Class Peace

[Vanguard1917]

Are we living in a period of class peace? If we are, how do we challenge and confront such conditions?

This is something i've been thinking about for a while now. I think that it's very important that we analyse the lack of class struggle in this particular period in which we all live. I especially want to know people's opinions on the affects that conditions of class peace can have on Marxist theory and action - i.e. how should Marxists respond to conditions of class peace?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From an FPM pamphlet:

"...Since the capitalist class controls the means of production, they also control society; and of course, do so in their own interests. The interests of this ruling class are diametrically opposed to the interests of our class -- the working class -- which creates all wealth, but controls none of it, and its allies. There is a constant struggle going on between these classes: the class struggle. Just as it has been throughout the history of class society, because of varying conditions and contradictions there are times that this class struggle sharpens and explodes into open conflict, and other times when it appears (at least on the surface) that there is no struggle going on at all.

But we understand that even when everything looks “peaceful”, it’s not. We must carefully examine the material conditions in such times to discover which forms the class struggle is taking on, and adapt our work accordingly.

In recent history, in most of the world, the ruling (capitalist) class has been waging a one sided war on the working class and its allies. This is because the capitalist class is conscious of its interests and acts in them; while the workers and their allies by-and-large are not. The capitalists do whatever is in their power to keep the working class from gaining consciousness (i.e. promoting divisions amongst us on “racial”, ethnic, and religious lines; distracting and fooling us with the media – which they control; co-opting minor demands, and convincing workers to support capitalist political parties, etc.).

But despite all this, through the continuing class struggle (and especially in periods when it sharpens and explodes into open conflict), the working class and its allies will become conscious of their own interests as a whole, and will finally unite and overthrow the capitalists reign of terror. Of course, the capitalists will not give up their positions of power without a life-or-death struggle. It will be, and has been, a intense fight with tremendous victories and disappointing set backs; but eventually, due to the very nature of capitalism itself, we will prevail. The better informed our class – and this is where our work comes in – the sooner it will be; and the sooner all of humanity will be much better off. "

[Lamanov]

I never thought that "dialectician" would come to think that there's such a thing as "class peace". :lol:

Oh the irony.

[Vanguard1917]

In recent history, in most of the world, the ruling (capitalist) class has been waging a one sided war on the working class and its allies.

A "one sided war" isn't a class struggle. In capitalist society a struggle between classes assumes working class involvement. If the working class doesn't fight back, then it is not a struggle between classes - it is merely a series of assaults by the ruling class on the working class. It is not a class struggle, conflict or war.


This is because the capitalist class is conscious of its interests and acts in them; while the workers and their allies by-and-large are not. The capitalists do whatever is in their power to keep the working class from gaining consciousness (i.e. promoting divisions amongst us on “racial”, ethnic, and religious lines; distracting and fooling us with the media – which they control; co-opting minor demands, and convincing workers to support capitalist political parties, etc.).

Capitalist interests change according to changing conditions. In a period of class conflict the capitalist class will have interests that are different to those in periods of class peace. And, therefore, its actions will also differ. Additionally, its consciousness of itself as a class will be at differing levels.

Marxists do not study phenomena as though they are static. We recognise that they are subject to constant change and motion. What is correct in one period is not necessarily correct in another period. Marxism only develops if it is constantly tested against current problems. Marx once stated his favourite motto as being 'question everything'. Marx and Engels emphasised that all history must be studied afresh. They argued that historical thinking must always remain historical - i.e. all things must be studied in historical context.

So, for example, in one period, the racism that is described in the quote above is a key part of ruling class ideology and capitalist society. In another period, however, racism is no longer a ruling class ideology and it no longer plays the key role in society that it once did. Because there is nothing intrinsic to capitalism and capitalist ideology that makes racism necessary. It only becomes necessary under certain historical conditions. Under conditions of class peace 'things' work in different ways.

This was discussed in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44451).


But despite all this, through the continuing class struggle (and especially in periods when it sharpens and explodes into open conflict), the working class and its allies will become conscious of their own interests as a whole, and will finally unite and overthrow the capitalists reign of terror.

How will the working class become conscious of itself as a revolutionary class? In the absense of class struggle, what role can revolutionaries play?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Are we living in a period of class peace?

No...although I can see how it would "look that way".

The trade unions in the "western" ( or "old") capitalist countries are, for the most part, moribund or even shrinking.

Those countries with traditional "workers' parties" are watching those parties, again for the most part, being converted into bourgeois parties or shrinking towards irrelevance.

So it "looks bad"...at least from the point of view of what was considered "class struggle" in the last century.

On the other hand, here and there we have seen the occasional "wildcat" strike or violent demonstration against the ruling class.

I think there will be more of this as time passes.

What may be happening is a class looking for new ways to struggle...because, let's face it, all of the "old ways" haven't accomplished jack shit in the last 30 years or more.

What we may be seeing is the final exhaustion of the "social democratic model" for class struggle (generally copied by the Leninists).

You know, you have a bunch of trade unions and the professional leaders of those unions put up the money for a "workers' party" of professional politicians who run in bourgeois "elections", etc.

All very professional...and all very unsuccessful.


What role can revolutionaries play?

As always, we have to tell people the truth. We can't "invent out of our heads" the new forms of class struggle...that's something that only the class itself can do.

What we can do is speak bluntly.

And in ordinary language!

The truth is that nothing will change for the better until the old capitalist class is overthrown!

And that's hard to tell people and hard for them to grasp.

Revolutions are hard and dangerous...no one really wants to do that unless there is no alternative.

Well, there isn't! And if we don't put that message across, you can bet your rent money that no one else is going to do it.

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

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:08 PM

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:37 PM

In recent history, in most of the world, the ruling (capitalist) class has been waging a one sided war on the working class and its allies.

A "one sided war" isn't a class struggle.
It's not exactly peace either!

The current period is unlike, say, the 1950s, where the bosses were able to give more concessions to the workers, because of the economic expansion. That period was more peaceful in that sense - compared to today, when the bosses are taking back concessions they gave earlier.


If the working class doesn't fight back, then it is not a struggle between classes - it is merely a series of assaults by the ruling class on the working class.

But there are significant working-class fightbacks. I understand the significance of the working-class struggles going on now may escape a lot of people. You really have to be part of 'em to fully get it. It's one of those things that depends on your class frame of reference.

But they exist. New York transit strikers just shut down the city in defiance of antistrike laws and heavy fines, for example. Mechanics are conductin the first nationwide airline strike in years against Northwest Airlines, and the company has just asked the bankruptcy court to tear up its contracts with the other unions.

Win or lose, these struggles sow the seeds of new kinds of consciousness and organization. New leaders step forward among the rank and file, gain experience, begin to make contacts with fighting workers in other workplaces.

"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers." as the Manifesto says.


Capitalist interests change according to changing conditions. In a period of class conflict the capitalist class will have interests that are different to those in periods of class peace

Could you be any vaguer or more abstract?

****

This is a period of retreat by the working class. A period of downturn in the struggle - that doesn't mean the struggle evaporates!

There have been periods of much less workers' struggle in the past. The early 80s in the U.S., for example, was a period not just of retreat but of full-on rout. Workers in one industry after another voted for major concession contracts - voted to slash their own wages and gut their own benefits - because of the fear of losing their jobs.

During the long post-WWII economic expansion, when workers made gains without so much of a fight, the unions became so hideously bureaucratized that they were wholly unprepared for a more difficult economic situation. The bureaucracy is still clueless about how to deal with this situation, and will stay that way. The workers are still learning how to deal with it.

***

So why now do we hear so much about the alleged failure of revolutionary Marxism from one leftist, and that there is no class struggle from another, etc?

I think it comes from a crisis of the left, rather than of the working class.

And I think it's not so much based on any rational thought process - certainly the arguments I've seen are far from logical - as on the naked force of the reverse bandwagon effect.

When something seems to be advancing, gaining strength, many people will jump on the bandwagon. When it suffers defeats, rats leave the sinking ship.

But revolutionaries to not give up over temporary defeats. The class struggle does not cease to be the basis of our actions. We make tactical adjustments to the situation, of course. But that's all.

And what's more, the most dispiriting defeats to many leftists...are not defeats to the working class at all.

Most damaging of all to leftist morale was the collapse of Stalinist regimes in 1989-1991. We're still witnessing the aftershocks of that alleged victory for capitalism in the hidden or open defection of leftists.

(If that was the great victory for capitalism it was cracked up to be...then the opening of all those new markets would have made possible a new economic boom. We'd be living in a world where the bosses were making more concessions to the workers, a world of increasing political stability. A time like the 1950s.

The opposite is the case. From the capitalist side of the barricades, Condoleeza Rice recognized that in today's news: "The greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them," she said. "The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power." linnk (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801937.html) Reminiscent of a revolutionary hope Isaac Deutscher once expressed. And part of Washington's preparations for a world of decreasing instability and increasing conflict, including class conflict.

The crisis of Stalinism has had profound implications for other parts of the left, as well. The social democracy has lost a crutch, and the various centrist sects have lost a center they orbited around.

As Redstar mentions, the mass reformist workers' parties are in decline. They're also less and less characterized by a base in the working class.

But this is not a defeat for the working class. The Stalinist and social-democratic mass reformist workers' parties were always an obstacle, a misleadership. Their decline is no reason to be disappointed or demoralized...and certainly no reason to declare the class struggle nonexistent.


How will the working class become conscious of itself as a revolutionary class?

Through struggle, beginning with the struggles going on today.


In the absense of class struggle, what role can revolutionaries play?

None, if you accept that premise. Hang it up, stop claiming to be a revolutionary Marxist, if that's what you think.

Nobody can become a revolutionary by sheer force of will or individual clarity of thought. Revolutionaries are a product of the class struggle, and act as part of the class struggle.

Even Marx and Engels didn't become revolutionaries and communists solely by studying philosophy. They became communists by joining an organization of fighting workers, the League of the Just.

What role can revolutionaries play in a time when the bosses are on the offensive, the workers' movement is retreating, the old misleaderships are displaying their final bankruptcy, and fighting workers here and there are searching for new ways forward?

Plenty!

Redstar's given his answer, and I'm all for telling the truth. And for carrying communist propaganda to the broadest possible audience.

But most importantly: join the struggles that are happening today. Work to carry 'em forward like any other fighting worker.....communist consciousness becomes meaningful and possible, and communist propaganda finds its best audience, in that context.

[red_che]

Are we living in a period of class peace?

I don't think so. The capitalists have always been violent to the proletariat. What I think is that there is a lull in the proletarian movement. I think this "lull" in the proletarian movement is not actually "peace" with the capitalist class. It is like the ebb and flow wave of the tide. The flow of the proletarian movement came during the early decades of the 20th century. Now it is on an ebb.

Such state of decline of the proletarian movement is attributed to the revisionist tendencies during the middle of 1900s which lasted up to 1989 when revisionism finally succumbed to capitalism, and ended the "cold war". And up to now, revisionism is widespread. The revisionist lines/principles are carried my communist/workers' parties mostly in the advance countries in Europe and the US. And one by one, these parties are slowly degenerating to bourgeois liberal parties or were simply disintegrating.


If we are, how do we challenge and confront such conditions?

First, we must combat revisionism, opportunism, empiricism and dogmatism and a general reaffirmation on the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism must be made. As well, concrete analysis on social conditions must be made so that Marxism-Leninism can be applied more concretely. That way, the proletarian movement shall have more "weapons" in its battle against bourgeois propaganda and education. And only then can the proletarian movement advance the struggle.

[Hiero]

The reason you think there is class peace is because in the western countries a majority of the working class' wages are made up from super profits from imperialism. So a large part of the working class are content under imperialism. The trade unions and many other working class organisations are mostly of middle class leadership, so they are more keen to negotiate with the bourgeoisie.

However there is no class peace between the real proletariat in the 1st world, the 1st nations people in the 1st world, the oppressed minority nations in the 1st world with their national bourgeoisie. Although these people may not have a proper leadership so appear to be in some form of peace.

There is no class peace between the international proletariat found mostly in the 3rd world with their national bourgeoisie and the imperialist bourgeoisie found in the 1st world countries.

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar:

Those countries with traditional "workers' parties" are watching those parties, again for the most part, being converted into bourgeois parties or shrinking towards irrelevance.

Severian:

The current period is unlike, say, the 1950s, where the bosses were able to give more concessions to the workers, because of the economic expansion. That period was more peaceful in that sense - compared to today, when the bosses are taking back concessions they gave earlier.

In the 1950s the working class was a consequential force in society. In the Britain, for example, the 1950s saw great amounts of political polarisation. Although, in the absence of any significant communist party (aside from the CPGB, a Stalinist party whose influence over the trade unions could not be ignored by the state), it was the mainstream parties, Labour and the Tories, that took advantage of this polarisation. The Labour Party had over a million members of largely left-wing activists and trade unionist workers. Additionally there were over 10 million trade unionist workers affliated to Labour. Of course, there's no denying that the Labour Party was a party of the capitalist establishment and that its primary role was to tame the working class in times of capitalist instability - and, of course, Labour's influence over the working class and socialist politics was something to be struggled against. But, nonetheless, regardless of Labour's conservative leadership, the workers at the Labour base joined the party out of a genuine belief that they had the power to change their circumstances for the better through political engagement. If you asked the average working class Labour member in the 1950s why they joined the Labour Party, they would tell you that it was because of a belief in a socialist future. There was a sense that society could be changed and that there was an alternative. Socialism wasn't just something to be discussed within middle class intellectual circles; socialist politics played a significant role in working class life; so significant that it had to be paid lip service to in British parliamentary politics.

Today, we don't even have that. In a previous context we would be glad that the Labour Party and social democracy no longer has a stronghold in the working class. We might even rejoice at the fact that the old CPGB's influence on the trade unions and on revolutionary politics has evaporated. But we have to recognise that such demise has, in today's context, coincided with a real life defeat of the working class.

I'm not saying that we should allow ourselves to be pessimistic. Disillusioned leftists sometimes say that the working class has been 'disorganised, depoliticised and demoralised'. Such statements have very strong fatalistic currents running through them. A loss of faith in the working class is often synonomous with a loss of faith in people's ability to change their circumstances for the better.

Severian talks about the trade union struggles that take place today. But the trade unions today cannot be compared to the mass trade union movements of the past. Sure, we still see the odd strike that causes significant levels of disruption for a day or two. But, in the past, the trade union movement had the power to bring down governments - such as the 1979 'winter of discontent' in Britain. In the past, the trade unions played a role a lot greater than merely advising its members on pension schemes and improving health and safety regulations. In my 'signature' below there is quote that was a slogan for many trade unionist radicals: 'the past we inherit, the future we build'. There was a belief that the unions could play a role in bring about a new kind of society.


Win or lose, these struggles sow the seeds of new kinds of consciousness and organization. New leaders step forward among the rank and file, gain experience, begin to make contacts with fighting workers in other workplaces.

Potentially, yes. But is this really happening though?


So why now do we hear so much about the alleged failure of revolutionary Marxism from one leftist, and that there is no class struggle from another, etc?

I think it comes from a crisis of the left, rather than of the working class.

Good point. But if we follow the logic that revolutionaries are made in times of class struggle, then we have to recognise that the loss of faith in the working class is a symptom of the real life diminishing of the working class movement.


But most importantly: join the struggles that are happening today. Work to carry 'em forward like any other fighting worker.....communist consciousness becomes meaningful and possible, and communist propaganda finds its best audience, in that context.

What struggles are you talking about? If it's a working class struggle, they are 'hard to come by' - to say the least. But if you mean the petit-bourgeois 'struggles' that pose themselves as somehow being radical - environmentalist pressure groups, anti-globalisation demonstrations that march under the banner of localised production and 'sustainable development', disgusting animal-rights primitivist protests outside medical research centres, or even the anti-war 'movement' that is primarily based on a Western fear of terrorism rather than solidarity with the Iraqi people - then, i'm afraid, there's as much chance of me joining such 'struggles' as there is of me joining the church tomorrow or of my pub football team winning the Premier League this season

Does this mean that i think we should abstain from politics and be bone-idle? No... but it does mean that, as Marxists, we must question the society that we live in. In these peculiar times, the questioning process, a process central to Marxism, becomes more important than ever before.

red_che:

First, we must combat revisionism, opportunism, empiricism and dogmatism and a general reaffirmation on the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism must be made.

Not quite. In order for the 'basic principles of Marxism-Leninism' to be reaffirmed, we currently have more important things to confront.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:19 AM
Are we living in a period of class peace? If we are, how do we challenge and confront such conditions?

This is something i've been thinking about for a while now. I think that it's very important that we analyse the lack of class struggle in this particular period in which we all live. I especially want to know people's opinions on the affects that conditions of class peace can have on Marxist theory and action - i.e. how should Marxists respond to conditions of class peace?
I'm not sure where you are, but throughout the English-speaking world it seems conditions are becoming more intense; the class struggle is sharpening.

New York was paralysed by the transit strike, Ireland saw some of the biggest labour activity since 1915, strikes in London and so on.

I know that in Ireland one of the necessary tasks is to end the social partnership.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:23 AM
red_che:

First, we must combat revisionism, opportunism, empiricism and dogmatism and a general reaffirmation on the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism must be made.

Not quite. In order for the 'basic principles of Marxism-Leninism' to be reaffirmed, we currently have more important things to confront.
Such as?

I bet those things you will confront are those that I stated above. And of course, the continuing confrontation with the bourgeoisie.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:23 AM
But, nonetheless, regardless of Labour's conservative leadership, the workers at the Labour base joined the party out of a genuine belief that they had the power to change their circumstances for the better through political engagement. If you asked the average working class Labour member in the 1950s why they joined the Labour Party, they would tell you that it was because of a belief in a socialist future.
You gotta ask, though, what was meant by "socialism."

Seems to me it represented a hope that capitalism could be reformed to work better for working people. That hope - that illusion - has been crushed by events.


Today, we don't even have that. In a previous context we would be glad that the Labour Party and social democracy no longer has a stronghold in the working class. We might even rejoice at the fact that the old CPGB's influence on the trade unions and on revolutionary politics has evaporated. But we have to recognise that such demise has, in today's context, coincided with a real life defeat of the working class.

Yes, "coincided". As in, happened at the same time.

Perhaps the decline of the mass reformist workers' parties is in part an effect of the retreat of the working class over the past couple decades. But not a cause, I think, so there's no reason to mourn them.


Severian talks about the trade union struggles that take place today. But the trade unions today cannot be compared to the mass trade union movements of the past. Sure, we still see the odd strike that causes significant levels of disruption for a day or two. But, in the past, the trade union movement had the power to bring down governments - such as the 1979 'winter of discontent' in Britain.

1979 was a high point of the world class struggle, perhaps the last time our class was on the offensive on a world scale. It saw revolutions in Nicaragua, Grenada and Iran, plus the overthrow of Pol Pot. I could give quite a list for the preceding few years, from the fall of Saigon to the fall of the Portuguese dictatorship.

It was also a high point for labor resistance in the imperialist countries - the post-WWII economic expansion had recently ended with the '74-'75 world recession, the bosses' offensive was just getting underway, and the aftershocks of the 60s-70s youth radicalization had their effect as well.

Nobody says we're living in that kind of period today, I don't think. The working class has been in retreat since, well, roughly since then. And the unions have grown weaker with each year, yes. And it's been some time since there's been a victorious anticapitalist revolution.

But a period of retreat is no a period of no struggle. Tactics change with the ups and downs of the class struggle; program doesn't.

This is not even the worst period of retreat ever, as I pointed out in my earlier post. There are signs of increasing resistance; there's even a case to be made that the working class is advancing in some Latin American countries.

Another, perhaps minor symptom as far as mass consciousness goes: the recent subscription drive for the Militant newspaper met a far better response than it has for years - more subscriptions sold than I can remember, and more than in any year since 1995 when the Militant's web archive begins. The goal was doubled during the drive, and the new goal met. This was an international drive, and the better response was evident in every country involved.

Now maybe this is just a temporary blip, but it simply can't be just wishful thinking; it's a quantifiable measure of the response to communist political campaigning.



Win or lose, these struggles sow the seeds of new kinds of consciousness and organization. New leaders step forward among the rank and file, gain experience, begin to make contacts with fighting workers in other workplaces.

Potentially, yes. But is this really happening though?

Yes. I've seen it. I don't know that it's happening at a rate sufficient to reverse the retreat, yet. But it's the process that will.

It's partly also a matter of: when will enough people feel their backs are against the wall, and they can't take any more? I don't know for sure, but it's in the nature of the capitalist profit drive to keep taking more and more until that point is reached.


Good point. But if we follow the logic that revolutionaries are made in times of class struggle, then we have to recognise that the loss of faith in the working class is a symptom of the real life diminishing of the working class movement.

True. "Diminishing". Not disappearance.


What struggles are you talking about? If it's a working class struggle, they are 'hard to come by' - to say the least.

Did somebody promise it would be easy?

I should point out that by working-class struggles, I don't only mean trade-union actions. There have been protests against police brutality and for immigrants' rights, for example, that have been mostly working-class in composition. Actions by other exploited producers, like working farmers, can also be important.


But if you mean the petit-bourgeois 'struggles' that pose themselves as somehow being radical - environmentalist pressure groups, anti-globalisation demonstrations that march under the banner of localised production and 'sustainable development', disgusting animal-rights primitivist protests outside medical research centres, or even the anti-war 'movement' that is primarily based on a Western fear of terrorism rather than solidarity with the Iraqi people - then, i'm afraid, there's as much chance of me joining such 'struggles' as there is of me joining the church tomorrow or of my pub football team winning the Premier League this season

Nah, that's not what I mean. I agree the anti-globalisation and animal-rights protests are reactionary, and the others not of great progressive content right now.

If the working class was advancing, some of those middle-class elements would be attracted towards it; as it is, they tend to drift off in some pretty rotten directions.

Exceptions are possible, like the clinic defense actions of the early to mid-90s in the U.S., which physically confronted and politically pushed back a threatening proto-fascist movement developing around the abortion issue. Those were important. But I don't think there is anything like that at the moment.


Does this mean that i think we should abstain from politics and be bone-idle? No...

Good. 'Course, you haven't said what you do think should be done, or what answers you're giving to the "questioning process."

Now, maybe you're just not sure yet, and I shouldn't press you since it's a mark of seriousness not to immediately jump to a conclusion.

But I oughta point out that it is always easier to poke holes in a stated conclusion than to have to make a positive case of one's own....

[leftist resistance]

The "peace" between classes tt you see now is just a result of one giving in to the other.it is sort of 'unseen' conflict.
Class conflicts will persist as long as a class is subservient to another.furthermore,there is a clash of interest and priorities.
Negotiated peace is attained by means of pay rise,better working environment,etc. but lasting peace can only be attained by the abolition of classes

[Vanguard1917]

red che

Such as?

I bet those things you will confront are those that I stated above. And of course, the continuing confrontation with the bourgeoisie.

Well, things like revisionism, opportunism, empiricism and dogmatism threaten the communist movement only if there is a communist movement in the first place.

Severian:

You gotta ask, though, what was meant by "socialism."

Seems to me it represented a hope that capitalism could be reformed to work better for working people. That hope - that illusion - has been crushed by events.

My point was that, in the 1950s, unlike today, working people retained a sense that they could change society through political engagement. There was a sense of working class agency.


Yes, "coincided". As in, happened at the same time.

Perhaps the decline of the mass reformist workers' parties is in part an effect of the retreat of the working class over the past couple decades. But not a cause, I think, so there's no reason to mourn them.

We shouldn't mourn them, i agree. But why do you say that the decline of the reformist workers' parties has had no causal effect on the decline of the workers' movement? The decline of the reformist parties and the trade unions was, i agree, largely responsive to changing circumstances in society. The same can be said of other, more radical organisations that provided the working class with some sense of purpose: communist parties and anti-imperialist movements, for instance. But the demise of such organisations has left a major vacuum in society (which is increasingly being filled by non-working class sections of society). This, i think, has also had a causal impact on the state of the working class today. I must admit, i'm in two minds about this. What do you think?


I should point out that by working-class struggles, I don't only mean trade-union actions.

Exactly. But that's partly my point. Unionised workers today are different from the unionised workers of the past past because, in the latter, there was, like i said before, actually a sense of some kind of broader purpose. The unions did not just perform the narrow, bureaucratic function that they do today. In the past, the trade union was a key part of what it meant to be working class. They provided the working class with a much broader sense of subjectivity than they do today. Trade unionist slogans like 'Unity Is Strength' actually meant something back then... socially. When workers confronted the police at the picket lines or threw rocks at the scab bus they did so not just out of a narrow struggle over pay and working conditions...or pension schemes. They were very clear expressions, however limited, of a real life working class fight-back against capitalist society.

By saying that we're experiencing conditions of class struggle today, we degrade what a class struggle really is. A former leader of the British SWP, Tony Cliff, used to repeat: never lie to the class. I think that we shouldn't lie to ourselves either.


Good. 'Course, you haven't said what you do think should be done, or what answers you're giving to the "questioning process."

Now, maybe you're just not sure yet, and I shouldn't press you since it's a mark of seriousness not to immediately jump to a conclusion.

But I oughta point out that it is always easier to poke holes in a stated conclusion than to have to make a positive case of one's own....

I think a large part of our task is to confront the petit-bourgeois movements that i mentioned above... the ones that you agreed were not progressive, if not outright reactionary. The reason i say this is because these are the very movements that have filled the vacuum left by the defeat of the working class movement... or the 'retreat' of the working class movement, as you call it (which i think is an understatement). Petit-bourgeois elements have to be defeated for there to be any kind of move towards a new progressive movement of the working class. The petit-bourgeois dominance over radical politics and the petit-bourgeois 'new social movements' need to be defeated - through theory as well as through practice:

The anti-globalisation movement needs to be heavily criticised (to say the very least) by Marxists - not embraced as though it provides us with some kind of glimmer of hope (which it doesn't);

Environmentalism needs to be rejected in a no-ifs-no-buts kind of way. I have given my reasons in a couple of threads in the Science and Environment forum;

Multiculturalism needs to be confronted as divisive ideologies ought to be confronted. But we've already been through this one...;

And a serious Marxist re-interpretation of post-Cold War Western imperialism is, in my humble opinion, long overdue.


Edit:

And, of course, it should go without saying, that we have to actively support the working class in all of the industrial struggles that it takes part in. But this support must go hand in hand with an attack on the petit-bourgeois movements.

[red_che]

Well, things like revisionism, opportunism, empiricism and dogmatism threaten the communist movement only if there is a communist movement in the first place.

So, you're saying that the working class movement is not a communist movement? What it is then?

You have been exchanging reponses with Severian in this thread about working class struggles and all that but, after all, you think that it is not part of a communist movement?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:17 AM
. When workers confronted the police at the picket lines or threw rocks at the scab bus they did so not just out of a narrow struggle over pay and working conditions...or pension schemes. They were very clear expressions, however limited, of a real life working class fight-back against capitalist society.
I think that's still the case...when people do fight back.

Nobody spends eight months on the picket line, and risks never getting your job back, out of narrow economic self-interest. Even if you win something, which is far from certain, you'll likely never make up the lost wages.

A sense of fighting for working people generally is needed. A sense of fighting for future generations, often.

A number of strikes have been against attempts to impose a "two-tier" contract - a wage and benefit cut which doesn't affect those currently employed. It's just those in the future who will be on the lower tier.

The NY subway strike successfully rejected a two-tier proposal. The Caterpillar strike, where workers stayed out for months and many lost their jobs, was for the benefit of future hires.


Petit-bourgeois elements have to be defeated for there to be any kind of move towards a new progressive movement of the working class. The petit-bourgeois dominance over radical politics and the petit-bourgeois 'new social movements' need to be defeated - through theory as well as through practice:

Isn't this basically saying that petty-bourgeois dominance over the petty-bourgeoisie needs to be ended? Not really attainable or necessary.

It's petty-bourgeois political dominance of the working class which needs to be ended...and the growing irrelevance of middle-class radicals to the working class is the removal of an obstacle to that.

I'm all for criticizing some of these things; maybe all of them depending what you mean by environmentalism. But don't think you're going to win large numbers out of these movements by these criticisms. A political orientation to these movements or "the left" - positive or negative - is pointless, and a distraction from a political orientation to the working class.

And of course any criticism is only progressive depending on what it's for! Ultrarightists also criticize multiculturalism, after all; supporters of current capitalist trade policy criticize "anti-globalization", those who will happily poison people for profit critize environmentalism.


And a serious Marxist re-interpretation of post-Cold War Western imperialism is, in my humble opinion, long overdue.

In a nutshell: inter-imperialist conflict is increased. And U.S. imperialism is faced with the need to directly police the world since it can no longer manage conflicts through deals with the Kremlin, which had influence with all kinds of national liberation movements as well as the CPs worldwide.

Any idea that imperialism has basically changed in the "post-Cold War" world mystifies what the Cold War was, IMO.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:09 PM
o, you're saying that the working class movement is not a communist movement? What it is then?
Obviously the level of class consciousness is not at a point today where the working-class movement is communist.

One thing that may be confusing you: when some people talk about the working class we mean, well, the working class. Actual flesh-and-blood workers.

Not the idealized concept of the working class, which is allegedly represented by those with the supposedly correct line - or really, the correct theological doctrine. That's an idealist, not a Marxist approach.

[red_che]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 26 2006, 11:24 AM--> (Severian @ Jan 26 2006, 11:24 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 11:09 PM
o, you're saying that the working class movement is not a communist movement? What it is then?
Obviously the level of class consciousness is not at a point today where the working-class movement is communist.

One thing that may be confusing you: when some people talk about the working class we mean, well, the working class. Actual flesh-and-blood workers.

Not the idealized concept of the working class, which is allegedly represented by those with the supposedly correct line - or really, the correct theological doctrine. That's an idealist, not a Marxist approach. [/b]
Well, for me I consider all working class movement, except those unions being funded and controlled by the bourgoisie, as communist movement. Why? Because those will eventually lead to communism. And I regard every worker, except the capitalist lackeys, as revolutionary. Why? Because only the workers can bring down capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Isn't this basically saying that petty-bourgeois dominance over the petty-bourgeoisie needs to be ended? Not really attainable or necessary.

Petit-bourgeois ideas do not only influence the petit-bourgeoisie; if the conditions permit, petit-bourgeois influence can extend throughout society. Petit-bourgeois ideas are already being paid lip-service to by ruling class politics. In the past, when there was a working class movement in society, some sections of ruling class politicians were compelled to pay lip-service to socialism. Now, on the other had, they pay lip-service to environmentalism, sustainable development, multiculturalism. Doesn't this tell us something?


It's petty-bourgeois political dominance of the working class which needs to be ended...and the growing irrelevance of middle-class radicals to the working class is the removal of an obstacle to that.

I'm all for criticizing some of these things; maybe all of them depending what you mean by environmentalism. But don't think you're going to win large numbers out of these movements by these criticisms. A political orientation to these movements or "the left" - positive or negative - is pointless, and a distraction from a political orientation to the working class.

That's why we need to actively support all working class struggles, even those that are currently in embryonic form, at the same time as we actively oppose the petit-bourgeois movements. Opposition to petit-bourgeois ideas, as you point out, can also come from reactionary sections of society. We need to push forward a progressive movement against petit-bourgeois influence, with our base in the working class, with the aim of taking on the bourgeoisie as a whole.

We shouldn't join the petit-bourgeois movements; we need to confront them. In the event of a rise of the working class, some sections of the petit-bourgeois movement may align themselves with the working class movement. But we shouldn't be suprised if the majority of petit-bourgeois so-called radicals vehemently oppose such a movement.