Class fragmentation

[monkeydust]

As I'm sure most you are aware, Marx predicted that society in Western states would polarize into two, mutually opposed, classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Supposedly, the inevitable consequence of the antagonism between the two would result in a violent proletarian revolution, at such a stage when the workers achieve "class consciousness".

Yet if most modern sociologists are to be believed, classes in Western states are becoming ever more fragmeted and divided. Certainly in the UK, traditions of class conflict are beginning to seem so outdated that they almost appear anachronistic.

Marx has been shown to be correct in his assertion that the old middle class would disappear, the modern middle class, however, represents a large chunk of Western societies. Working classes are ever less often employed in manual jobs, the prospect for career advancement in the non-manual service sector may further pacify any potential prospect discontent and class revulsion. It should also be noted that the "underclass" in Western societies is generally assumed to be growing. Such a class is usually apatheic to its own material situation, far from the "cass consciouss" proletariat that Marx envisaged.

If classes are fragmented, what are the consequences for traditional Marxist notions of proletarian revolution?

Is it the case that a revolution may be ever more unlikely?

Is globalization bringing about a new proletariat in third world countries, with potential for Marxism in the Africa, south America and Asia?

Or will the current trend reverse, working classes becoming ever more "conscious"? Will modern technology and communication, notably the internet, make geographical divides between workers insignificant?

[Hate Is Art]

In Britain with have a class who, technicaly, are working class but have no empathy to them. Those who sell their intellectual labour to companys not manual. They don't own business and therefore are not exploiters but the exploited, the doctors, lawyers, people who work in the service industry.

This "class" is a break-away from the normal working class, and are often plenty richer and look down upon the working class. They share very little ideologicaly as this working class is often very apathetic and this fragmentation spends it's sunday reading the Times and the Telegraph.

As I stated in a post a while back, we can not predict when this class consciousness will occur, tomorow, next wednesday 25 years away even?!

But we just have to be ready for it when it happens.

[Revolt!]

Is globalization bringing about a new proletariat in third world countries, with potential for Marxism in the Africa, south America and Asia?

How would Globalisation cause this?


Or will the current trend reverse, working classes becoming ever more "conscious"? Will modern technology and communication, notably the internet, make geographical divides between workers insignificant?

I disagree with this. The proletariat have no access to this expensive equipment.

I think in the West, class divide isn't half of what it was in marx's day but in the third world it flourishes like never before. The divide is getting more and more open. The support will always come from below, we have to exploit their situation for a revolution to occur.

[Essential Insignificance]

Yet if most modern sociologists are to be believed, classes in Western states are becoming ever more fragmented and divided. Certainly in the UK, traditions of class conflict are beginning to seem so outdated that they almost appear anachronistic.

Class conflict will never be anachronistic. So long as an community stands in direct antagonism to the means of production; regardless of the "representative democracy" and "opportunitiy" that there may appear to be.

There will be class conflict; so long as there is private property.



Marx has been shown to be correct in his assertion that the old middle class would disappear, the modern middle class, however, represents a large chunk of Western societies. Working classes are ever less often employed in manual jobs, the prospect for career advancement in the non-manual service sector may further pacify any potential prospect discontent and class revulsion.

This is tool that the bourgeoisie governments are using to, indeed, mollify the masses social aggressions. We are often assailed with the words "chances", "prospects" and opportunities" to enhance your self over others; to oppress the class that you once stood jointly with; from governments.

For a lucky few it may be true, but for the majority, is absolute rubbish!



Is globalization bringing about a new proletariat in third world countries, with potential for Marxism in the Africa, south America and Asia?

Yes, and this is a great leap forward, for both the populace of the given nation/continent in relations to the growth of productive forces and the relations that correspond to it. These technological advances will, ultimately, bring about the raise of social wealth in backward nations regardless of the obvious cleavage that would be conditioned by an economic system based on private property.

Many communists and variants of such, and obviously anti-globalizationist, seem to be under the false illusion that this is not a "gaint" step forward for the "primitive" backward nations; and is something that should be fought and protested against. There reasoning is, perhaps amicable, but they do not understand, the ultimate goal of history, freedom.

The conditions of the communist movement to crystallize are only a result of the prior existing conditions; the past conditions the future, both materially and consciously. Without the modern bourgeoisie class, and the corresponding productive forces and super-structural apparatus’s; it is mere idealism and utopian dreamers who wish to make a significant and progressive social change.

As malevolent as capitalism is, it is, required to produce and generate the necessary material conditions for the social adjustment of society, from class society, to classless class.



Or will the current trend reverse, working classes becoming ever more "conscious"? Will modern technology and communication, notably the internet, make geographical divides between workers insignificant?

It would seem so, that is to say, in western industrialized, that national and global divisions would be no longer a predicament, as there was 200 years or even 15 years ago.

It is very diffcult to give a precise answer, to when will the proletarian become social and class conscious? But, I have high hopes for the southern European nations to revolt against the existing social conditions in the next half century.

I think most proletarians are socially conscious about there position in capitalist society and their relations to the productive forces(machinery), exploitation, mistreatment and oppression.

But the problem is, that they’re not collectively conscious; and this is the barricade between submission and revolution. Until they unite, locally, nationally and eventually globally, it is but, a distance discernment.


The question is: are we to rely, exclusively, on social determinism?



How would Globalisation cause this

By spreading manifold the image of itself in nations, that do indeed require it; to further their direct profits.

The multinational corporations are able to advance their profits manifold; both by increasing relative and absolute surplus-value, more so absolute surplus-value over relative in nations, to which is the most favorable to the worker, namely newly industrialized nations in third world countries.

Therefore being the proletarent in to a class.

[Revolt!]

i don't see how it would even change anything. There is no 'new' proletariat in the third world, its always been like that.

Is your argument, slightly convoluted I must say, that Globalisation enables greater industrialisation and so therefore would create a greater opportunity for a revolution; or the conditions that Marx foresaw necessary for a revolution?

[Essential Insignificance]

don't see how it would even change anything. There is no 'new' proletariat in the third world, its always been like that.

Proletarians are a class of wage-labors, who are brought it to existence and correspond to the capitalist mode of production; loosely speaking, industrial workers, who create a surplus value.

They are the unpropertied class; who are dependant on the sale of their labor-power, for a stipulated amount of time, to maintain their existence; to the bourgeoisie class.

Workers in third world countries are often referred to as "serfs", but now there, generally, a class of peasantry who work on the land to maintain their existence.

Or in some cases, though not really now; slavery is the ruling mode of production in third world countries.


Is your argument, slightly convoluted I must say, that Globalisation enables greater industrialisation and so therefore would create a greater opportunity for a revolution; or the conditions that Marx foresaw necessary for a revolution?

Yes, both…kind of.

Basically;

Globalization of third world countries will, of course, industrialize them, which will, in turn, create two conflicting classes; the proletarians and the bourgeoisie (whom own the means of production).

This will, in due course, set the capitalist mode of production in "full swing"; which is a necessary condition for proletarian revolution.

Without capitalism, there are no proletarians.

[Revolt!]

well Globalisation is a hot topic. Many leftists believe it does more harm than good. Argentina is a good model for how globalisation can go wrong.

[Essential Insignificance]

well Globalisation is a hot topic. Many leftists believe it does more harm than good. Argentina is a good model for how globalisation can go wrong.

Your right; primarily it does have horrifying effects; but these conditions are necessary, and in the "long run", are a lot better.

Each industrious county has gone through horrendous times, with the introduction of modern day, large scale machinery.

But its necessary!

[redstar2000]

In periods of reaction, people's horizons narrow; their emotional-rational identifications tend to be with those who are "most like themselves" and the rest of humanity is regarded as a "threat" to their own "well-being".

It's a "me" period.

When a period of reaction gives way to a revolutionary period, horizons expand...even those whom you might think would "never" identify with the working class nevertheless do so.

The reality of class oppression, successfully obscured during reactionary periods, emerges into the light of day for all to see.

What remains obscure is why periods of reaction give way to periods of revolution. I can remember growing up in the 1950s and, believe me, no one expected what was going to happen in the 1960s and 70s.

Sure, there were "straws in the wind"...but there are always "straws in the wind". There's always class struggle and resistance "in the background" of class society.

What causes the straw to ignite in a particular country at a particular time remains a puzzle to both bourgeois and Marxist sociologists.

After a revolutionary period subsides (and we don't know why that happens either), bourgeois sociologists hasten to reassure their paymasters that "it was a freak occurrence; it won't happen again".

But it does. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[monkeydust]

In Britain with have a class who, technicaly, are working class but have no empathy to them. Those who sell their intellectual labour to companys not manual. They don't own business and therefore are not exploiters but the exploited, the doctors, lawyers, people who work in the service industry.


Arguably, many employed in the service sector are "Working class", in that they do not own or control the means of production in any substantive way. Such jobs, however, have benefits of their own which traditional manual jobs do not. Among them, realistic prospects for promotion, fringe benefits and relatively comfortable working conditions.

I certainly wouldn't adduce your examples (Doctors, lawyers etc.) to be working class. But I suppose you might be justified in calling checkout workers in supermarkets, or simple clerks, working class. Indeed, the mundane nature of such jobs makes seemingly outdated Marxist notions of the worker as an "appendage of the machine" seem newly relevant.


But we just have to be ready for it when it happens.


That's all well and good, but you have yet to present a strong argument for its inevitably. For me, it's not simply a question of "when", but of "if".


I disagree with this. The proletariat have no access to this expensive equipment.


If "the modern proletariat" includes workers in tertiary industries then they very much do have the access to such equipment.

You can pick up a cheap computer for around £400 these days, an internet connection is not much more.


For a lucky few it may be true, but for the majority, is absolute rubbish!


Quite right.

But surely what is important (when influencing working class behaviour) is not what is, but what seems to be the case.


After a revolutionary period subsides (and we don't know why that happens either), bourgeois sociologists hasten to reassure their paymasters that "it was a freak occurrence; it won't happen again".

But it does.

Quite right. But for Marxism to succeed, we need more than simply a "revolutionary period", such as the 60s and 70s.

We need an actual revolution.

Such an occurence did not occur in the 1930s, when the material conditions required to facilitate proletarian insurrection seemed present.

Why should it happen, then, in the next century, or ever at all? Will the spread of communication technology be a decisive factor?

[Revolt!]

Your right; primarily it does have horrifying effects; but these conditions are necessary, and in the "long run", are a lot better.

Well Globalisation pulls down trade barriers and allows business to have a free run in some third wold countries. I've read quite a bit on it and so could summarise a lot of the thinking coming from Naomi Klein etc. There are always two sides to the story though and so Open World:the Truth about Globalisation should be read too. The author is pro-globalisation.

[Essential Insignificance]

Well Globalisation pulls down trade barriers and allows business to have a free run in some third wold countries.


True—mostly. This is not necessarily a "terrible" thing, although on the surface is does seem so--greatly. In the long run, it’s worth it.

All capitalist countries have gone through it, however some suffered more then others.

[YKTMX]

What role do comrades think "culture" plays in this fragmentation?

Historically, Marxists have rejected culture as a major determining factor in people's consciousness, or at least viewing it as subordinate to economics. For me, in the western world, there has been a real cultural onslaught against ideas such as "collective provision" and even more broadly against "society". The Thatcher and Reagan goverments especially propagated the view that it was "society" itself that was the problem and that human beings should look after their immeadiate family. It pains me to say it, but some of these ideas still seem to hold sway. And culturally - and this may sound trivial - the amount of "makeover" and "lifestyle" magazines and programmes has made people view advancement as merely a superficial and subjective thing.

However, I would like to contend with the belief that there has been any objective fragmentation of class. The working class is the class in society that subsists by the sale of it's own labour. It accrues no income from ownership of property (means of production).

Therefore, objectively speaking, the working class is still the vast majority in the world and in the western world.

[monkeydust]

Therefore, objectively speaking, the working class is still the vast majority in the world and in the western world.

Yes, perhaps "objectively speaking" the working class is still the vast majority in the Western world; but only if the "objective criterion" for determining who is and who is not working class is the relationship to the means of production.

The "working class" as you speak of it does not own or control the means of production in any substantive manner, but it would be foolish to assume that therefore the situation has not changed since the 19th century.

The "modern proletariat" (those who do not own the means of production but do not work in manual labour) has many benefits which potentially may diminish its potential for violent revolution. Among them, participation (albeit small) in the state government, increased pay and living conditions, prospects for promotion, state pensions and so on and so forth.

The result of this is that though many modern workers may not own the means of production, they are sufficiently affluent so as to not oppose the current way of things.

Surely then, Marx's talk (and much of this message boards') of the inevitability of violent proletarian revolution seems somewhat obsolescent.

[YKTMX]

Interesting and thoughtful post, comrade.


Yes, perhaps "objectively speaking" the working class is still the vast majority in the Western world; but only if the "objective criterion" for determining who is and who is not working class is the relationship to the means of production.

Well it has to be. The term "class" denotes an economic position so this can be the only reasonable criteria for determining "class".


The "modern proletariat" (those who do not own the means of production but do not work in manual labour) has many benefits which potentially may diminish its potential for violent revolution. Among them, participation (albeit small) in the state government, increased pay and living conditions, prosepcts for promotion, sate pensions and so on and so forth

I think it's important to include the caveat "western" when talking about this. The benefits you listed certainly do exist to an extent in the western world but for the vast majority of workers they are a distant dream. Like you, I am interested in the extent to which these new benfits will affect the militancy of western workers. It could be argued that if workers expect capitalism to deliver more and more they will become increasingly militant when it fails to do so. There is of course the opinion - linked to notions of the "labor aristocracy" - that the western working class has in effect been "bought off". I am sceptical to both points of view. I see the improvements in conditions as positive for the working class movement. Better education and health will make people more able and willing to challenge the ruling orthodoxy during times of high class consciousness.


The result of this is that though many modern workers may not own the means of production, they are sufficiently affluent so as to not oppose the current way of things.

This is an undeniable possibility but I have hopefully tried to address it already.


Surely then, Marx's talk (and much of this message boards') of the inevitability of violent proletarian revolution seems somewhat obsolescent.

Let me begin here on a note accord. I too find the notion of "inevitability" (mostly linked to Stalinist mythology and people like Kautsky) a grating one. Let us be certain about this, if we never organise and resist, capitalism will survive infinitely. The powerful class has simply too much to lose to let things like "historical inevitably" expropriate them.

"Violent proletarian revolution", as you put it, is not inevitable. Socialism is not inevitable. People try their hardest to be cynical and apathetic, thankfully however, in many cases human nature wins them over. Socialism is possible because human beings are rational and social and because capitalism is tyrannical and produces the class which can eventually overthrow it. Fluctuations in living condition" will never change that.

[monkeydust]

Well it has to be. The term "class" denotes an economic position so this can be the only reasonable criteria for determining "class".

You're right that "class" denotes economic position, but you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that relationship to the means of production is the only criteria by which economic position can therefore be determined.

Perhaps in Marx's terms such a claim would have been justified, nowadays, it seems somewhat outdated. There are many today who do not own or control the means of production, yet are considerably wealthy, prestigious and generally "well off" due to their market situation and, notably, the demand for their services.

Thus managers, administrators, professionals and others can have the same relationship to the means of production as manual workers, yet be comparatively very well off.

In this light, do you still maintain that relation to the means of production is the single criterion with which we can denote class?


I think it's important to include the caveat "western" when talking about this. The benefits you listed certainly do exist to an extent in the western world but for the vast majority of workers they are a distant dream.

On a global scale I agree. But I think it would be a largely unfounded assumption to assume that the vast majority of Western workers do not reap at least some of the benefits to distinguish themselves from traditional industrial proletarians.


I am sceptical to both points of view. I see the improvements in conditions as positive for the working class movement. Better education and health will make people more able and willing to challenge the ruling orthodoxy during times of high class consciousness.


I fail to see how better health will make proletarian uprising more likely.

As for education, your claim might seem more justified; though I still have my doubts. In fact, I fear that education may have the opposite effect to what you believe (and what I would like to believe) is the case.

This is because Western education systems are not "ideologically neutral". Nearly all subjects, especially ones such as Politics and History and most patently Labour's recent (and compulsory) "citizenship education" programmes are presented with a subtle Liberal-Democratic bias; nearly all teachings are slanted in such a way as to, intentionally or otherwise, create citizens who are, generally speaking, Liberals.

From my experience, this seems to have worked.


"Violent proletarian revolution", as you put it, is not inevitable

I agree, though much of this board would still maintain that it is, or, moreover, that it is "just round the corner".


Socialism is possible because human beings are rational and social

I'd like to think that humans are "naturally rational", but much evidence from history, such as the spread of religion, Fascism and Natonalism in particular would indicate otherwise.

In any case, even assumptions concerning human nature could be proven, it seems that capitalism itself promotes and perpetuates a human state of mind that is both self-interested and apathetic. I'm doubtful of whether humans will, on a large scale, learn to "look beyond" the social norms of our contemporary epoch and realise their "true rationality".

[YKTMX]

Thus managers, administrators, professionals and others can have the same relationship to the means of production as manual workers, yet be comparatively very well off.

Yes, they had this group in Marx's day as well. He called them the petty-bourgeoisie. This was a class distinct from the proletariat because it not only laboured but bought the labour of others. This class, unlike the bourgeoisie, does not own the means of production. You may contend this to be "outdated", it seems to me to be quite useful even now.


In this light, do you still maintain that relation to the means of production is the single criterion with which we can denote class?

I am afraid I do. Some elements of the working class have prospered materially and this has affected militancy and unionism to a degree. However, on the whole it is the case that for the majority of workers, even now, if they did not work they would struggle to live. This is what distinguishes people into classes.


On a global scale I agree. But I think it would be a largely unfounded assumption to assume that the vast majority of Western workers do not reap at least some of the benefits to distinguish themselves from traditional industrial proletarians.

Define "distinguish themselves?". It would stupid to suggest that the modern western white-collar worker is just as exploited and oppressed as the 19th century miner. But, the thing for us Marxists is not how they see themselves but how the capitalist sees them! They are a set of hands (or a brain) to be used and discarded, to be recompensed to the least possible degree, to be wrung out to their last breath.

And lets look at this modern worker. He has a house and a car and a microwave. The 19th century miner had none of those things. Is the modern worker to content himself with the following situation?:

"He is depressed (as many as western workers are), stressed (as most westeners are), overworked, he hates his job, he hates his boss."

How is this man, exploited and alienated, to console himself? Your answer seems to be that he should just throw his hands in the air and declare "At least I'm living better than an 18th century mill worker!"


I fail to see how better health will make proletarian uprising more likely.

People are living longer. More days in their life to rebel.


This is because Western education systems are not "ideologically neutral". Nearly all subjects, especially ones such as Politics and History and most patently Labour's recent (and compulsory) "citizenship education" programmes are presented with a subtle Liberal-Democratic bias; nearly all teachings are slanted in such a way as to, intentionally or otherwise, create citizens who are, generally speaking, Liberals.

Good point.

I accept this as far School and F.E. education goes but I still think Higher Education is a place where people can become radicalized to a great degree and with the goverments goal of sending more and more people to university, the potential for this can only be increased. It is however a hope that has several weaknesses, I accept yours especially.


I agree, though much of this board would still maintain that it is, or, moreover, that it is "just round the corner".

Many people on this board are naive. Simple as that.


I'd like to think that humans are "naturally rational", but much evidence from history, such as the spread of religion, Fascism and Natonalism in particular would indicate otherwise.

Those three things you mentioned are expressions of the failures and realisations of capitalism. They are it's legacy, not ours.


I'm doubtful of whether humans will, on a large scale, learn to "look beyond" the social norms of our contemporary epoch and realise their "true rationality".

That is unfortunate comrade. One of the reasons I'm a socialist is because I do believe that people questions their surroundings and I do believe they seek to change them.

[monkeydust]

Yes, they had this group in Marx's day as well. He called them the petty-bourgeoisie. This was a class distinct from the proletariat because it not only laboured but bought the labour of others. This class, unlike the bourgeoisie, does not own the means of production. You may contend this to be "outdated", it seems to me to be quite useful even now.


Aside from the fact that Marx thought that, by now, the petty-bourgeoisie would have fallen into the proletariat, there are still a number of issues I take with the classification of class solely by relation to the means of production.

Perhaps it's main flaw, today, is that there are a number of groups who have the same relation to the menas of production as the proletariat, and also do not employ labour of others, yet are comparatively very well off.

By Marx's system of classification, for example, Doctors and Lecturers (who do not employ others or own the means of production) are of the same class as the proletariat.

Does this not seems just a little outdated to you?


However, on the whole it is the case that for the majority of workers, even now, if they did not work they would struggle to live. This is what distinguishes people into classes.


I agree that most people, if they did not work would struggle to live. But in Marx's time, the proletarians (as they were) struggled to live even when they did work. This is clearly not the case now, many (probably the majority), at least in Western states live relatively affluent, comfortable lives.


Define "distinguish themselves?".

The "modern proletarian" is distninct from that of the 19th century in that, on the whole, he does not work in particularly dire conditions, he has at least some prosepect for social mobility and he leads, in many cases, a comparatively affluent and comfortable life.


But, the thing for us Marxists is not how they see themselves but how the capitalist sees them!

Why?

If the proletariat does not feel oppressed, it will surely not achieve the "class consciousness" that Marx spoke of, which is vital to any prosect of revolution.


How is this man, exploited and alienated, to console himself? Your answer seems to be that he should just throw his hands in the air and declare "At least I'm living better than an 18th century mill worker!"

To be perfectly honest, most fellow "workers" who I know are fairly fatalistic towards their situation. They accept the way of things because that's "how it is"; caring nothing for any prosepct of change.

Many, at least, seem to believe that "it could be worse", paying little or no attention to the idea that "it could be better".

It seems to me, at least, that the majority do not realise their exploitation.


People are living longer. More days in their life to rebel.


On the other hand, healthier lives are a disincentive when it comes to rebelling against one's current conditions.

[YKTMX]

Aside from the fact that Marx thought that, by now, the petty-bourgeoisie would have fallen into the proletariat, there are still a number of issues I take with the classification of class solely by relation to the means of production.

Perhaps it's main flaw, today, is that there are a number of groups who have the same relation to the menas of production as the proletariat, and also do not employ labour of others, yet are comparatively very well off.

By Marx's system of classification, for example, Doctors and Lecturers (who do not employ others or own the means of production) are of the same class as the proletariat.

Does this not seems just a little outdated to you?





The diffirence between the two occupations you cited and the working class is quite distinct and clear.

When Marx looked at classes he recognised a group who - in factories - worked as line managers usually. These people worked alongside workers but where quite distinct, both in income and relationship to the boss.

If we apply this to a modern hospital, what is the relationship between the doctor and say, the nurse. The nurse is subordinate to the doctor, who is in turn subordinate to the consultant and so on. Of course fully qualified doctors are not working class. Your fixation with these groups of prosperous (working) people who you claim will forever hold back socialism, it smacks of defeatism.


I agree that most people, if they did not work would struggle to live. But in Marx's time, the proletarians (as they were) struggled to live even when they did work. This is clearly not the case now, many (probably the majority), at least in Western states live relatively affluent, comfortable lives

I hate to sound like a broken record but Marx actually had an answer for this. He identified 2 groups within the workers. First, the proletariat, although still relatively poor and patently exploited, this group had skills that the capitalists needed and therefore usually could find work and therefore afford decent amounts of food and clothes.

He also identified another group called the lumpenproletariat. This group might now be called the "underclass". You would be suprised the amount of hostility the proletariat would show towards the lumpen, who they seen as leeches and barriers to their progress. How times change eh?

Your assertion that "most" western workers live "comfortable" lives I believe to be a faleshood. If you judge "comfortable" by material possessions (as I'm sure you do) then of course people have more now.

Are working class people happier now? Do they think their children's life will be better now? Do they love their jobs and feel respected and valued at work? No.

Your obcession with "lifestyle" and "comfortableness" blinds you to an OBVIOUS truth. A 19th century miner feels EXACTLY the same emotions as the 21st century call centre worker feels. Just because the call centre worker goes home to a microwave and a house with a mortgage doesn't change her class. To suggest it does is fanciful nonsense.


The "modern proletarian" is distninct from that of the 19th century in that, on the whole, he does not work in particularly dire conditions, he has at least some prosepect for social mobility and he leads, in many cases, a comparatively affluent and comfortable life.

"Social mobility" is one of the crudest and most fallacious parts of capitalist ideology. Any serious look at the figures will assure you that it is STILL CLASS that determines the education, health, job and social life you will have.




Why?

If the proletariat does not feel oppressed, it will surely not achieve the "class consciousness" that Marx spoke of, which is vital to any prosect of revolution.





This is an easy one. When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, where the working class around the revolting against capitalism? Not really. Have they ever done this? Yes, of course. Why? Because class consciousness fluctuates. I would also contend that people do not feel oppressed. I would say people do still feel stifled and bored and annoyed by the world. The problem for us is that they don't relate it to captalism and see it's treatment as socialist revolution.


To be perfectly honest, most fellow "workers" who I know are fairly fatalistic towards their situation. They accept the way of things because that's "how it is"; caring nothing for any prosepct of change.

Many, at least, seem to believe that "it could be worse", paying little or no attention to the idea that "it could be better".

It seems to me, at least, that the majority do not realise their exploitation.




You kbow what, me too. I live in the same world as you comrade. I see the same people you do. I just react to it diffirently. I look to Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and HISTORY to explain where defeatism and false consciousness come from. Then I see how they change and how people DO ALWAYS revolt against a repressive system. YOu think WE socialist have it bad now?

Imagine being a revolutionary in France before the revolution. The monarchy and fuedalism were ordained by GOD, peasants had worked their land for the landowner for THOUSANDS of years. How could a revolution in France possibly happen? Because people suddenly realised that it DIDN'T have to be like that, and they went out and chopped the king's head off.

And who lead this revolution? What is the most destitute people? No. It was the most "affluent" and "comfortable" people who did it. In your logic, this group should have been settling down to enjoy their nice "affluent" life, no matter the injustice of the system?

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 11:43 PM


I agree that most people, if they did not work would struggle to live. But in Marx's time, the proletarians (as they were) struggled to live even when they did work. This is clearly not the case now, many (probably the majority), at least in Western states live relatively affluent, comfortable lives.



The "modern proletarian" is distninct from that of the 19th century in that, on the whole, he does not work in particularly dire conditions, he has at least some prosepect for social mobility and he leads, in many cases, a comparatively affluent and comfortable life.



Why?

If the proletariat does not feel oppressed, it will surely not achieve the "class consciousness" that Marx spoke of, which is vital to any prosect of revolution.



To be perfectly honest, most fellow "workers" who I know are fairly fatalistic towards their situation. They accept the way of things because that's "how it is"; caring nothing for any prosepct of change.

Many, at least, seem to believe that "it could be worse", paying little or no attention to the idea that "it could be better".

It seems to me, at least, that the majority do not realise their exploitation.

This is a difficult one, and would agree with You Know They Murdered X on Marx's idea of the lumpenproleteriat versus the proleteriat as being a key issue.

Especially in societies such as Mexico, Brazil, and much of Latin and Central America where there are underemployed indigenous peasants in contest for resources with Spanish mixed descent nationals who are more often employed you see this derision between these two groups going to racist extremes of extermination in terms of paramilitary presence [Equador, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chiapas, etc.]

But this is also very prominent in the United States especially but spreading into other first world countries with the privatization of social services.

When there is no welfare programs to house the unemployed they become homeless.
The homeless are forced into semi-permenent underclass status, the vast majority of them never acheive full employment again due to psychological effects of the trauma of living on the streets.

Blame the victim mentality has replaced social programs, for instance there are intense shortages in housing even temporarily for homeless people, but if they will say they have a substance abuse problem, other "funding" suddenly becomes available, but only while they conduct themselves in a boot camp of a program.

This is the same often for those facing criminal prosecution in the United States, often their are loopholes in sentencing if the underclass person being convicted suddenly says, "It's all my fault, not the systems, I take the blame on myself I am a miserable drug user" then they can go to a 12-step program and often receive reduced sentencing.

All of this is designed to not only confirm the bougeouis's assertions that the only reason that the underclass exists is because of the underclass themselves, and not the system of capitalist repression. [Slavery is not the problem, it's the lazy dirty slave who is to blame for his condition] :P

But further assures the proleteriat who are facing massive lay offs in the first world without consistant health care coverage or social services even though they have paid massive taxes, mostly to corporations, [see corporate welfare, farm subsidies US, military contractors] but that they will be fine, because they are a GOOD WORKER :lol:

A much better worker than the Mexican worker who works 12 hours a day 6 days a week
or the Indian worker who works 17 hour days 7 days a week :(
The fact is all people are created equal,
If someone's productivity is low for their hours on they usually have been working too much.

The reality is the system of capitalism must have victims to sustain itself. What Marx probably foresaw but could not address would be the efficiency of machinery that would make large populations of the underclass useless, and more consumers than producers on products.

Therefore their is no need to bargin with unions. You only need a limited group to generate product. Of course where do you sell, the only reason I believe conditions are as good as they are in first world nations is so the market has consumers.

[redstar2000]

Perhaps a minor point in this discussion...

The mention of doctors and other "middle-class professionals" reminds me that more and more of these kinds of occupations are being "degraded" to the level of wage-labor.

The wages are quite high...but they are nevertheless wages. In Marx's time, this was rarely the case; a professional man did not have to be "a hired hand" -- he could "be his own boss" and was generally expected to do that.

In today's world, the doctor, the lawyer, even the university professor are all becoming more or less rapidly "hired hands".

Funny thing...they don't like that at all!

They think being a wage-slave is humiliating.

They're right...it is!

:redstar2000:

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

[monkeydust]

If we apply this to a modern hospital, what is the relationship between the doctor and say, the nurse. The nurse is subordinate to the doctor, who is in turn subordinate to the consultant and so on. Of course fully qualified doctors are not working class. Your fixation with these groups of prosperous (working) people who you claim will forever hold back socialism, it smacks of defeatism.


Defeatism perhaps, or maybe realism, I'm not sure.I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I actually think that by the next 10-20 years or so we should at least have an indication. Importantly, we'll have to see governments again adopt "progressive" policy, reminiscent of the post war period. If the legacy of the "new right" continues to have effect (as it has, for example, with Labour's pro-market stance) then perhaps revolutionary theories may seem more justified.

What could be a problem, however, is a theory which some hold, that liberal democracies will fluctuate between "progressive" and "reactionary" forms, adapting to changes of the time, whilst not fundamentaly changing in base character.


"Social mobility" is one of the crudest and most fallacious parts of capitalist ideology. Any serious look at the figures will assure you that it is STILL CLASS that determines the education, health, job and social life you will have.


Don't get me wrong, I agree that social mobility is to a large extent a myth.

But I think it would be wrong to suggest that a worker today has the same prospects for mobility his counterpart in the 19th century. There are at least some cases of people going from "rags ro riches" (albeit not too many). Workers today, for example, whilst remaining fairly socially immobile, can be distinguished from those in Marx's time by the fact that they enjoy, for example, education, healthcare (at least in the UK) and basic welfare benefits. Marx did not, at least not in anything of his I've read, predict Capitalism's flexibility.

At a different level, the illusion that there is genuine "equality of opportunity" (many workers I know still believe this) may further undermine potential for "class consciousness".


The problem for us is that they don't relate it to captalism and see it's treatment as socialist revolution.


Exactly, why should this change in the near future?


And who lead this revolution? What is the most destitute people? No. It was the most "affluent" and "comfortable" people who did it. In your logic, this group should have been settling down to enjoy their nice "affluent" life, no matter the injustice of the system?


A fair point. But comparisons to the French revolution should not go far. After all, it was, in essence a "bourgeois revolution". It's unsurprising therefore that many of those who partook were quite "affluent".


In today's world, the doctor, the lawyer, even the university professor are all becoming more or less rapidly "hired hands".

Funny thing...they don't like that at all!

They think being a wage-slave is humiliating.

They're right...it is!


Sometimes that's true, yes.

In fact, Proffesors in the town next to mine were actually striking three months ago for better pay, odd as it seems.

I've yet to meet many lawyers that hate capitalism too much, though. ;)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On a more optimistic note......... :)

It seems that in the UK, the "rich-poor divide" is far greater than it ever was under Thatcher's government in the 80's, in fact greater then any time since the second world war.

New Labour, it seems, really has embraced the "free market" to the full extent. Even Liberal Democrats, this week, have decided to reject some of their more progressive policies in order to gain wider business support.

It seems, for the workers here, that democratic politics really provides no alternative. Increasingly low election turnouts and the lowest party membership levels since the extension of the franchise seem to confirm this.

In tandem with this, under the guise of "anti-terrorism", civil rights and liberties are being further restricted. In fact, just this week, the government proceeded with measures to allow protesting to be outlawed.

Perhaps then, in this light, some will in the not to distant future, decide to reject capitalism and the politics that go with it altogether.