive program, yes. However, what unites us is fundamentally our negation, our continued dispossession. It is in times of crises that we most easily realize our common ground, amidst layoffs, evictions, bank seizures, police repression, politicians restricting us, etc.

The left always becomes large in times like these. Sure, in times of prosperity, it seems possible and even likely we might someday own that which we are denied, but a year later, we've lost it all, and we can see the machinations of our exploitation so much more clearly. Even if only for a moment, it all seems so bleak, like the only additional thing we can lose is our chains.

You are correct to note that the success of revolution can only follow a positive program, but we will always be fundamentally united by what we lose. We must start from the solidarity, from our common enemy, from our common misery, from our collective nothingness to build anything. And for that reason, our success must start from the negative.

[John Nada]

I've heard this argument before, that because of our peculiar history re: failed Republicanism and early industrialisation and rise of the bourgeoisie, and because we came through a short period of Republicanism and a longer period of industrialisation without 'revolutionary' change, we are somehow immune from revolutionary change in the future.He was writing a news article primarily on the US, not a comprehensive theoretical work. Republicanism and the bourgeois-democratic revolution(War of Liberation and Civil War) were "successful"(to a point) in the US. And this happened in the US, which is part of the Anglosphere.

I sense sarcasm in Kautsky's remark that Anglo people are possibly genetically "immune" to revolution. I doubt he upheld racist pseudoscience at that point. After all, he was writting at the time when he was still regarded as a leading Marxist theorist, even by the RSDLP. Just thought it was interesting because both John Steinbeck's popular misquote about CPUSA members
I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves.and
This also became the principle of the gradually arising proletariat for the simple reason that they did not feel as a proletariat, but considered their position only as a stage of transition for the purpose of becoming farmers, capitalists or at least lawyers, which was not unusual for many decenniums. To make money, in order to escape from their class, that was the ruling passion of the proletariat. And Trotsky's comment on US workers' backward poliltics:
The empiricism of the American workers has given political parties great success with one or two slogans, single tax, bimetallism, they spread like wild fire in the masses.55 When they see the panacea fail then they wait for a new one. Now we can present one which is honest, part of our entire program, not demagogic, but which corresponds totally to the situation. Officially we now have thirteen, maybe fourteen million of unemployed, in reality about sixteen to twenty million, and the youth are totally abandoned to misery. Mr. Roosevelt insists on public works. But we insist that this, together with mines, railroads, etc., absorb all the people. And that every person should have the possibility to live in a decent manner not lower than now, and we ask that Mr. Roosevelt with his brain trust propose such a program of public works that everyone capable of working can work at decent wages. This is possible with a sliding scale of wages and hours. Everywhere we must discuss how to present this idea, in all localities. Then we must begin a concentrated campaign of agitation so that everybody knows that this is the program of the Socialist Workers Party. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/backwardness.htm
But even when a permanent proletariat arose, in which born Americans began to take their places by the side of foreign immigrants and Negroes, the Anglo-Saxons still remained “practical politicians.” They did, indeed, begin to understand that they must go into politics for themselves, but like true practical politicians, they demanded that it should be a shortsighted policy which should take heed only of the moment and regard it more practical to run after a bourgeois swindler who promises real successes for tomorrow, instead of standing by a party of their own class which is honest enough to confess that it has nothing but struggles and sacrifices in store for the next future, and which declares it to be foolish to expect to reap immediately after sowing.

If at any time Anglo-American workingmen had come to the conclusion that they must keep clear of the old capitalist parties, then this ill-starred “practical” sense would mislead them into founding a party on some single issue, which was supposed to cure at once all evils, free silver, single tax, or the like. But when this agitation did not bring any immediate success, then the masses soon tired of it, and the movement which had grown up over night collapsed quickly. Only the workingmen of German origin kept a Socialist movement alive among their countrymen. However, such a movement of immigrants could never hope to become a serious political factor. And as this emigration from Germany decreased considerably (the number of emigrants to the United States was 216,089 in 1881, while in 1899 it only reached 19,016), and as the Germans in American soon became anglicized, this German Socialist propaganda not only made no progress, but actually fell off after a certain time.I'm not sure if there was an American socialist that thought of this, or if it was some "common sense" idea on why the US didn't have mass workers' movements like other countries.


I have to say I don't buy this argument at all, for two reasons:

the first is purely ideological. If we accept the premise of this argument, then we are essentially accepting the moral premise that stability comes from monarchy, from the pre-eminence of the ruling class and ergo their continued rule = stability = something we should strive for. It's not difficult to see that the person who proposes this argument could easily transition themselves into the position of supporting reforms within, for example, a British Constitutional Monarchy; Ideology is part of the superstructure which arise from the base(productive forces and productive relations). The productive relations between classes is reflected in the dominate ideology of society. In capitalism it's the bourgeoisie's dominance over the proletariat.

But it's not just a one way street and the superstructure can alter the base too. It has a degree of autonomy, and sometimes even backwards aspects remain long after technology renders it obsolete. So reformism, a path totally acceptable to current productive relations and even comparatively "revolutionary" relative to feudalism, is going to be the discourse which the workers may direct their energy towards. The exalted farmers and small businesspeople, possibly what many Americans' grandparents were, are the ideal standard, when that's long thing of the past. Hell the very shape of the states and electoral districts and election dates are made to favor farmers and suburbs. This in spite of the fact that the base has long been fertile grounds for an intense class struggle.
the second argument against Kautsky's point is that he is arguing from an almost purely political historical viewpoint, viewing (lack of) change in British society as a product of (lack of) political change. It's an argument that only holds water if one ignores that British society first grew rich through empire and of course the slave trade, and was able to then use a combination of buying certain sections of the working class of and repressive social measures during industrialisation such as the workhouses and the police force, to reduce the likelihood of revolution. It doesn't logically follow that because of this, we British are naturally pre-disposed away from revolution. It's a total cop out of an argument.Engels did often complain of the negative influence of the English "aristocracy of labour" and England's colonial dominance, which made some workers' comparatively privileged compared to the Irish or Indians. Almost going all proto-third-worldist over it:lol:.

Kautsky was notorious for his mechanical materialism, which probably led to his revisionism. Actually seemed to mistakenly view(judging by WWI and WWII) what he called elite workers as the most revolution stratum of the proletariat, with England's elite workers being an unusually reactionary exception. At least in that article of his, he seems to downplay/ignore the US essentially has internal colonies(the predominately African-American parts of the south, [email protected] in the southwest, Native American reservations, ect), as well as the effect this racist society has on the petit-bourgeois consciousness, including immigrants assimilated into it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ideology is part of the superstructure which arise from the base(productive forces and productive relations). The productive relations between classes is reflected in the dominate ideology of society. In capitalism it's the bourgeoisie's dominance over the proletariat.

True, and though the ideology is not represented in the traditional spectra of defined political ideologies (communism; social democracy; liberalism; conservatism; fascism) as clearly today as it was in the 20th Century, it's clear that the sections of the media controlled by the capitalists, as well as the politicians, utilise the more general ideology of division to maintain the authority of the ruling class and weaken working class solidarity: division along the lines of religion, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, and most pernicious the 'deserving' vs 'undeserving' poor argument.


But it's not just a one way street and the superstructure can alter the base too. It has a degree of autonomy, and sometimes even backwards aspects remain long after technology renders it obsolete. So reformism, a path totally acceptable to current productive relations and even comparatively "revolutionary" relative to feudalism, is going to be the discourse which the workers may direct their energy towards. The exalted farmers and small businesspeople, possibly what many Americans' grandparents were, are the ideal standard, when that's long thing of the past. Hell the very shape of the states and electoral districts and election dates are made to favor farmers and suburbs. This in spite of the fact that the base has long been fertile grounds for an intense class struggle.Engels did often complain of the negative influence of the English "aristocracy of labour" and England's colonial dominance, which made some workers' comparatively privileged compared to the Irish or Indians. Almost going all proto-third-worldist over it:lol:.

Of course, it's not only the industrial working class base that is 'revolutionary'. The peasantry has long been an exploited group and therefore, in parts of the world, have maintained a potentially revolutionary role in revolutionary change.

I also think that 'backwards' elements, particularly in the economic sphere, are not always actually backwards. Because capital tends to use technology to increase profit margins rather than reduce labour time (with no loss of earnings), it's fair enough that we all view suspiciously some 'progressive' technologies, even if that view seems backwards. I've read that I could be replaced by a teaching robot at some point. Not only will this leave me on the scrapheap because capital will use this to drive down state spending on education and further atomise the process of education, this atomisation would also lead to shitter educational outcomes, no doubt. Until we can harness new technologies for progressive ends under a system of social justice, I think it's fair to be suspicious of some of these things that we do not understand, do not control, and that don't necessarily improve our living and working condition.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, the issue of fear is a major one. People are afraid. Workers feel lucky that they have a job in the precarious economy so this makes them more docile and less willing to organize in the workplace for fear of getting fired and not being able to find a new job.

People are also afraid of the power of the State. I know the issue of CCTV cameras is big in Great Britain and they are becoming common in the United States too. There is a tremendous fear of the power of the State to punish you or have your name in a computer database somewhere.

Like you say, it is much easier to blame religious or ethnic minorities or whatever unpopular group is the subject of hate these days.
I think there's something quite important to consider in all of this. And yeah, fear and precarity I think are definite mechanisms that have serious effects.

That being said, fear of (relative) destitution, or periods of unemployment and meagre living. First thing obviously is to ask - is this "legitimate"? In other words, how should communists relate to this phenomenon? Dismiss it as a mere lack of insight and/or courage (presumably due to the ruling ideology, perhaps) or to recognize there's something almost unbreachable here by mere communication of ideas, something more base so to speak?

Also, the fear of repression, pretty much the same set of questions and dilemmas. While we're at it, we could just as easily mention the open admission that a particular kind of civil war, as the aftermath of the initial steps of social revolution, is more than expected by many communists. So forget about computer databases, what about guns and superior tactical training with their effects on people's bodies? I dunno about other folks here, but I wouldn't refrain from admitting that this sends cold chills of sheer terror down my spine.

I think there's a whole ton of ramifications flowing from any basic answer to the question posed above. For instance, the notion that those two kinds of fear are in some way "illegitimate" necessarily begs the question - what are pro-revolutionaries to actually do then? How can our activity as pro-revs influence this problem and produce tangible and significant effects?

The same question also flows from the opposed viewpoint, one which I would advocate fully, that this is completely "legitimate" in that this represents almost a natural reaction to specific set of conditions. And this has important, very important consequences for thinking about both the potential of pro-revolutionaries' activity and our activity as workers.

Any thoughts?

[Mr. Piccolo]

I think there's something quite important to consider in all of this. And yeah, fear and precarity I think are definite mechanisms that have serious effects.

That being said, fear of (relative) destitution, or periods of unemployment and meagre living. First thing obviously is to ask - is this "legitimate"? In other words, how should communists relate to this phenomenon? Dismiss it as a mere lack of insight and/or courage (presumably due to the ruling ideology, perhaps) or to recognize there's something almost unbreachable here by mere communication of ideas, something more base so to speak?

Also, the fear of repression, pretty much the same set of questions and dilemmas. While we're at it, we could just as easily mention the open admission that a particular kind of civil war, as the aftermath of the initial steps of social revolution, is more than expected by many communists. So forget about computer databases, what about guns and superior tactical training with their effects on people's bodies? I dunno about other folks here, but I wouldn't refrain from admitting that this sends cold chills of sheer terror down my spine.

I think there's a whole ton of ramifications flowing from any basic answer to the question posed above. For instance, the notion that those two kinds of fear are in some way "illegitimate" necessarily begs the question - what are pro-revolutionaries to actually do then? How can our activity as pro-revs influence this problem and produce tangible and significant effects?

The same question also flows from the opposed viewpoint, one which I would advocate fully, that this is completely "legitimate" in that this represents almost a natural reaction to specific set of conditions. And this has important, very important consequences for thinking about both the potential of pro-revolutionaries' activity and our activity as workers.

Any thoughts?

Great post. I think the fears that people have are legitimate and they relate directly to alienation and atomization. To put it another way, people sense that nobody has their back. People feel that they are all alone in the world. If there were strong left-wing organizations on the ground it might give people more courage to agitate if they felt that they had comrades who would help them if they, say, lost a job or were imprisoned. Being part of a strong, close-knit organization can give workers strength and courage they do not have on their own just as individuals.

Right now workers are very demoralized and alienation from each other. The System's propaganda adds fuel to the fire by encouraging workers to attack each other instead of the System.

[BIXX]

Great post. I think the fears that people have are legitimate and they relate directly to alienation and atomization. To put it another way, people sense that nobody has their back. People feel that they are all alone in the world. If there were strong left-wing organizations on the ground it might give people more courage to agitate if they felt that they had comrades who would help them if they, say, lost a job or were imprisoned. Being part of a strong, close-knit organization can give workers strength and courage they do not have on their own just as individuals.

Right now workers are very demoralized and alienation from each other. The System's propaganda adds fuel to the fire by encouraging workers to attack each other instead of the System.

There is explicit betrayal in every left wing organization I have been a part of, the "stronger" said organization is the more explicit it is (in the struggle for diplomacy with the existent, otherwise there is no reason to measure the strength of an organization).

[Thirsty Crow]

Great post. I think the fears that people have are legitimate and they relate directly to alienation and atomization. To put it another way, people sense that nobody has their back. People feel that they are all alone in the world. If there were strong left-wing organizations on the ground it might give people more courage to agitate if they felt that they had comrades who would help them if they, say, lost a job or were imprisoned. Being part of a strong, close-knit organization can give workers strength and courage they do not have on their own just as individuals.

Right now workers are very demoralized and alienation from each other. The System's propaganda adds fuel to the fire by encouraging workers to attack each other instead of the System.
Okay, but there's further problems arising from the perspective you present here.

People having your back should also mean financial aid support, and if we couple this with strong leftist organizations, we basically end up with the framework of a mass party or movemnt which is well on its way to complete integration into the capitalist social order. The reason for saying this, apart from historical precedent (see German social democracy), is that financial support of this kind would probably come from actual business ventures on behalf of ostensibly revolutionary organizations. If a group of workers lost their job, there's the party mechanism and you can get a job there essentially.

And I do think there's a tremendous gravitational pull so to speak once important activities are wedded to the participation in the accumulation process. That's one facet of continued integration no doubt, and I can't see a way to fight it (and nor can I see a revolutionary mass movement nowadays). It's important to avoid moralizing here as I don't think this has anything to do with morality and purity of principles. I take a simplistic view, that people's ideas and actions are intimately influenced by what they are doing in this world. There are certain imperatives arising out of the mode of activity, and that's the point. No amount of comradely solidarity and healthy principles can garner enough of a power to alter that.