Working Class Inactivity

[EusebioScrib]

Why has there been so little working class activity since the 70's? Why are we dormant? What has caused it?

[dannie]

because, at least over here in belgium, the majority of the working class has had it pretty good, and we (as in, a great portion of the working class) still believe the lies fed to us by unions, social democrats and the far right. Although our welfare state is something we can't keep up, so our living standards will drop in the next decades causing more working class action.
One of the problems we are going to encouter are the extreme right, wich over here has a pretty broad base, among studends and workers. If we aren't carefull, we can't say we are against the extreme right in the future.

[EusebioScrib]

This "labor aristocracy" or "false consciousness" is what I'm hearing a lot, but I'm not really buying it. It's a very idealist approach claiming that we can be "bourgeoisified."

And they never make it that good, otherwise how would they exploit us?

Are there any alternative approaches to this dormant period?

[Morpheus]

(1) previous revolutionary movements were severly damaged or destroyed through violent repression. That means we have to start from scratch, basically, which means there's going to be a period where most workers are inactive because the revolutionary movements start small and eventually grow into larger movements.

(2) The defeat of previous working class movements has created the impression that resistance is hopeless and that we'll never win, which leads to apathy and inactivity.

(3) The media & schools have sucessfully indoctrinated much of the working class into supporting the system or into believing no alternative is possible.

(4) The culture wars. Giving one section of the working class (straights, men, whites, non-immigrants, christians, etc) priviledge over other sections of the working class tends to generate conflict between the different worker stratas, which divide the working class against itself and distract it from class struggle. For the priviledged strata it also acts as "pyschological wage" which partially compensates for the hardship of being a worker and reduces their prospensity to rebel against capitalists. They're still exploited, but not as much as other working class stratas, which makes them less likely to revolt or become revolutionaries and creates conflict with workers who are exploited even more. Imperialism can have a similar effect on the international working class, by priviledging workers of one nationality over other nationalities, thereby creating divisions among workers, making workers in imperialist nations less likely to rebel (because they're less oppressed) and encouraging national chauvinism.

(5) Many people who don't like the status quo waste their time & resources on electoral campaigns, which inhibits the development of a revolutionary movement and enables the state to buy off dissident leaders by giving them positions within the state structure.

(6) Many working class organizations, like unions, have been taken over by capitalist lakeys.

(7) The giant distraction machine diverts workers attention away from class struggle and onto the lives of celebrities or sensationalistic stories.

(8) The threat of war & terrorism is used to scare workers into submission and unite capitalist with worker under the banner of patriotism.

(9) Leninist ideology was at the core of militant working class movements for much of the 20th century. As leninism was proven to be deeply flawed, this caused the militant working class movements it was a part of the fall apart as leninism discredited itself.

[Mujer Libre]

Everyone in Australia thinks they're "middle-class." Seriously. I think that kind of "everyone has an opportunity for 'success'" thinking by successive economically liberalising governments.

There's also been a consistent lack of radical leftist organising that's produced a LOT of apathy even when the government is becoming extremely authoritarian, as it is today. I think part of this has to do with the government's very anti-Communist stance during the Cold War (a bit like the US) which came from fear of the "domino effect."

Obviously it's really more complex than that, but I stayed up all night watching football...

[STI]

Are there any alternative approaches to this dormant period?



If anything, I'd suggest producing and distributing as much revolutionary literature that's of as high a quality as possible.

There are obviously *some* people out there who would respond favourably, and when *some* turns into *most*, it'll be a lot more likely that they'll make the transition.

[EusebioScrib]

No I was refering to approaches to the causes of it. I know how to get around it, or atleast try. I'm asking why are we dormant.

[STI]

Ah. My bad. As you were.

[Tickin' TimebOmb John]

i rekon that the inactivity amongst the working class in the 1st wordl is down to globalisation. jobs that were once at the core of industry are now worked in the third world because corporations can achive much lower costs. this has resulted in a rise in livin standards for many of the western working class, who now have the benefits of lower priced goods from abroad, and better wage rates themselves. now workers often feel they have a stake in the capitalist system, due to the luxuries glbalisation has afforded them, n so don wanna see it destroyed.
i also think that point 4 mentioned by Morpheus on culture wars is a significant contributory factor, but that the main root of this issues lies in glbalisation

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:08 PM
(1) previous revolutionary movements were severly damaged or destroyed through violent repression. That means we have to start from scratch, basically, which means there's going to be a period where most workers are inactive because the revolutionary movements start small and eventually grow into larger movements.

(2) The defeat of previous working class movements has created the impression that resistance is hopeless and that we'll never win, which leads to apathy and inactivity.

(3) The media & schools have sucessfully indoctrinated much of the working class into supporting the system or into believing no alternative is possible.

(4) The culture wars. Giving one section of the working class (straights, men, whites, non-immigrants, christians, etc) priviledge over other sections of the working class tends to generate conflict between the different worker stratas, which divide the working class against itself and distract it from class struggle. For the priviledged strata it also acts as "pyschological wage" which partially compensates for the hardship of being a worker and reduces their prospensity to rebel against capitalists. They're still exploited, but not as much as other working class stratas, which makes them less likely to revolt or become revolutionaries and creates conflict with workers who are exploited even more. Imperialism can have a similar effect on the international working class, by priviledging workers of one nationality over other nationalities, thereby creating divisions among workers, making workers in imperialist nations less likely to rebel (because they're less oppressed) and encouraging national chauvinism.

(5) Many people who don't like the status quo waste their time & resources on electoral campaigns, which inhibits the development of a revolutionary movement and enables the state to buy off dissident leaders by giving them positions within the state structure.

(6) Many working class organizations, like unions, have been taken over by capitalist lakeys.

(7) The giant distraction machine diverts workers attention away from class struggle and onto the lives of celebrities or sensationalistic stories.

(8) The threat of war & terrorism is used to scare workers into submission and unite capitalist with worker under the banner of patriotism.

(9) Leninist ideology was at the core of militant working class movements for much of the 20th century. As leninism was proven to be deeply flawed, this caused the militant working class movements it was a part of the fall apart as leninism discredited itself.
I think that's a very fair and concise analysis of the situation. I would be interested to see what others think of it?

[Vanguard1917]

There are a few key reasons worth considering:

1) The end of the Cold War. This gave way to the discrediting of leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives. It gave way to a pervasive idea that there is no alternative to the status quo, to capitalist society.

2) The defeat of the working class throughout the Western world in the 1980s. Working class organisations like trade unions and socialist parties were crushed and/or discredited.

3) The peculiar nature of contemporary capitalism. We aren't witnessing the radical ups and downs, booms and busts that we once witnessed. This is essentially due to the lack of dynamism in the mature capitalist economies of the West. What does not rise very high will not drop very hard - and resistance to capitalism has usually come about in times of capitalist crisis.

This is a good thread. I think we should try to expand on our ideas a bit more, and try and get to the real source(s) of this problem.

[Floyce White]

Suggestion-as-propaganda. There has been enormous working-class struggle over the last few decades. You must be blind to have missed it. Why do you think so many millions of angry young men were jailed in the US, or that whole cities were in rebellion in China?

[EusebioScrib]

Why do you think so many millions of angry young men were jailed in the US

Well, it is very true that these were jailed for "rebellious" activity, but revolutionary? Most are in jail not because of attempts to overthrow the system but because of the "war on drugs" and petty theft for survival. It's all "rebllious" activity, but 1. class consciousness is not present and 2. None of it is organized in a coherent revolutionary movement.


or that whole cities were in rebellion in China?

I'm speaking generally. Surely Tianamen square et al were instances of working class revolutionary activity, however the general momentum of the international working class is dead. Our latest highpoint was definitly the 60-70's (May 68, Italy 70-71, US anti-war, Black panthers etc...)

[anomaly]

I'd say this dormancy is due to material conditions which are rather beneficial, relatively, for the '1st world' working class. However, wages have been stagnant for 20 years, while cost of living has risen, so I think an eruption's gotta come sooner or later.

[Janus]

I would be interested to see what others think of it?
I think it is a pretty good and concise analysis.


Surely Tianamen square et al were instances of working class revolutionary activity
What happened at TianAnMen was a student revolt. There have been many worker and farmer protests in China recently. The problem is that reports are generally stifled by the government.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:08 PM
There are a few key reasons worth considering:

1) The end of the Cold War. This gave way to the discrediting of leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives. It gave way to a pervasive idea that there is no alternative to the status quo, to capitalist society.

2) The defeat of the working class throughout the Western world in the 1980s. Working class organisations like trade unions and socialist parties were crushed and/or discredited.

3) The peculiar nature of contemporary capitalism. We aren't witnessing the radical ups and downs, booms and busts that we once witnessed. This is essentially due to the lack of dynamism in the mature capitalist economies of the West. What does not rise very high will not drop very hard - and resistance to capitalism has usually come about in times of capitalist crisis.

This is a good thread. I think we should try to expand on our ideas a bit more, and try and get to the real source(s) of this problem.
Yep, agree with you its a good thread, and think you've brought forward some interesting issues that I'd be interested in your views on. Taking each point in turn:

1) Kinda get what you're saying, but is it not the fault of those who were providing the crap leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives in the first place? Many bought into the Cold War seeing the USSR or China as something to be defended (e.g. as a "degenerated workers state" or as didn't disagree with the fundamentals of USSR policy) or merely defended it as a lesser evil or counterbalance compared with the US. The fact that these groups were hard hit by the end of the Cold War is no particular loss in my view.

2) Which organisations are you referring to and how were they working-class in the first place? On another point, someone else criticised the unions for having "capitalist lackeys" - is this not simply buying in to the "great man" theory of history? Even if they did have "capitalist lackeys", why did this ever happen? What organisational forms resulted in this?

3) Yeah, I think you're right that the seeming lack of radical ups and downs in Western capitalism is important, but the interpretation of this depends totally on your view of capitalist crisis - whether you think its mainly that crisis in capitalist economies lead to changes in working-class activity or whether you think its equally or more the case that working class activity leads to the crisis in capitalism in the first place. It seems to me that the first view makes the working class out to be relatively impotent much of the time and tends to downplay the extent to which developments in capitalism are only forced upon it as a result of working class activity.

[rouchambeau]

I blame our support for and trust in democracy. It's like Jean Barrot said, "...100,000 proletarians armed to the teeth are nothing if they place their trust in anything beside their own power to change the world". Just look at what happened to the revolutionaries in Germany, Italy, and Spain after WWI.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think the reason is pretty simple: lack of economic breakdowns. I think it was Marx who wrote this in Capital, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who studies history that major changes only happen when the current economic system has failed or is in the process of failing. Given the fact that the current economic system still has the power to sustain a large number of people without breaking down, and probably will have that power for a few more decades to come, I think we're "stuck with it".

Another interesting theory I've heard about, and is in line with the theory I described above, is the "population level" theory. Basically it says that every socio-economic system can only sustain a certain population level before it breaks down under the weight of populatory demands.

Then again this theory can be taken to the extreme by some people. It's like the technology theory, which says that major technological advances in the means of production are the cause for change in socio-economic systems. Some people, like that Redbanner person, claim that technological advances --and only technological advances-- can produce communism.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:08 PM
1) The end of the Cold War. This gave way to the discrediting of leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives. It gave way to a pervasive idea that there is no alternative to the status quo, to capitalist society.
I think this is the main reason. People don't have anything to believe in, don't have any examples how it could be. In the 70's you could have solidarity for Ho, or have solidarity with the USSR. In this context, whether the examples were good or not doesn't matter, but they gave something to believe in at least. But capitalism has won everywhere, so people see capitalism as the natural oucome of history, or even "the end of history" as scholar Francis Fukuyama said.

[Louis Pio]

I have to support Floyce, there is ernoumous workingclass activity and has been for quite a while. General strikes in Greece; Italy ect. Or France for that matter and that's only the top of the iceberg. Of course the workers don't suddenly go out on strike on a fully elaborated socialist programme, calling for the socialist transformation of society. That however doesn't mean they aren't active.

[Vanguard1917]

1) Kinda get what you're saying, but is it not the fault of those who were providing the crap leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives in the first place? Many bought into the Cold War seeing the USSR or China as something to be defended (e.g. as a "degenerated workers state" or as didn't disagree with the fundamentals of USSR policy) or merely defended it as a lesser evil or counterbalance compared with the US. The fact that these groups were hard hit by the end of the Cold War is no particular loss in my view.

It's true that socialism did not exist in those countries - but nor did capitalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, and with the end of the 'bipolar' world system (i.e. a world system split between East and West), capitalism prevailed and any alternative to capitalism was discredited.

It's a strange paradox: in one sense, Stalinism was a major obstacle to the progress of the international working class movement. However, because the international working class movement was so closely associated with Stalinism (as a system), the fall of the Soviet Union had a (i think, temporary) negative impact on the working class movement. Politically, the working class is yet to recover from this.


Which organisations are you referring to and how were they working-class in the first place? On another point, someone else criticised the unions for having "capitalist lackeys" - is this not simply buying in to the "great man" theory of history? Even if they did have "capitalist lackeys", why did this ever happen? What organisational forms resulted in this?

I'm refering to the organisations that gave some expression to the interests and demands of the working class: trade unions, socialist parties and even social democratic parties. Whatever their faults and limitations, these organisations were based, to varying degrees, on a working class mandate. Today, the working class has largely retreated from politics. This has coincided with the radical decline of working class-orientated leftwing politics.


Yeah, I think you're right that the seeming lack of radical ups and downs in Western capitalism is important, but the interpretation of this depends totally on your view of capitalist crisis - whether you think its mainly that crisis in capitalist economies lead to changes in working-class activity or whether you think its equally or more the case that working class activity leads to the crisis in capitalism in the first place. It seems to me that the first view makes the working class out to be relatively impotent much of the time and tends to downplay the extent to which developments in capitalism are only forced upon it as a result of working class activity.

Good point - i agree with you. The problem with much 'Marxist' analysis of the present period is it's vulgar economic determinism - what Lenin may have called 'economism'. The agency and subjectivity of the working class is ignored.

So i think that a more dialectical analysis is needed. For example, how the decline of the working class movement has affected the nature of capitalism and how this has, in turn, affected the working class movement.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jul 4 2006, 02:17 PM--> (Mesijs @ Jul 4 2006, 02:17 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 10:08 PM
1) The end of the Cold War. This gave way to the discrediting of leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives. It gave way to a pervasive idea that there is no alternative to the status quo, to capitalist society.
I think this is the main reason. People don't have anything to believe in, don't have any examples how it could be. In the 70's you could have solidarity for Ho, or have solidarity with the USSR. In this context, whether the examples were good or not doesn't matter, but they gave something to believe in at least. But capitalism has won everywhere, so people see capitalism as the natural oucome of history, or even "the end of history" as scholar Francis Fukuyama said.[/b]
You say “In this context, whether the examples were good or not doesn't matter, but they gave something to believe in at least”. So encouraging people to believe in something for the sake of believing in something regardless of the actual content is something you’d encourage? I’d argue (see my earlier post) that if people had been more critical of the states you mention then communism would not have been discredited by the end of the Cold War and would be in a lot healthier position now.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:25 PM
[QUOTE=Mesijs,Jul 4 2006, 02:17 PM] I’d argue (see my earlier post) that if people had been more critical of the states you mention then communism would not have been discredited by the end of the Cold War and would be in a lot healthier position now.
If you discount the propaganda of the bourgeois press, perhaps. However, plenty of leftists outside the western communist parties were critical of the USSR.

Unfortunately, our numbers and our reach was insignificant compared to the western media who were only too happy to identify the USSR as "the nightmare of communism".

[Marion]

Agreed.

God though, you had loads and loads of people (intellectuals and not) slavishly following the USSR at least up until 1956 when miraculously they discovered they were not what they imagined. There was then an upsurge in Maoism, followed by NLF flags getting waved everywhere in the late 60's/early 70's. No wonder people lost faith with communism with this record (despite as you say, the principled stands of some - Solidarity in the UK spring to mind)...

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Marion+Jul 4 2006, 03:25 PM--> (Marion @ Jul 4 2006, 03:25 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:17 PM

[email protected] 27 2006, 10:08 PM
1) The end of the Cold War. This gave way to the discrediting of leftwing ideology and 'socialist' alternatives. It gave way to a pervasive idea that there is no alternative to the status quo, to capitalist society.
I think this is the main reason. People don't have anything to believe in, don't have any examples how it could be. In the 70's you could have solidarity for Ho, or have solidarity with the USSR. In this context, whether the examples were good or not doesn't matter, but they gave something to believe in at least. But capitalism has won everywhere, so people see capitalism as the natural oucome of history, or even "the end of history" as scholar Francis Fukuyama said.
You say “In this context, whether the examples were good or not doesn't matter, but they gave something to believe in at least”. So encouraging people to believe in something for the sake of believing in something regardless of the actual content is something you’d encourage? I’d argue (see my earlier post) that if people had been more critical of the states you mention then communism would not have been discredited by the end of the Cold War and would be in a lot healthier position now. [/b]
You're misunderstanding me. I do not mean that they should follow these countries and practice what happens in these countries, with all the flaws and bad things in it.

I mean that in that time, people believed there was an alternative. Another kind of world, different than our own. In our time people do not believe in another world, simply because the whole world is run in a capitalist way. People stopped believing that something else was possible and better.

And of course, what you say is true.