Revolutionary Consciousness

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry for the length of this post

Allot of my activist friends are anti-civilisationists with some having tendencies towards communism, some more to primitivism. One book which seems to have become widely read on the activist scene, and one that everyone is raving about, either through disdain or through love is 'Nihilist Communism: A Critique of Optimism in the far left."

It was written by 'Monsieur Dupont',a collective of three ex-anarchists or communists who had become disheartened with the direction of the class struggle movements and their ambitions towards the working class.

In the book they talk about "Revolutionary consciousness" and within that chapter, their are six quotes I wanted to discuss; to see whether people agreed or disagreed, and if so with what.


Originally posted by Quote 1+--> (Quote 1)"The working class, as the revolutionary body, do not require consciousness but a peculiar alignment of events, and a series of causes and effects with produce specific economic crisis that ends up with workers holding the levers of production."[/b]


Originally posted by Quote 2+--> (Quote 2)"On the role of consciousness, of course, there is reflection and understanding of what is happening but it is not consciousness in the Marxist/Hegelian sense, which we characterise as the coordination of pre-set values among a great many of people as preliminary stage for engaging with the world. Therefore it is possible that a world-wide consciousness could come into existence because of revolutionary because consciousness is not a precondition of revolutionary consciousness but a consequence of a revolution accomplished."[/b]


Originally posted by Quote 3
"Consciousness is a political category. A world-wide or even national conscious proletarian identity would involve a high degree of organisation, which is another word for consciousness. There is no objectively existing, separate sphere of revolutionary consciousness and certainly none that is owned by a particular section of humanity; the working class especially do not own consciousness, they do not own anything (except their playstations). So, if revolutionary consciousness does not exist objectively, that is, as an immediate determination of the material base, then organisations must bring it into the world. Organisation carries consciousness into the world; as consciousness is not present 'naturally' it must be transmitted by an organising agency, but which organisation?"

In reference to all class struggle movements:


Originally posted by Quote 4
"[Most] Pro-revolutionary groups view themselves as being objectively constituted by the need of society to overthrow capital and therefore they see themselves as qualified to prescribe values and strategies to the proletariat...All pro-revolutionary groups are subjective bodies (if this were not so, then there would not be so many small pro-revolutionary groups competing against each other, only only one organisation. Of course, most pro-consciousness organisations have a tendency to see themselves as the one true faith, and on this basis launch their critiques of each other). Pro-revolutionary groups are not the historic party, they have no been thrown up by the economic base, they are not an inescapable result of capitalism's contradictions. In most cases pro-revolutionary groups are created in response to purely political events and have little connection to workers' struggles."


Quote [email protected]
"The reason Monsieur DuPont advocate the possibility of revolution via the intervention of a relatively, numerically, small section of the proletariat is very simple, we see that only a relatively small section (of a vast minority) of the proletariat have potential power over the process of capitalist production. The acts of most people do not effect the world but function at a level of wholly contained effects of the worlds turning. In contrast the proletariat's anti-act, the act of non-production or of ceasing work, instantly has effect (like in a dream) on capitalism as a whole. Most workers are now employed in sectors that are peripheral to the economy's well-being, if they take industrial action it causes inconvenience only to the immediate employer and perhaps a few companies up and down the supply chain. In contrast the essential proletariat is that group of workers who can halt vast areas of the economy by stopping their work"


Quote 6
"The question of consciousness is central because of the ease by which it is defined and thus counterfeited. The proximity of consciousness to ideology is undeniable, a change in conditions renders a truth false. Because that is what we are talking about isn't it. Truth and Falsity, consciousness and ideology? Our position is simple: All consciousness is in fact, by a roundabout route, ideology. Consciousness is the appearance in thought of the forms and content of objective conditions. We know that objective conditions are capitalist and are anti-human, therefore it would be naive to place any faith in the transformative properties of consciousness if it fails so easily under the common of, and exploitation by, the owners of material conditions. Everything that appears (even the struggle against capital) is mediated through infinite filters, nothing political has a direct relation to the base. The truths and values of pro-revolutionaries assert are equally subject to the distorting pressures of the economy as are religions, entertainments and reformist politics (does not the 'party' or group have to be preserved as a thing in itself, kept going by small clerical acts and cash raised? The acts that uphold the group are not in themselves revolutionary and have no connection to the revolution, they are dead acts, they are labour; the group is maintained as the church is maintained: by accumulation.)"

Of course the book goes on, but I think these points raise some very interesting questions which I think the Far Left movement sometimes, if not always, refuse to acknowledge as serious questions.

The book is not on the internet so I can't link it.

[Urban Rubble]

I found this part particularly interesting:


"The reason Monsieur DuPont advocate the possibility of revolution via the intervention of a relatively, numerically, small section of the proletariat is very simple, we see that only a relatively small section (of a vast minority) of the proletariat have potential power over the process of capitalist production. The acts of most people do not effect the world but function at a level of wholly contained effects of the worlds turning. In contrast the proletariat's anti-act, the act of non-production or of ceasing work, instantly has effect (like in a dream) on capitalism as a whole. Most workers are now employed in sectors that are peripheral to the economy's well-being, if they take industrial action it causes inconvenience only to the immediate employer and perhaps a few companies up and down the supply chain. In contrast the essential proletariat is that group of workers who can halt vast areas of the economy by stopping their work"

I think the essential point here is correct, most workers are not employed in industries which have the power to affect Capitalism as a whole should they stop work. However, does that mean that workers employed in sectors that are peripheral to the economy's well being shouldn't strike, if only in solidarity with the "essential proletariat"?

It seems to me that the symbolic importance of the strike is nearly as important as the tangible aspects of the strike (losses for Capitalists), so doesn't it stand to reason that it would be important for the "non-essential proletariat" to take industrial action alongside those elements of the proletariat which have the power to genuinely hurt the economy?


"[Most] Pro-revolutionary groups view themselves as being objectively constituted by the need of society to overthrow capital and therefore they see themselves as qualified to prescribe values and strategies to the proletariat...All pro-revolutionary groups are subjective bodies (if this were not so, then there would not be so many small pro-revolutionary groups competing against each other, only only one organisation. Of course, most pro-consciousness organisations have a tendency to see themselves as the one true faith, and on this basis launch their critiques of each other). Pro-revolutionary groups are not the historic party, they have no been thrown up by the economic base, they are not an inescapable result of capitalism's contradictions. In most cases pro-revolutionary groups are created in response to purely political events and have little connection to workers' struggles."

No argument from me on this point. I think that is exactly right, which is why I have a hard time throwing support to any nut who waves a Red Flag and claims to fight on behalf of the working class.

What the left needs to do is learn to "pick and choose", and not criticize those who refuse to support pseudo-revolutionary organizations as "soft" or "liberal".

[redstar2000]

The working class, as the revolutionary body, do not require consciousness but a peculiar alignment of events, and a series of causes and effects with [which?] produce specific economic crisis [crises?] that ends up with workers holding the levers of production.

Nope. Without revolutionary consciousness, the workers will just hand over power to the first plausible despot that asks for it politely.

It is literally impossible to fight for freedom from wage-slavery when you have no idea that such a thing is possible.


Therefore it is possible that a world-wide consciousness could come into existence because of revolutionary because consciousness is not a precondition of revolutionary consciousness but a consequence of a revolution accomplished.

This is garbled...but that last part -- "but a consequence of a revolution accomplished" -- is a dubious proposition, in my opinion. It's possible that the authors are confusing revolutionary euphoria with revolutionary consciousness.

It's said that after October 1917, "everybody" in Petrograd went on a week-long drunk -- the slogan was "Down with these Czarist remnants!"

The Bolsheviks remained sober.


A world-wide or even national conscious proletarian identity would involve a high degree of organisation, which is another word for consciousness.

Possibly true...I don't know. People have many implied agendas when they use the word "organization"...especially when they connect that word to the phrase "high degree".

Leninists and anti-Leninists clearly mean something very different when they use the word "organization".


There is no objectively existing, separate sphere of revolutionary consciousness and certainly none that is owned by a particular section of humanity; the working class especially do not own consciousness, they do not own anything (except their playstations).

Setting aside the "witticism" about playstations, the Marxist paradigm certainly posits the emergence of revolutionary class consciousness almost exclusively in the working class.

If one is going to argue that Marx was wrong about this...that's fine. But then it would be useful to advance at least a sketchy explanation of Marx's "error" and where we "should" look for revolutionary consciousness.


So, if revolutionary consciousness does not exist objectively, that is, as an immediate determination [consequence?] of the material base, then organisations must bring it into the world.

From a historical standpoint, what is meant by "immediate" in this context? Do they mean right now, today, this minute? Or do they recognize that the end of class society is such a major transformation in the way that humans live that we perforce must speak in terms of centuries.


Pro-revolutionary groups are not the historic party, they have no [not?] been thrown up by the economic base, they are not an inescapable result of capitalism's contradictions. In most cases pro-revolutionary groups are created in response to purely political events and have little connection to workers' struggles.

Well, yes and no. Granted that tracing the origins of a particular pro-revolutionary group back to the economic base can be a very torturous exercise (and one of questionable utility as well), one can nevertheless dismiss bloated claims of being "the historic party" on the pragmatic basis of performance.


The reason Monsieur DuPont advocate the possibility of revolution via the intervention of a relatively, numerically small section of the proletariat is very simple, we see that only a relatively small section (of a vast minority) of the proletariat have potential power over the process of capitalist production.

They don't say what this small sector is...but the logical candidate is the transportation sector. Were sailors, railroad workers, truck drivers, longshoremen, warehousemen, airline pilots, and such to simultaneously strike, the entire capitalist system would face an enormous crisis within seven to ten days (when urban food supplies would run out).

The consequences of such a "revolution" would not, in my view, be happy ones. The overwhelming majority would see this as a naked "power grab" by a determined minority...and it would take a lot of work to overcome that initial bad impression.

I don't think it's a very good idea.


We know that objective conditions are capitalist and are anti-human, therefore it would be naive to place any faith in the transformative properties of consciousness if it fails [falls?] so easily under the common [command?] of, and exploitation by, the owners of material conditions.

This was a point first raised by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology...that the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class.

But it seems to me that as a given epoch ages, those ruling ideas which once seemed to be "self-evident truth" are "left behind" by changing objective conditions and new ideas emerge that are better explanations of what's actually happening.

In our own time, we've seen the ruling class rummaging through the museums of philosophy looking for old ideas that they can dust off and polish up and present them as "revealed wisdom". When they are reduced to the theology of neo-classical economics and the transparent clownishness of "post-modernism"...what else can they do?

Consciousness is transformed by objective reality and this has happened right before our own eyes!

Unless one wishes to argue that the ruling class got together some time in the late fifties and said to one another, "hey, let's give the ladies a few breaks, ok?".


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
A lot of my activist friends are anti-civilisationists with some having tendencies towards communism, some more to primitivism.

An ominous development and one that does not speak well for the future of anarchism. People who want to abandon civilization for a primitivist utopia can never be more than a tiny cult.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 22 2005, 12:29 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 22 2005, 12:29 AM)
The Anarchist Tension
A lot of my activist friends are anti-civilisationists with some having tendencies towards communism, some more to primitivism.

An ominous development and one that does not speak well for the future of anarchism. People who want to abandon civilization for a primitivist utopia can never be more than a tiny cult. [/b]
The green anarchists are by far a majority in the anarchist movement, with many people having lost faith in organisation all together.

The Anarchist Federation refuted the book already and allot of the stuff written came out of those debates.

I think the only part of it which I agree with is the essential workers part. It's something I think class struggle anarchists need to take into consideration. The class lines are not at all as clear as they once were, and it might now be that only a very small section of society have the "power" to bring down capitalism.

I also apologise for the garbled parts, I was typing it and not really paying attention.

[novemba]

I feel this is an appropriate time to raise this point, even though it might be a little off topic.

I'm extremely ADHD, in fact right now my legs are twitching non-stop from just setting here, but what I'm getting at is that when Redstar and TAT and other people post long posts, with lots of quotes and things, it's really hard for me to read them. It's not that I don't want to its just I can't remain focused on it long enough to get anything from it. Please have some sympathy for me and other people with the same issue...just some suggestions...

1.People with ADD/ADHD are quite often selective readers, which means that they pick out the critical words in sentences instead of actually reading the whole thing. Somethings that could help relieve this problem is bolding the key words, I know redstar does it and that helped me a lot, so if it's not an inconvience, could you try and do that more frequently?

2.It's really hard to maintain focus. If you could just put a nice little summary at the end of your post, then that would be greatly appreciated.

thats about it. thanks

[redstar2000]

Have you considered increasing the type size displayed by your browser?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

On revolutionary circumstance:
I don't know as I haven't read the book, but there apear to be no specifics about the "peculiar alignment of events" that are required. If he is simply trying to say that what is needed is for the economy to more than just fail, but virtually implode, forcing something to hapen, then surely there should be some effort made to artificially engineer this occurance.

On counsciousness occurring post revolution:Without revolutionary consciousness of the class, counter-revolution, on the a large scale, and from the class that revolution is in the interests of, is inevitable. Counsciousness will not take place afterwards, because people will revert to what they know not what they have just come to fear.


On divisions and pro-consciousness:
I see the point about divisions existing, but perhaps this is necessary to some extent, even if immediate action is slowed somewhat. To act (as is suggested) unilaterally would cause quite a lot of troubles in the immediate aftermath. Although those groups not related to class strugle, which was also mentioned, should, and in most cases shall of course have to be ignored to a large extent.

On only a segment of the proletariat being in a revolutionary position:
The main pont of agreement appears to be that only certain workers would be necessary to bring about revolutionary circumstance, if not revolution itself. However if this was the case then it would at least appear to the proletariat as a whole that action was not being taken in their favour, largely a result of their lack of consciousness.

There is also no specifics of which segments, as redstar mentioned (although these could be easily worked out) or how to prevent these positions from falling back into the hands of the population as a whole. Is it possible that other workers would fill the void if it is abandonment and strike tactics used, or the military could get involved if possesion of certain means f production was obtained by coercion?

On the last quote in general:
The first part here appears to deal with semantics and I think there is little to discuss. The rest of it appears to deal with the lack of a link between the means and the goal (not the ends) However should revolution itself not be viewed in this way?



Overall this was an interesting extract and I would be interested to read more. However I still feel that raising consciousness, and acquiringsupport of the class in question is the way to act in their favour.

[bombeverything]

I found these quotes quite interesting. I disagreed with most of it, primarily because it seems like they are promoting inaction by rendering any interaction with society as a form of oppression. I don’t really see the point of the book. I guess there isn't?


Consciousness is a political category. A world-wide or even national conscious proletarian identity would involve a high degree of organisation, which is another word for consciousness. There is no objectively existing, separate sphere of revolutionary consciousness and certainly none that is owned by a particular section of humanity; the working class especially do not own consciousness, they do not own anything (except their playstations). So, if revolutionary consciousness does not exist objectively, that is, as an immediate determination of the material base, then organisations must bring it into the world. Organisation carries consciousness into the world; as consciousness is not present 'naturally' it must be transmitted by an organising agency, but which organisation?"

It seems like they are implying that all organisation is oppressive, an assumption that I find most peculiar. Yet organisation is natural as we are primarily social beings; we will always be influenced by and impact on, others. Only power imbalanced organisations such as capitalism will distort natural organisation by imposing the oppressive values and beliefs of a minority on others through the threat of force. That is, natural organisation has been perverted by our interactions with the unequal economic and power structures that exist in our material world, allowing values to be externally imposed. Obviously this would result in an imposition of minority values and a culture of conformity.

I sense that the writers are talking about the alienating experience of living under capitalism, as if this is an inevitable form of organisation, or an inescapable one. Under capitalism, we cannot have proper organisation. This is why we want to abolish capitalism. We must have revolutionary ideas to do this. Destroying these structures would require a collective effort towards that goal, and this necessitates that the workers are conscious of this aim.


[Most] Pro-revolutionary groups view themselves as being objectively constituted by the need of society to overthrow capital and therefore they see themselves as qualified to prescribe values and strategies to the proletariat...All pro-revolutionary groups are subjective bodies (if this were not so, then there would not be so many small pro-revolutionary groups competing against each other, only one organisation. Of course, most pro-consciousness organisations have a tendency to see themselves as the one true faith, and on this basis launch their critiques of each other). Pro-revolutionary groups are not the historic party, they have no been thrown up by the economic base, they are not an inescapable result of capitalism's contradictions. In most cases pro-revolutionary groups are created in response to purely political events and have little connection to workers' struggles”.

I do agree with this. However we do have the capacity to reflect on this and be critical of it. Does this mean nothing?


The reason Monsieur DuPont advocate the possibility of revolution via the intervention of a relatively, numerically, small section of the proletariat is very simple, we see that only a relatively small section (of a vast minority) of the proletariat have potential power over the process of capitalist production. The acts of most people do not effect the world but function at a level of wholly contained effects of the worlds turning. In contrast the proletariat's anti-act, the act of non-production or of ceasing work, instantly has effect (like in a dream) on capitalism as a whole. Most workers are now employed in sectors that are peripheral to the economy's well-being, if they take industrial action it causes inconvenience only to the immediate employer and perhaps a few companies up and down the supply chain. In contrast the essential proletariat is that group of workers who can halt vast areas of the economy by stopping their work"

But wouldn't the workers simply be replaced? What would be the role of the rest of the workers?


The question of consciousness is central because of the ease by which it is defined and thus counterfeited. The proximity of consciousness to ideology is undeniable, a change in conditions renders a truth false. Because that is what we are talking about isn't it. Truth and Falsity, consciousness and ideology? Our position is simple: All consciousness is in fact, by a roundabout route, ideology. Consciousness is the appearance in thought of the forms and content of objective conditions. We know that objective conditions are capitalist and are anti-human, therefore it would be naive to place any faith in the transformative properties of consciousness if it fails so easily under the common of, and exploitation by, the owners of material conditions. Everything that appears (even the struggle against capital) is mediated through infinite filters, nothing political has a direct relation to the base. The truths and values of pro-revolutionaries assert are equally subject to the distorting pressures of the economy as are religions, entertainments and reformist politics (does not the 'party' or group have to be preserved as a thing in itself, kept going by small clerical acts and cash raised? The acts that uphold the group are not in themselves revolutionary and have no connection to the revolution, they are dead acts, they are labour; the group is maintained as the church is maintained: by accumulation.)"

I believe they are again attempting to say that all organisation imposes values and beliefs on others. Technically they are correct, yet this is inescapable part of human interaction. I do understand that our views are shaped by the culture that we live in. However I do not think this renders all culture oppressive. People try to form alternative forms of organisation outside of these power structures. They attempt to understand their own situation, and act with others to change it.