Class consciousness, revolution and Marx?

[Invader Zim]

I was just wondering about Marx's theories regarding class consciousness and how they are made invalid by the lack of revolution in the UK during the mid 1800's.

Marx argued that as industrialisation occured the different classes would gain class consciousness. This would mean that the working class would be invariably opposed to the middle and upper classes, and they in turn would dispise each other and the working class, and that the proletariat would revolt and overthrow the ruling classes. To an extent this can be proved and accepted, as Europe industrialised a number of class wars certainly did occur. For example the French over throwing Louis Philippe, the Many revolutions in the individual states of what now is germany and austria, as well as Vienna.

However the revolutions largley were faught by the working classes, who faught and died behind barricades in the streets, yet they were largley controlled by the articulate and well financed middle classes. Also Britain was the most industrialised nation on earth with a vast urban population, and the worst condidtions for workers to match. Yet no actual revolution occured, though industrialisation was at its height.

How can this obvious example, a case study for industralisation, not fit Marx's pattern, if Marx was right on this issue?

Could one of the big time marxists help me out on this one?

Cheers

[Essential Insignificance]

It appears that a collection of Marxist and the comparable are beginning to importune…why hasn't the proletarian become paroxysmic and inturn become communistic revolutionary forerunners and overthrown the "idiocy" of slave-wage-labour and class society.

As I perceive it…we are "jumping the cannon", all pre-additional epochs of class society has lasted for hundreds of years and not emerged into the consecutive stages…some still haven’t!

Although I do apprehend that capitalism is the most developed productive epoch of all others…and thus it must be discernible that there revolutionary consciousness would furthermore be immeasurably developed in to an immense quantity of occasion.

Thus I have self-confidence that the "wave" of revolutions will genus in the latter partly of this century…we can simply educate, inform and speed up this process as "conscious" Marxist.

Time shall enlighten.

[Saint-Just]

I wouldn't say he was wrong. What happened in the late 1800's is more a testament to Marx being correct in what he said. Look what the Conservative D'israeli wrote at the time talking of how Britain was becoming two nations. His ideas were carried on until the Thatcher time. Tories would pursue many social policies that favoured the working class for a long time. In addition, Marx did mention that worker's may develop what Lenin called a trade union consciousness instead of a revolutionary consciousness. Which did happen, i.e. the rise of the Labour Party as opposed to any revolutionary party.

[Revolution Hero]

When we want to determine the level of consciousness of a proletariat we should mainly consider the extent of political outlook workers have and the degree of understanding of their own interests and aims as a class. Class-consciousness doesn’t appear only thanks to the material factors that surround workers, in fact class-consciousness can’t develop spontaneously during the process of exploitation, but it should be brought into the working masses by a communist party and by a communist ideology.

Already in the “Communist Manifesto” Marx and Engels wrote that one of the closest aims communists had was to organize proletariat into a class. This means that workers have to be brought up by Marxist – Leninist ideology with the help of a true Communist party, so they will be ready to “assault the sky” when revolutionary situation appears.

[Dawood]

The communist parties are rather what STOPS the revolution. What we need is a revolution where the workers take power in their own might, without depending on a party, which in the end will betray them anyway.
Now when the Soviet Union is gone we might FINALLY see some revolutions in Europe. As long as people looked at the Soviet Union every time they thought of communism the revolution was doomed.

And there is a classwar going on all the time, it is just not always easy to see.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:55 PM
The communist parties are rather what STOPS the revolution. What we need is a revolution where the workers take power in their own might, without depending on a party, which in the end will betray them anyway.
Now when the Soviet Union is gone we might FINALLY see some revolutions in Europe. As long as people looked at the Soviet Union every time they thought of communism the revolution was doomed.

And there is a classwar going on all the time, it is just not always easy to see.
Yes, in the west everyone looked at the USSR from a revolutionary, communist perspective. And so, they could see that Soviet style socialism was 'doomed' but that one day a real communist revolution would come in Europe.

Marx did not have the same view as you. Marx said that communist parties could help bring about consciousness in the working-class, and so, create a revolution.

[Dawood]

Well, so sue me. I like Marx, but he wasn't God Almighty.

Besides, the word "party" is open for interpretation. He might very well have meant a free association of revolutionary workers, as opposed to a rigid leninist party.
As history has shown it is NOT the partys that have led the revolutions. When the russian revolution happened the bolsjeviks took weeks to catch up... :lol:
And then they crushed the workers right to self-goverement, and took all the power from the free Soviets... :angry:

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:13 PM
Well, so sue me. I like Marx, but he wasn't God Almighty.

Besides, the word "party" is open for interpretation. He might very well have meant a free association of revolutionary workers, as opposed to a rigid leninist party.
As history has shown it is NOT the partys that have led the revolutions. When the russian revolution happened the bolsjeviks took weeks to catch up... :lol:
And then they crushed the workers right to self-goverement, and took all the power from the free Soviets... :angry:
You're exactly like redstar2000. I think 'history has shown it is not the partys that have led the revolutions' is wrong. The Bolsheviks did have a rather large role to play and so did a leadership and organisation in all other Marxist-Leninist revolutions.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 2 2004, 10:30 PM
Already in the “Communist Manifesto” Marx and Engels wrote that one of the closest aims communists had was to organize proletariat into a class. This means that workers have to be brought up by Marxist – Leninist ideology with the help of a true Communist party, so they will be ready to “assault the sky” when revolutionary situation appears.
How could Marx and Engels want a "Marxist-Leninist" ideology??? :rolleyes:

The only think we can do is start showing the flaws of the modern capitalist system and wait for the moment where there's a conflict. It will eventually happen.

Leninists attemp to impose their system, and if we add to that how that is looked at by most people (in part thanks to the "Western" propaganda). They are counter-revolutionaries to me.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Apr 4 2004, 04:01 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Apr 4 2004, 04:01 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 11:13 PM
Well, so sue me. I like Marx, but he wasn't God Almighty.

Besides, the word "party" is open for interpretation. He might very well have meant a free association of revolutionary workers, as opposed to a rigid leninist party.
As history has shown it is NOT the partys that have led the revolutions. When the russian revolution happened the bolsjeviks took weeks to catch up... :lol:
And then they crushed the workers right to self-goverement, and took all the power from the free Soviets... :angry:
You're exactly like redstar2000. I think 'history has shown it is not the partys that have led the revolutions' is wrong. The Bolsheviks did have a rather large role to play and so did a leadership and organisation in all other Marxist-Leninist revolutions. [/b]
Yes, or so it would seem if you read their own versions of the events. Then if you start looking it turns out that the revolutions, as an example, the russian, were fought by workers, and not bolsjeviks. Of course there were supporters of the bolsjeviks among them, there is no doubt about that, but there were also others. The bolsjeviks just took a revolution and then made it theirs.

[Invader Zim]

Essential Insignificance, you right just like Redstar2000... its quite strange, he stops posting for a while, and you turn up? You wouldn't be retsar would you? The Incomprehensably complicated english and bolded words are very much in his style. Maybe i'm just going mad, but I honestly thought it was him until I read your user name

and what does "paroxysmic" mean, I get what "paroxysm" means, but paroxysmic...?

[Essential Insignificance]

This means that workers have to be brought up by Marxist – Leninist ideology with the help of a true Communist party

I believe your captivating the context, an trying to place the tainted "ideology" of Leninism to able-body the two in annex, because of your Leninist trusts.

What, unerringly do you mean by "brought up" on Marxism and Leninism?

Earlier in the post you are referring to the "spontaneity" of mass "consciousness" of the proletarians.

If the impulsiveness is there to overthrow the tyranny of the bourgeoisie supremacy…then why must there be an up bringing of Marxism and Leninism.

The general principals of communism are fairly undemanding.


but it should be brought into the working masses by a communist party and by a communist ideology.

Why..are the proletarians to "dim-witted" to understand what there already doing, after the convulsion of "political power".

Are ''conscious" Leninist required to "step in"and rule the proletarian under the "spell" of their despotism.

Have a glance at 20th century Leninism…is predestined.



true Communist party

What accurately is an "true" communist party…had you inquired me, I would of said one that is not Leninist.

Some how I think your going to rebut this premise.

[Guest1]

If the need for a vanguard party arises, the revolution will have failed before it even began. For the radical change of society that workers' self rule would entail, the workers must actually rule themselves from the very beginning.

For those who don't trust them to understand what Communism is, I would say it is no harder to understand Democracy in the workplace than it is to understand "Democracy" in the state.

[Saint-Just]

Yes, or so it would seem if you read their own versions of the events. Then if you start looking it turns out that the revolutions, as an example, the russian, were fought by workers, and not bolsjeviks. Of course there were supporters of the bolsjeviks among them, there is no doubt about that, but there were also others. The bolsjeviks just took a revolution and then made it theirs.

I know little about the Russian Revolution, I have never studied it. I know more about socialist movements in Asia. I will take your word for what happened in Russia, so the Bolsheviks hijacked the revolution in Russia. But the kind of revolution that occured in China and Korea shows that it is possible for Marxist-Leninists to create and lead a revolution.

For one to hijack a revolution takes great pains, and a weak party could not do it, obviously if what you say in Russia is correct then the Bolsheviks did have substantial support and the kind of revolution they envisioned is one many people supported.

[redstar2000]

If we look at how the bourgeoisie developed its class consciousness, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that what takes place is a pretty complicated and lengthy development. In the beginning, they simply wanted a "pro-business" feudal lord...and it took five or more centuries to reach the point where they demanded and seized power in their own name.

In that interval, feudal ideologies were mercilessly criticized and overthrown...beginning among the educated but reaching the working masses as well.

This suggests that criticism of bourgeois ideology is perhaps the most important task of communists and anarchists. Just as the bourgeoisie made the very idea of a "natural aristocracy" utterly contemptible, we need to make the very idea of an economic aristocracy utterly contemptible to the working class.

Ideas, no matter how revolutionary, will not overthrow the capitalist system -- it takes material conditions to do that. But the ideas are required...otherwise, it's quite possible people will overthrow an existing ruling class and simply replace it with a new one.

It's been known to happen. ;)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

From The Eighteenth Brumaire of Loius Napoleon, by Marx


''Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.''

Though we are not in a traditional revolutionary crisis; the movement of imperialism towars a unipolar entity, the demise of revolution in the east towards counter revolution back to market forces, there is a larger global consciousness of
the stark uneven developments throughout the world. Combined development has been the deteriotion of revolutionary consciousness: as the historical impasse
is immediately felt, as the apparent almightyness of US imperialism and the
hangover of the socalled ''destalinisation'' of the international labour movement.
The left seem hell bent on reliving old ideological battles but it is largely of a subjective nature. Events themselves reveal that the imperialist beast is more like a paper 'tiger'. Movement then begins to follow and this suggests from historical experience that the level of class struggle will intensify across all the social areas on which it encroaches. Conscious and spontaneity beome a living opposition and we find ourselves in a new place of world history.

Yet still ''The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living."