The Proletarian 'myth'

[razboz]

I'm not a Leninist but i beleive that a purely proletarian revolution is not plausible in a state where the proletariat has disapeared. I think this is something that Marx did not foresee and that now a days many people conveniently ignore because it jars with their ideals and their vision that the proletariat is a force of "noble svages" that are to be admired but somehow are still "inferior" to "us" revolutionaries. And thats just the vanguardists and Bolsheviks. The others seem to beleive that the proletariat will just spontaneously revolt as the perceived oppression grows stronger and more obvious. However i think the proletriat has, in the rich West at least, disapeared to be replaced by a kind of lower to middle class bourgeoisie. The proletariat as perceived by many Marxists does not exist. You may just say that i changed the name frome "proletariat" to "bourgeoisie" but in fact its a little more than that. By making this working class from proletriat into bourgeoisie i am pointing out that while the 19th cetury proletarians that Marx developed his ideas were looked down upon by the "Capitlist" the class that has taken over is now glorified. The worker is as never before a legitimate part of any enterprise unlike in the European indutrial wastelands of the 1800s that lead to Communist ideas developing. This is in part thanks to the efforts of the unions that push always and always for more reforms, more concesions within the enterprise, working in close collaboration with those who control the corporation or comercial endeavour to make life as easy as possible on the worker so that he complains the least while maximising production.The myth of the Proletarian is thus lost in the face of a new reality: that the majority of Workers now adays own their own houses, have on average two TVs, as many cars, send their kids to college... Im not saying that all is beautifull and poverty has disapeared. All im saying is that thanks in part to globalisation we have managed to export much of our misery, and human poverty on into the "third world".

And thus we see how the main basis of traditional leftist revolution is destroyed by the anihilation of the proletariat. This cancels out the possibility of a Marxist style revolution through popular uprising and unanimous proletarian revolt. People have acquired just too much for this to happen. We can see how this has happened in the past: The Zapatista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN) movement from southern Mexico learnt the hard lessons of modernisations. When they set out they hoped that Mexico would revolt spontaneously against the oppression of the federal government. However the situation had changed a lot since the late 1800s when the basis of these tactics were set out. The Majority, the silent, brooding and all important majority had changed away from being a poor, unwashed, overworked and underpayed fertile soil of revolution to being a relatively confortable conservative middle class docile workforce. The hoped-for popular uprising never happened. The Zapatista movement collapsed as an effective tool for change in Mexico and unless they change their tactics they are doomed to the dusty corners of history.

Revolutionary policies need to be revised from being Marxist to being something else, something that takes into account that those who want to be liberated do not trust revolutionaries because these do not accept that proletarians have disapeared or at lest turned into something else something the Manifesto has no name for and requires a completely different approach to what standard Communists have been doing.

This is my fairly long winded theory. I haven't yet found any falts in my logic. Could somone please tell me if went wrong at one point? I desperately hope i did but i cant find where. Thanks.

[More Fire for the People]

I couldn't disagre more. Capitalism is like a plantation — the workers are the slaves, and the capitalists are the slavemasters. All the slaves that 'look white' or 'act white' get to work in the house and receive all the benefits of the house while everyone else gets the shaft. The thing is, the field slave and the house slaves are both slaves — one just gets treated better by his or her masters.

[Rawthentic]

The idea that the proletariat has disappeared is absurd. There is obviously a working class in every capitalist nation, they are the ones that create the wealth, where else or how else would capitalist accumulation come from? The workers are not to be liberated by revolutionaries as you wrongly said, but themselves will be revolutionaries. Because we are communists does not mean we are higher than they are by any means. If there is no working class, then there is no communist revolution.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 8 2006, 08:03 PM
I couldn't disagre more. Capitalism is like a plantation — the workers are the slaves, and the capitalists are the slavemasters. All the slaves that 'look white' or 'act white' get to work in the house and receive all the benefits of the house while everyone else gets the shaft. The thing is, the field slave and the house slaves are both slaves — one just gets treated better by his or her masters.
I never denied the existance of exploitation of one class by another. Im just saying thatthe slavemasters have learnt to control the slaves better by gving more of them benefits and allowing more of them to crawl up to the masters table for a scrap of humanity. To extend your metaphore more Hopscotch i would say that the masters even built a miniture table where the slaves get to pretend they are mastersand pretend to eat their fill, with nothing but air on their plate and no power at all.

[Dimentio]

Well, the current proletariat, or the outcats, i.e. the long-time unemployed, and lumpen proletariat, has not longer the same capacity to class unity due to the continuous abolishment of the factory.

[KC]

I never denied the existance of exploitation of one class by another. Im just saying thatthe slavemasters have learnt to control the slaves better by gving more of them benefits and allowing more of them to crawl up to the masters table for a scrap of humanity. To extend your metaphore more Hopscotch i would say that the masters even built a miniture table where the slaves get to pretend they are mastersand pretend to eat their fill, with nothing but air on their plate and no power at all.


Yes, this is how the ruling class has learned to control the working class. But you have to remember that even though this is happening, and even though workers can have petty-bourgeois sentiments, they're still workers. When capitalism starts to decline we will see these "benefits" for the working class begin to disappear (in fact, it's already happening). Just because they're better off now doesn't mean they aren't workers.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:54 PM
However i think the proletriat has, in the rich West at least, disapeared to be replaced by a kind of lower to middle class bourgeoisie.
Where do you live?

I don't see any place where this has happened, it seems quite the reverse, that most workers are seeing their living standards plummet and workplace conditions deteriorate.

Maybe it's different in emerging economic powers like India.

[razboz]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Jul 9 2006, 08:31 AM--> (PRC-UTE @ Jul 9 2006, 08:31 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 07:54 PM
However i think the proletriat has, in the rich West at least, disapeared to be replaced by a kind of lower to middle class bourgeoisie.
Where do you live?

I don't see any place where this has happened, it seems quite the reverse, that most workers are seeing their living standards plummet and workplace conditions deteriorate.

Maybe it's different in emerging economic powers like India. [/b]
As examples i can take France and Switzerland cos i live in Switzerland. In France unions are immensly powerfull. I mean if you live in europe im sure you've heard the regular strikes that happen over there. What union wants union gets. The conditions for the average worker are just getting better and better. As i understand it this is happening also in the USA, though as i understand it unions are less powerfull over there. Now i'm not saying that for many workers conditions are not horrenduous. I'm just saying tht for the majority of Western workers conditions are getting better and better.


When capitalism starts to decline we will see these "benefits" for the working class begin to disappear (in fact, it's already happening). Just because they're better off now doesn't mean they aren't workers.

Yes they are still workers. However they are not the exploited semi-slaves marxism grew up with. They are now perceived to enjoy a number of freedoms, like insurance, and housing and so on. If you take a stroll around any large city now a days you wont find the poor shanty towns you used to. Now you'll fid Suburbia an aglomeration of oworkers in theeir neat little houses with their neat little gardens. The average worker cant be treatted as he used to be. If you tell him "you're boss is exploiting you" he'll answer "well i better tell my union im sure they'll do something about it". They just have too much to lose now. They would loose their neat little houses, their SUVs, their colour TVs, their insurance policies... Communism is a poor man' s cause. I think we need to redirect our ideas to adapt to this new situation.I am in no way suggesting we abndon revolution as the means of change. It is still very much as actual as it was 100 ro 150 years ago. However now we must restructure the concept to something that appeals and is more fit to modern Western culture.

[kurt]

I'm not a Leninist but i beleive that a purely proletarian revolution is not plausible in a state where the proletariat has disapeared.

That's not true in the slightest bit. The proletariat has not "disapeared".


I think this is something that Marx did not foresee and that now a days many people conveniently ignore because it jars with their ideals and their vision that the proletariat is a force of "noble svages" that are to be admired but somehow are still "inferior" to "us" revolutionaries.

I don't know too many marxists who believe the working class to be "noble savages", or "inferior". In fact, I'm pretty sure anyone who held those sentiments might have a rough time on this board.

And the reason Marx didn't "forsee" this problem is because the "problem" doesn't exist. The proletariat still exists.


However i think the proletriat has, in the rich West at least, disapeared to be replaced by a kind of lower to middle class bourgeoisie.

This statement is confused, to say the least. How would it be possible for there to be a "lower to middle class bourgeoisie" if there were no proletarians to exploit? Do you even know what you're talking about? Do people not still perform wage-labour on a daily basis in order to provide for themselves? I do, my parents do, my friends do. Somehow I doubt we're the only ones.


You may just say that i changed the name frome "proletariat" to "bourgeoisie" but in fact its a little more than that.

This is exactly what you did.. and you don't even know what constitutes marxist classes it would seem.


The worker is as never before a legitimate part of any enterprise unlike in the European indutrial wastelands of the 1800s that lead to Communist ideas developing.

The workers have always been the "legitmate" force in every capitalist "enterprise". In fact, they're the ones that have always done all the work.


This is in part thanks to the efforts of the unions that push always and always for more reforms, more concesions within the enterprise, working in close collaboration with those who control the corporation or comercial endeavour to make life as easy as possible on the worker so that he complains the least while maximising production.

Aside from the fact that it appears that this trend is reversing, how does it serve your argument?


The myth of the Proletarian is thus lost in the face of a new reality: that the majority of Workers now adays own their own houses, have on average two TVs, as many cars, send their kids to college... Im not saying that all is beautifull and poverty has disapeared.

I'm not sure that's true in the slightest. Not that many workers truely "own" their houses. Those that don't rent, are usually stacked mile high in debt and mortage payments. Btw, TV's are pretty damn cheap now too.


And thus we see how the main basis of traditional leftist revolution is destroyed by the anihilation of the proletariat.

*breathes in*
The proletariat still exists. You haven't done anything to demonstrate how the relations of production have changed in order to make this so.


This is my fairly long winded theory. I haven't yet found any falts in my logic. Could somone please tell me if went wrong at one point? I desperately hope i did but i cant find where. Thanks.

No offense, but it's a shit theory. You haven't shown how the proletariat has disappeared, aside from noting that they are better off now than they were 150 years ago (should we even be suprised by that?). If you're going to say that Marxism is too "old", or "outdated", you'll have to actually point out how modern proletarians working in a car factory aren't selling their labour-power for wages.

[An archist]

I agree with you razboz, there is no such thing as a proletariat, but I wouldn't call middle class people bourgeouis, they're just middle class, the bourgeouisie and the proletariat don't exist anymore in the west. (or at least there's very few of them)
No matter what people say: there won't be a revolution until the majority of the people (in the west that's the middle class) live in terrible conditions and are exploited.
So ironically: the unions are preventing a revolution by improving worker's situations.


No offense, but it's a shit theory. You haven't shown how the proletariat has disappeared, aside from noting that they are better off now than they were 150 years ago (should we even be suprised by that?). If you're going to say that Marxism is too "old", or "outdated", you'll have to actually point out how modern proletarians working in a car factory aren't selling their labour-power for wages.


You can hardly call those workers proletarians, most of them live fairly comfortably in their own house, with children and quite some luxuries, they don't need anything, they live comfortably and (in their vision) they have nothing to gain by a revolution and everything to lose.

[Comrade-Z]

I agree with you razboz, there is no such thing as a proletariat, but I wouldn't call middle class people bourgeouis, they're just middle class, the bourgeouisie and the proletariat don't exist anymore in the west. (or at least there's very few of them)

What does "middle class" even mean in terms of relations to the means of production??? This position is absurd. So if there are no more diametrically opposed classes, if we are all "middle class" and "on the same team," then I guess it would be a good idea to drop class struggle altogether? :o

Are not workers still subject to the decisions of the capitalist class? Aren't they still having their surplus value siphoned away?

And if life is so good, if we are all middle class, as you say, then why be a revolutionary leftist at all? Apparently we don't need systemic change. We just need our unions to fight for reforms, and we will all be happily placated?


No matter what people say: there won't be a revolution until the majority of the people (in the west that's the middle class) live in terrible conditions and are exploited.

I would rephrase that a bit and assert that people revolt when they perceive their living conditions going downwards relative to where they had been. People don't just revolt when they live in terrible conditions. Look at China or India right now. In order to revolt, people must be able to conceive of something better than what they have now--something to be gained by revolting. And they need to perceive the ruling system as being the fetter keeping them from attaining these improvements. Thus, workers in China and India will not revolt because their living standards, however bad, are getting better, and they perceive their system as being the best option available at the present time. On the other hand, conditions in the advanced capitalist countries are getting worse. So we might see a situation where median income in India is $5000 per capita and increasing, and people don't revolt, and where median income in the U.S. is $20000 per capita and falling, and people will revolt.


they don't need anything

Yeah, except to sell their labor-power in order to pay for those necessities of living.


they live comfortably

Yeah, I would, likewise, feel very comfortable having a $100,000 mortgage and $40,000 in student loans to pay off. :o What you don't realize is that a lot of the current level of consumption is being done on credit.

[razboz]

I understand what you are saying Kurt. I think our opinions only diverge on the deffinition of what proletariat means. Whatever we call it the thing that Marx was basing his theories around dosent exist anymore, at least not in the same form as it used to in his time.

[Iranon]

As examples i can take France and Switzerland cos i live in Switzerland. In France unions are immensly powerfull. I mean if you live in europe im sure you've heard the regular strikes that happen over there. What union wants union gets. The conditions for the average worker are just getting better and better. As i understand it this is happening also in the USA, though as i understand it unions are less powerfull over there. Now i'm not saying that for many workers conditions are not horrenduous. I'm just saying tht for the majority of Western workers conditions are getting better and better.


They just have too much to lose now. They would loose their neat little houses, their SUVs, their colour TVs, their insurance policies... Communism is a poor man' s cause. I think we need to redirect our ideas to adapt to this new situation.

Lenin discussed this in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism"; http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...p-hsc/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm). Also, you're pretty much arguing the same economic line as the Maoist International Movement, and it's actually the subject of one of their theory magazines ( http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/mt10.html ). This is one of their biggest issues, and why they have such a vitriolic hatred of RCP-USA, so with a bit of effort you can find quite a bit of articles about it on their website; here's a small tree - http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/bourgeoisie.html


EDIT:

A number of other organizations in the USA have a similar outlook; I know the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Forward Motion, atleaset, and probably Fight Back as the economic line wasn't the cause of the schism) holds a similar line.


What does "middle class" even mean in terms of relations to the means of production??? This position is absurd. So if there are no more diametrically opposed classes, if we are all "middle class" and "on the same team," then I guess it would be a good idea to drop class struggle altogether?

Are not workers still subject to the decisions of the capitalist class? Aren't they still having their surplus value siphoned away?

And if life is so good, if we are all middle class, as you say, then why be a revolutionary leftist at all? Apparently we don't need systemic change. We just need our unions to fight for reforms, and we will all be happily placated?

Because, as our life in the 1st world gets better life in the 3rd world gets worse. Face it, (white) 1st Worlders are bought off; if we were to wake up to a world wide communist revolution tommorow and have it victorious by tuesday, and equitably redistribute resources from now on it'd result in a DRAMATIC drop in the standard of liviing for the white West; can you imagine how much more expensive everything would be if we had to pay 3rd worlders an equitable wage? Most 1st Worlders may not be conscious of this fact, but they have plenty of opportunities to buy no-sweat products and they don't. They are petty-bourgeoise


Thus, workers in China and India will not revolt because their living standards, however bad, are getting better, and they perceive their system as being the best option available at the present time. On the other hand, conditions in the advanced capitalist countries are getting worse.

...may I ask what political line you follow? Maybe it's just me, but I think the fact that the only revolutions in progress are happening in 3rd world nations completely disproves your theory (if the India's conditions are improving why are there multiple armed revolutions being carried out in that nation!?!?!). Not to mention the complete and utter failure of Western Europe to produce a lasting revolution somehow proves - to me - that the White West isn't going to be the source of the revolution.


Whatever we call it the thing that Marx was basing his theories around dosent exist anymore, at least not in the same form as it used to in his time.

The situation isn't the same globally; yes, in the White West most people are bought off, but because the White West is bought off there is no reason to extrapolate that the same is true for 3rd worlders who essentially slaves.

[piet11111]

"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour...


bourgeoisie = The class of people in bourgeois society who own the social means of production as their Private Property, i.e., as capital

source marxists.org

i dont know about you but i am a proletarian by every sense of the word's meaning.
i think its an ingenius strategy of the capitalists to spread mis-information about our own class to tell the proletariat that their class does not exist.
unfortunatly some komrades fell for their trick but im certain we can set them straight.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:03 AM
I understand what you are saying Kurt. I think our opinions only diverge on the deffinition of what proletariat means. Whatever we call it the thing that Marx was basing his theories around dosent exist anymore, at least not in the same form as it used to in his time.
I don't think you do. If you did you'd realize that the proletariat has not disappeared. Proletarians sell their labour-power for wages, and produce commodities. There is still a class of people doing this under present-day conditions in the "first world". We call that class the proletariat.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I think the proletariat exists but it's not the same as it was in Marxs' time, work in the service sector is expanding, as well as distribution. Marx focused mainly on production.

Class consciousness is different for all the occupations of working people nowadays, same with regional characteristics of where the proletariat lives. Not every proletarian lives in the city or in an area with a history of workers organizing.

What we as revolutionary-leftists need to do is to understand how the consciousness of workers will come in each particular circumstances. The left needs to expand more in organizing in different areas but stay in the same ones too. But at the same time the proletariat has to be united in the understanding that we al;l sell our labour-power to survive.

[KC]

They are now perceived to enjoy a number of freedoms, like insurance, and housing and so on.

Sure, some of them might, what's your point? Just because the capitalists conceded to an extent and gave them a small share of their profits, how does this make them no longer proletarian?


If you take a stroll around any large city now a days you wont find the poor shanty towns you used to.

Then you haven't been to any large cities.


If you tell him "you're boss is exploiting you" he'll answer "well i better tell my union im sure they'll do something about it".

And this is the exact reason why the capitalists conceded. However, it certainly won't be like this much longer. Also, not all workers are in this situation and to say they are is simply wrong. A great deal of workers are still poor and living in ghettos. To dismiss them is offensive.


They just have too much to lose now. They would loose their neat little houses, their SUVs, their colour TVs, their insurance policies...

And they will.


Communism is a poor man' s cause.

People only act en masse when it is in their own interests to do so. These people will act, but not now.


However now we must restructure the concept to something that appeals and is more fit to modern Western culture.

This sounds to me like you're trying to concede to petty-bourgeois influences to "sell" the movement to a larger audience. This would simply be a disaster. Marx's theories are no less true (or applicable) nowadays. It's just that what happens is that when the capitalists concede some of their power to the working class to maintain power, and the working class settles for it, this is what happens. Capitalism will begin to decay, and with it will go the comfort that a lot of people enjoy nowadays.


Whatever we call it the thing that Marx was basing his theories around dosent exist anymore, at least not in the same form as it used to in his time.

Actually, it's in the exact same form as it used to be in in his time. Income doesn't determine class, and to say so is to concede to petty-bourgeois, bleeding-heart liberal (i.e. reactionary) "sociology".

[anomaly]

Well, it's a good thing the proletariat is actually the fastest growing class in the '1st world' capitalist states.

I don't know where the author got the idea that the proletariat has 'ceased to exist'. Hell, I'm still here, man! Better recognize!

[black magick hustla]

what happens with traditional marxism is that it has been unable to annex alot the new social relations outputted by modern capitalism, thus many people look at marxism as if it is "outdated" and "disproved by history".


consumerist fetishism has led to new commodities that are not compatible with the LTV. for example, due to the heavy emphasis the modern capitalist paradigm gives to signs, symbols, and images, modern social conditions have given rise to products were rather than the applied average labor being the factor that gives those commodities their price, it is the symbolic value of such commodity that becomes the main factor for the commodity's price. For example, two tshirts could have been made with similar resources and similar quantity of labor power, however the labels of said tshirts could make a huge difference between both of the tshirts prices. the label of the expensive shirt is just a symbol that somehow managed to have much more prestige than the label of a cheap shirt.

another phenomenon happening in modern capitalism are "wealthy proletarians". while many marxists label them as "petty-bourgeosie", such label has nothing to do with the relationship to the means of production. if a "wealthy proletarian" cannot hire or fire personnel, and he lives solely through selling his labor, he is a proletarian. thus such a phenomenon makes us reconsider if these "wealthy proletarians" really opressed. some of them are obviously overpaid, and in communism they will get much less than what they do get right now.

[Janus]

Whatever we call it the thing that Marx was basing his theories around dosent exist anymore, at least not in the same form as it used to in his time.
Capitalism has changed and adapted in many ways but most of Marx's fundamental analyses are still applicable.

Sure, the situation today is somewhat dormant but this only shows that Marx only got the timing wrong.


Hell, I'm still here, man!
I'm glad you said that. I was beginning to question both of our existence. :lol:

[Martin Blank]

This thread is pure flamebait -- a position based on ignorance and fueled by wilfull blindness. This position has been argued and answered repeatedly.

Miles

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:08 AM
This thread is pure flamebait -- a position based on ignorance and fueled by wilfull blindness. This position has been argued and answered repeatedly.

Miles
Thanks that's pretty enlightening Miles, now i know why im worng.

I understand what everyone has said so far. I am more than ready to accept that the proletariat has not disapeared as i at first claimed. However it is undeniable that the situation has changed since 1890 no? Of course the basic reasoning that makes Marx correct still holds. What i am merely saying is that perhaps we should nto be treating his works as immovable and univiversaly correct. Is it not perhaps true that the indutrial workers of europe had a completely different mentality a hundred years ago as they do today?

What i am really saying is that perhaps we should not fall into the trap of taking what has been written down as absolutely true. To make a completely arbitrary parralel is this not the problem many fundamentalist religious types have fallen into? taking the bible or Quran or whatever as literal teachings rather than metaphorical ones. (I'm not justifying any beleifs here) Many o fthose who disagree with me mantain the position that nothing has changed since Marx's times. The basic mechanics of Capitalism have not changed. but i think that perhaps capitlism has been in part remodled and made to look (cosmetically at least) better. This extends its life expectancy much more than would have been the case if it had developed in the way Marx predicted. Should we wait and organise until capitalism begins to actually falls apart under its own weight? Because if we do then i beleive that it may take well over two or three centuries for this to happen. I think this current system can go on limping along for a very long time.

Also please note that i am not denying the existance of oppression and exploitation. Poverty exists still and always will, so long as power continues to exist in its current form.

Janus, anomaly and anyone else i may have offended: i apologise. I did not mean to deny your existence.

[KC]

consumerist fetishism has led to new commodities that are not compatible with the LTV. for example, due to the heavy emphasis the modern capitalist paradigm gives to signs, symbols, and images, modern social conditions have given rise to products were rather than the applied average labor being the factor that gives those commodities their price, it is the symbolic value of such commodity that becomes the main factor for the commodity's price. For example, two tshirts could have been made with similar resources and similar quantity of labor power, however the labels of said tshirts could make a huge difference between both of the tshirts prices. the label of the expensive shirt is just a symbol that somehow managed to have much more prestige than the label of a cheap shirt.

Marx acknowledged this phenomenon (the phenomenon of price no longer reflecting value) in Capital.


What i am merely saying is that perhaps we should nto be treating his works as immovable and univiversaly correct.

Nobody here does.


Is it not perhaps true that the indutrial workers of europe had a completely different mentality a hundred years ago as they do today?

I don't see what these "changes" would have to do with anything. If anything, they're merely cultural changes and not socio-economic ones.


Many o fthose who disagree with me mantain the position that nothing has changed since Marx's times.

And what they are saying is that nothing relevant to the working class struggle has changed since Marx's time. And this is true. Workers still have the same demands.


Should we wait and organise until capitalism begins to actually falls apart under its own weight?

It's already starting to collapse.

[razboz]

I don't see what these "changes" would have to do with anything. If anything, they're merely cultural changes and not socio-economic ones.


Yes but class consiousness is all matter of perception is it not? perception of Capitalist greed, perception of exploitation... If the perception is under the control then how can the proletariat become aware of their condition? Of course "our" propaganda serves, but it is merely impotent ramblings compared to the immovable machine or coporate propaganda.


It's already starting to collapse.

I've heard this said over and over again. To me it sounds like wishful thinking as i do not see it collapsing. I see it fraying, but nothing more than has been seen in the past. If anything May 1968 we were closer to revolution than we are now.Perhaps if you could give me some evidence of how Capitalism is collapsing (short of saying that its been collapsing since it appeared) something that might show a trend that extends through time id be happy.

[KC]

Yes but class consiousness is all matter of perception is it not? perception of Capitalist greed, perception of exploitation... If the perception is under the control then how can the proletariat become aware of their condition? Of course "our" propaganda serves, but it is merely impotent ramblings compared to the immovable machine or coporate propaganda.

Again, people will only become class conscious when it is in their interests to do so.



I've heard this said over and over again. To me it sounds like wishful thinking as i do not see it collapsing. I see it fraying, but nothing more than has been seen in the past. If anything May 1968 we were closer to revolution than we are now.Perhaps if you could give me some evidence of how Capitalism is collapsing (short of saying that its been collapsing since it appeared) something that might show a trend that extends through time id be happy.


There so much evidence to this it's somewhat overwhelming. You could look at the development of the economy itself, and the development of business into big corporate conglomerates, which is direct evidence of Marx's theory of the polarization of classes - as capitalism develops, wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The petty-bourgeoisie as a class are becoming further and further divided into two great camps - proletarians and bourgeoisie.

You could look at the general conditions of living of workers in the last few decades. Conditions have declined drastically, not only economically but politically as well. The scrapping of the Bill of Rights, for example, is also direct evidence of capitalism declining. Capitalism has developed to such an extent that the Bill of Rights is standing in its way, and as a result it is getting deconstructed. Not only with the Patriot Act, but also with recent decisions by the supreme court, many of your Rights have either been declared "unconstitutional" or just rendered obsolete.

You could also look at globalization itself. The capitalists' need for cheaper labour has sent them scouring the globe in search of cheaper and cheaper labour, of longer and longer working hours, and of harder and harder work. This certainly can't last much longer than it has, as the quest has nearly reached a crisis point.

[razboz]

Agreed Khayembii Communique.
Just two things:

Conditions have declined drastically, not only economically but politically as well.

Are you sure of that conditions have declined economically in the west? Ill agree to the political part but as far as i can tell, though poverty of course still exists it seems less strong now a days. I get the impression that poverty has replaced the misery we used to get in large aglomerations. There are still very poor areas of course. And of course people die of hungeer and poverty related ailments in the west. But as a whole are the first world workers really worse off than before?

I wonder though: what if mechanical labour were to replace manual labour as many technocrats beleive? The third world countries would still not have access to the same riches as the first and would have to go through year after year of grueling misery but in the west many would be better off? Or is there some marxist reasoning that counters that. (thats an honest question btw, i not trying to be aggressive).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by razboz+Jul 10 2006, 04:19 AM--> (razboz @ Jul 10 2006, 04:19 AM)Thanks that's pretty enlightening Miles, now i know why im worng.[/b]

It wasn't meant to be "enlightening", except in the sense that it might lead you to do a little research on the previous discussions we've had here on this question.


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:19 AM
I understand what everyone has said so far. I am more than ready to accept that the proletariat has not disapeared as i at first claimed. However it is undeniable that the situation has changed since 1890 no? Of course the basic reasoning that makes Marx correct still holds. What i am merely saying is that perhaps we should nto be treating his works as immovable and univiversaly correct. Is it not perhaps true that the indutrial workers of europe had a completely different mentality a hundred years ago as they do today?

The value of Marx is not necessarily in his words, but in his method of analysis and explanation of the world (materialist dialectics). The method he used to outline the development and conditions of capitalism, as a mode of production and as a social system, is what makes his contributions so important. Yes, society has developed since 1890, and new formations and challenges have arisen in that time. Some of them may negate Marx's words, but they do not negate Marx's method.


Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:19 AM
What i am really saying is that perhaps we should not fall into the trap of taking what has been written down as absolutely true. To make a completely arbitrary parralel is this not the problem many fundamentalist religious types have fallen into? taking the bible or Quran or whatever as literal teachings rather than metaphorical ones. (I'm not justifying any beleifs here) Many o fthose who disagree with me mantain the position that nothing has changed since Marx's times. The basic mechanics of Capitalism have not changed. but i think that perhaps capitlism has been in part remodled and made to look (cosmetically at least) better. This extends its life expectancy much more than would have been the case if it had developed in the way Marx predicted. Should we wait and organise until capitalism begins to actually falls apart under its own weight? Because if we do then i beleive that it may take well over two or three centuries for this to happen. I think this current system can go on limping along for a very long time.

You are right to say that what Marx wrote should not be regarded as some kind of holy scripture. However, I would argue that the fundamental mechanics of capitalism as a mode of production have not changed; the forms those mechanics take, however, have developed and changed along with society. From pre-industrial to industrial to imperialist to "globalized" -- capitalism retains its core foundation as a mode of production based on the production of commodities for profit and the extraction of surplus value on a collective scale (through direct appropriation at the point of production, through credit and investment, through "primitive accumulation", etc.). What has changed are the methods used to carry this out, the scale on which it is done and the forms of social control used to make this process as efficient as possible.

I also would argue against the theory of inevitable collapse. If necessary, capitalism can and will attempt to find ways to survive, even if it requires making "deals with the devil" to do it. The alliances with social democracy, on one side, and fascism, on the other, throughout the 20th century, were such examples. Even "globalization" is, to a certain degree, such an example (since "globalization" relies on methods and techniques that are more akin to a worldwide post-capitalist social system than to capitalism itself).


[email protected] 10 2006, 04:19 AM
Also please note that i am not denying the existance of oppression and exploitation. Poverty exists still and always will, so long as power continues to exist in its current form.

Fair enough.

Miles

[BobKKKindle$]

The Decline of Secondary manufacturing Industry is often cited as the 'death of Marxism' as Marx and Engels were living in an age where economices were based upon the production of Commodities through Automated Industry, as oppossed to the Service-Dominated Economies that exist in MEDCs today. However, a proletarian is simply someone who does not own the means of production, and therefore sells his labour power to a Capitalist as a commodity in order to survive. With this in mind, it is clear that concepts such as Surplus Value remain as important as every, because despite vast development and change of the forces of production (The Resources and Apparatus Avaliable to produce commodities) the Relations of production (The Way in Which production is organised in terms of ownership of the means of production) has remained the same - The Means of Production are still concentrated in the hands of a select minority (even with the introduction of share ownership) and the vast majority of people in Western Society sell their labour power as a means to survive.

That is not to say that it is not necessary to 'update' the ideas of Radical leftism in order to critize Capitalist in the 21st Century. Most notable, as Marmot pointed out, are the concepts of One Dimensional thought, False Needs, and Cultural Hegemony that are of special relevance to western societies where workers are not exploited in terms of living Standards, but rather are controlled by means of the commodities they consume.

One of the most fundamental developments of leftism is the concept of Imperialism, which was first introduced by Lenin in (suprise suprise) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. It is through Imperialism that Class Relations have ascended from a national level to an international level; wheras in the industrial era, there were vast differences in quality of living between workers and Capitalists within Countries such as Britain and France, this has been largely replaced with LEDCs and MEDCs Filling the Classes of Workers and Capitalits respectively - LEDCs do not recieve the full benefits of their raw materials and labour, because Multi national Corporations Own the means of Production (They Invest FDI into these countries) and so derive ownership and the profits of commodities produced in LEDCs.

So - To sum up my Wordy ideas - The Class Relations of Capitalism are still strong in MEDCs, but the Class Relations that exist on a global level are of greater importance in the 21st Century.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:54 PM
The Decline of Secondary manufacturing Industry is often cited as the 'death of Marxism' as Marx and Engels were living in an age where economices were based upon the production of Commodities through Automated Industry, as oppossed to the Service-Dominated Economies that exist in MEDCs today. However, a proletarian is simply someone who does not own the means of production, and therefore sells his labour power to a Capitalist as a commodity in order to survive. With this in mind, it is clear that concepts such as Surplus Value remain as important as every, because despite vast development and change of the forces of production (The Resources and Apparatus Avaliable to produce commodities) the Relations of production (The Way in Which production is organised in terms of ownership of the means of production) has remained the same - The Means of Production are still concentrated in the hands of a select minority (even with the introduction of share ownership) and the vast majority of people in Western Society sell their labour power as a means to survive.

That is not to say that it is not necessary to 'update' the ideas of Radical leftism in order to critize Capitalist in the 21st Century. Most notable, as Marmot pointed out, are the concepts of One Dimensional thought, False Needs, and Cultural Hegemony that are of special relevance to western societies where workers are not exploited in terms of living Standards, but rather are controlled by means of the commodities they consume.

One of the most fundamental developments of leftism is the concept of Imperialism, which was first introduced by Lenin in (suprise suprise) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. It is through Imperialism that Class Relations have ascended from a national level to an international level; wheras in the industrial era, there were vast differences in quality of living between workers and Capitalists within Countries such as Britain and France, this has been largely replaced with LEDCs and MEDCs Filling the Classes of Workers and Capitalits respectively - LEDCs do not recieve the full benefits of their raw materials and labour, because Multi national Corporations Own the means of Production (They Invest FDI into these countries) and so derive ownership and the profits of commodities produced in LEDCs.

So - To sum up my Wordy ideas - The Class Relations of Capitalism are still strong in MEDCs, but the Class Relations that exist on a global level are of greater importance in the 21st Century.
Do you always talk in acronyms, Bob? I have to admit, it's kind of annoying -- regardless of whether I know what they mean or not.

We need to be careful when talking about "service-dominated economies", though. This is because some of what is considered "service" is actually industrial, but in a new form. For example, what is the difference between a McDonald's and a cannery? Both of them use Fordist (and even lean-production) models of organization. Both of them mass produce food products for the market. Both of them employ workers at wages. The difference is that the form of the means of production are different.

Technology and the development of global supply chains have made it possible to decentralize production of the final product, while centralizing the production and distribution of raw materials. Domino's Pizza is probably the highest form of this new form of production in the food industry: a centralized production center that makes sure that all elements that go into the final product are exactly the same.

The production of a Big Mac or a large pizza has the same productive value, and represents as much productive labor, as we find in a pound of ground beef or can of sliced peaches. It is no less "industrial" because the workforce is largely younger and part-time, or because there are no huge factories belching black smoke into the air.

Miles

[workers unity]

>> Well, the current proletariat, or the outcats, i.e. the long-time unemployed, and lumpen proletariat, has not longer the same capacity to class unity due to the continuous abolishment of the factory.

an interesting point no so commonly made. one of the things that allowed many early working class movements to move as fluidly as they did was the concentration of them in such settings. early US working womens movements came about this way throughout the mill cities along the rivers. they basically imported immigrant and rural women into community style housing and figured it would offer them some control, but it created a sisterhood and unity among them that allowed their struggle to flourish.

I wonder though. It seems this has been recreated in other ways.

[Herman]

I'd say that in the near future, the lumpenproletariat will become the most revolutionary class in society, seeing that in 20 years, the oil crisis and the following depression will radicalize the people.

[Comrade-Z]

Because, as our life in the 1st world gets better life in the 3rd world gets worse.

I don't see why this is necessarily the case. It seems to me that the 3rd world is becoming less and less dependent on the 1st world, both through anti-imperialist struggles and through the development of their own means of production controlled by native capitalist classes.

And isn't it obvious that living standards are rising most rapidly in the 3rd world countries, while the 1st world countries piddle along from recession to recession with little growth in between?


Face it, (white) 1st Worlders are bought off; if we were to wake up to a world wide communist revolution tommorow and have it victorious by tuesday, and equitably redistribute resources from now on it'd result in a DRAMATIC drop in the standard of liviing for the white West; can you imagine how much more expensive everything would be if we had to pay 3rd worlders an equitable wage?

What makes you think the 3rd world would be involved in this communist revolution?


...may I ask what political line you follow? Maybe it's just me, but I think the fact that the only revolutions in progress are happening in 3rd world nations completely disproves your theory (if the India's conditions are improving why are there multiple armed revolutions being carried out in that nation!?!?!).

There is almost no chance in hell that communist revolutions will take place in India, China, or any other 3rd world country within the next 100 years. Sure, maybe there will be some peasant uprisings--which will root out the remnants of feudalism and bring about more capitalist social relations to those backwards hellholes, making those peasants into petty-bourgeois independent proprietors.

But the proletariat revolting and establishing communist societies? No way in hell. Not when GDP is rising 10% annually like it is in China. Whether or not the perception is true, ordinary people in China perceive their society as progressing in a better direction and becoming a society that offers them more opportunities and more wealth. It's actually rather exciting to be living in one of those countries right now, if all you are used to is scraping out a meagre existence on some farm. Skyscrapers are going up like mad. Businesses and job opportunities are opening up in the cities, offering much better standards of living than one could formerly attain in the countryside. If you were a young optimistic Chinese person, why would you want to overthrow that?

In contrast, real wages in the U.S. have declined since the 1970s. Workers in the U.S. are now, on average, working several more weeks a year in terms of hours. Standards of living are only barely being maintained through more working hours and more wage-earners per family. New factory construction and development of the means of production here is well-nigh nonexistent (in fact, businesses are closing down, and despite misleading statistics to the contrary, real unemployment and underemployment are increasing). We bumble along from recession to recession, piling up enormous amounts of public and private debt as we go. Capitalism in the U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries does not look healthy.


the same is true for 3rd worlders who essentially slaves.

But the 3rd worlders are slaves who have been promised a brighter future by their capitalist classes--and so far their capitalist classes are delivering! (Unless you want to argue that China was better off 50 years ago than now). What about the promises of the capitalist classes in the 1st world? Aren't they ringing a bit hollow? Aren't they being treated with more and more cynicism? "We're finally turning the corner in Iraq...after this next round of tax cuts, the economy will really start taking off...etc. etc."


I've heard this said over and over again. To me it sounds like wishful thinking as i do not see it collapsing.

Do you live in the 1st world? Do you not see all the things I've discussed up above? Do you not see new generations of youth emerging which look upon the promises of the ruling class and its bourgeois elections with cynical apathy? Who would rather download bit torrents (and incidentally violate capitalist property rights) than attend church (I did a search on google trends, and there are now more searches for "torrent" than for "god"!) Who would look upon a military draft as an outrage and something worthy of riotous resistance (my otherwise moderate friends in school have flatly declared that they would riot in the streets if a draft were to call them up for duty)?


I see it fraying, but nothing more than has been seen in the past.

No, what we are seeing now is new--an increasingly sophisticated proletariat which increasingly rejects nationalism, imperialism, religion, and leadership, and which will finally be capable of consciously self-directing itself along a revolutionary course when the circumstances compel them to. One of the main problems with the 3rd worlders, and one of the main reasons why they aren't likely to make communist revolution anytime soon, is that even the agitated and revolting sectors of those proletariats there are still mired in nationalism, religion, misogyny,deference to leadership and authority (the big one, in my opinion), etc. Even if they did revolt, what kind of revolution would they make? (Hint: look at the history of 3rd world revolutions--Russian, China, Cuba, Mexico, etc.--definitely all progressive revolutions, but communist?)