“degrees� Of Class Consciousness?

[Pawn Power]

Are there “levels” of class consciousness? That is, can one be “more” or “less” class conscious than another or is one either class conscious or not class conscious? Is there a difference between the class consciousness of a proletarian and that of bourgeois besides their positional?

Does a person simply attain class consciousness one day? If not, and there is more of an illuminating development to class conciseness, does that not entail “degrees” of class consciousness?

I cannot think of a specific writing in which Marx elucidated on this subject, though in all likelihood he did. Clearly he wrote on class consciousness. However, any knowledge of specific dialogue on this particular subject of class consciousness would be appreciated.

[LSD]

Are there “levels” of class consciousness? That is, can one be “more” or “less” class conscious than another or is one either class conscious or not class conscious?

I would say so.

Practically speaking, class consciousness is either there or it isn't, but it's a grosse simplification to call it a binary equation.

One of the great historical problems of the working class, after all, is that even in times of high class consciousness, other social identities can take precedence. That's what happened in 1914. Despite a large and powerful labour movement, the appeal of nationalism was simply greater than the appeal of internationalism.

Was this because workers were not "class aware" in the 1910s? Quite the opposite! it's not that being a worker wasn't important; it was just that "being a German" or "being a Frenchman" was more so.

A higher "degree" of class consciousness might have allowed for a workers' resistance to the great imperialist war and who knows where that might of led.

And don't think for a moment that the subsuming of class identity happens "by accident". The bourgeoisie know exactly what they're doing when they rile up nationalist fervor.

In the 19th century it was imperialism, in the 20th it was "patriotism", today it's "values" loyalty.

Whenever the labour movement seems to be on the verge of taking over workers' self-identity, a sexy alternative reares it's head. Our job as revolutionaries is to discredit those alternatives even before the bourgeosie thinks of them.

Race, sex, orientation, ethnicity, nationality, etc... all these divisions must be fought because it's their "classification" of humanity that is the prime threat to a cogent internationalist movement.


Does a person simply attain class consciousness one day?

No, of course not.

It's a slow and gradual process and, again, it takes a while for consciousness of class to move from tertiary to secondary to primary identity.

And, by the way, it can also move in the other direction. There is no "rule" that consciousness "must" go forward. If there isn't a strong movement to harness worker radicalism and in the face of particularly reactionary epocs, a once conscious proletariat can degenerate into a reaction mess.

Obviously it's our job to stop that from happeneing.


Is there a difference between the class consciousness of a proletarian and that of bourgeois besides their positional?

Of course, one is the consciousness of the slave, one is the consciousness of the master.

The bourgeoisie do not wish to change anything; capitalism is their system. Accordingly, the only kind of "class consciousness" that they can achieve is an awareness of the nature of their dominance.

And remember, the bourgeoisie has no cohesion. It may be united in its exploitation of the proletariat, but it is in a constant state of internal conflict. In such an environment no real "solidarity' can emerge and so any "consciousness" of class is merely academic.

That is a capitalist studying the works of, say, Leo Strauss may accept a Marxian analysis of his class position. He might become aware, as Warren Buffet once famously quipped, that "[his] class is winning".

But "class conciousness" in a Marxist sense is about more than merely recognition or acknowledgement, it's about identity. And so long as they rule unchallanged, the capitalists will never be required to forge an economic identity.

The proletariat however, being at the bottom, has no choice but to adopt our oppression as our common cause and fight back.

[Delta]

Very interesting question, and I enjoyed reading your response to it LSD.


In the 19th century it was imperialism, in the 20th it was "patriotism", today it's "values" loyalty.

Whenever the labour movement seems to be on the verge of taking over workers' self-identity, a sexy alternative reares it's head. Our job as revolutionaries is to discredit those alternatives even before the bourgeosie thinks of them

Very good point. It's not sufficient to simply discredit the alternatives when they appear, because it would simply take too long to do so. The capitalists have access to the mass media and they can quickly create new things for people to focus on, way before we've had the time to educate the people about the former via grassroots means.

[Marion]

I think the views of Harry Cleaver on class consciousness are quite interesting. He doesn't really find the concept that useful, seeing that it generally tends to assume that there is one "correct" view or consciousness that it is a matter of raising all people to (via top-down organising), and that this view tends to presume that there is one solution or one ideal type of society. While happy to say that all working-class have something in common as they share the fact of exploitation, he'd say that they'd have different understandings of how class impinges on their life, thereby making a singular notion of "class consciousness" largely irrelevant. The view would be that a singular "class consciousness" leads to the the type of homogenising view that "another world is possible" and not that "other worlds" or "a world with many worlds within it" are possible. It would be about different sections of the class organising and making connections between themselves on the basis of any complementarities and an understanding of what they are each trying to achieve rather than imposing a concept of class-consciousness that all sectors have to achieve. Of course, I'm paraphrasing like a f*cker, so if anyone knows Cleaver better than I do please correct me.

It obviously depends heavily on how you determine class consciousness and how you perceive it growing in practice (and the relation, if any, to the party). Anyone have any thoughts?

[Vanguard1917]

LSD:

One of the great historical problems of the working class, after all, is that even in times of high class consciousness, other social identities can take precedence. That's what happened in 1914. Despite a large and powerful labour movement, the appeal of nationalism was simply greater than the appeal of internationalism.

Was this because workers were not "class aware" in the 1910s? Quite the opposite! it's not that being a worker wasn't important; it was just that "being a German" or "being a Frenchman" was more so.

A higher "degree" of class consciousness might have allowed for a workers' resistance to the great imperialist war and who knows where that might of led.

The working class movement in much of Europe did not resist the First World War because that working class movement was dominated and mislead by social democratic reformist parties - i.e. because of the lack of a communist party:

Germany: An independent communist movement did not exist until 1914 (when K. Liebknecht, Luxemburg and Zetkin formed the Spartacist League).

France: An independent communist party was formed as late as 1920. In other words, a communist party did not even exist in France at the time of the outbreak of imperialist war.

Italy: As late as 1921.

Britain: As late as 1920.

Compare this with Russia.

A key reason for why the Russia working class was at the forefront of the international communist movement around the time of WW1, for why the Russian working class made up the most class conscious sections of the international working class, is the fact that a revolutionary communist party existed in Russia more than a decade before the start of WW1 - the Bolsheviks in 1903.

Without a revolutionary communist party, there cannot be a revolutionary working class. For bourgeois nationalism to be challenged in the workers' movement, and for working class internationalism to prevail, a revolutionary communist party is essential.

[LSD]

The working class movement in much of Europe did not resist the First World War because that working class movement was dominated and mislead by social democratic reformist parties

I think that that explanation fails to account for the unique power of nationalism and patriotism at the onset of the First World War.

Yes, by the time the First World War rolled around a good deal of the labour movement was lead by "evolutionists", but there is absolutely no evidence that the position of working class parties had a significant impact on workers' opinions.

The proletariat didn't "follow" their political "leaders" into supporting the war, they did it all on their own. For the most part, the labour movement was swept along after the bulk of the workers had already been convinced.


Germany: An independent communist movement did not exist until 1914 (when K. Liebknecht, Luxemburg and Zetkin formed the Spartacist League).

And yet German workers were just as seduced by First World War nationalism as anyone else. The "presence" of the Sparacists seems to have had no effect whatsoever.

The problem, again, is that nationalism as an identity challanges worker class consciousness. That means that in times of heightened nationalism, workers stop listening to what their political parties tell them.

Even if there had been an organized and disciplined revolutionary communist movement in 1914, there is no reason to believe that it would have reacted any more effectively.

Remember, labour may have been social democratic in the 1910s, but it was still quite internationalist. The idea of supporting one's bourgeoisie's imperialist ventures runs just as contrary to Bernsteinite "social democracy" as it does to revolutionary "communism".

The events of the First World War are not a testament to bad proletarian leadership, but rather to the unfortunate fragility of labour politics in general.


Without a revolutionary communist party, there cannot be a revolutionary working class.

Tell that to the Spanish anarchists.

Class consciousness is not depependent on the existance of a party, nor does the presence of a party mean that revolutionary sentiment "must" develop.

There were more "revolutionanry communist" parties in the 1980s than the 1930s and yet the 1930s was a far more revolutionary time. That tells us that political events have a much more important role than the "proper line" of the local Communist Party.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, by the time the First World War rolled around a good deal of the labour movement was lead by "evolutionists", but there is absolutely no evidence that the position of working class parties had a significant impact on workers' opinions.

The proletariat didn't "follow" their political "leaders" into supporting the war, they did it all on their own. For the most part, the labour movement was swept along after the bulk of the workers had already been convinced.

When you say that the workers 'did it all on their own', the implication is that the working class made its decisions in some kind of vacuum outside of society. Are you seriously suggesting that the social democratic parties that dominated the working class movement all over Europe had no influence on the direction of the working class movement?


And yet German workers were just as seduced by First World War nationalism as anyone else. The "presence" of the Sparacists seems to have had no effect whatsoever.

My point was that 1914 proved to be very late to begin organising a communist, anti-imperialist movement against the war, whereas the working class in Russia was advantaged due to the fact that an independent communist party had existed within the working class movement more than ten years before the war.

Nonetheless, the presence of the Sparticists had a huge effect in Germany in the years around the war - particularly 1918 and 1919 - even if not to the same extent as that of the presence of the Bolsheviks in Russia.


The problem, again, is that nationalism as an identity challanges worker class consciousness. That means that in times of heightened nationalism, workers stop listening to what their political parties tell them.

But where does this nationalism come from? It comes from bourgeois hegemony, and the reformist, social democratic parties had no desire to challenge this bourgeois hegemony and were therefore, to all intents and purposes, bourgeois parties. Your line of reasoning almost seems to imply that the working class was somehow inherently nationalist, irrespective of the impact of bourgeois hegemony and the active actions of the ruling class.


Even if there had been an organized and disciplined revolutionary communist movement in 1914, there is no reason to believe that it would have reacted any more effectively.

This is disproven by what happened in Russia, a country where the communist movement was strongest.


Remember, labour may have been social democratic in the 1910s, but it was still quite internationalist. The idea of supporting one's bourgeoisie's imperialist ventures runs just as contrary to Bernsteinite "social democracy" as it does to revolutionary "communism".

The events of the First World War are not a testament to bad proletarian leadership, but rather to the unfortunate fragility of labour politics in general.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

What was it about WW1 that gave way to nationalist sentiments in the working class, when it could have given way, due to its barbarism, to a widespread internationalism? It's certainly not because people are inherently nationalistic; it has something to do with ruling class hegemony, which needed to be challenged by the communist party.

[LSD]

When you say that the workers 'did it all on their own', the implication is that the working class made its decisions in some kind of vacuum outside of society.

No, the implication is that it made its decisions without any "leadership". The labour movement's support for the war came out of the labour class' support for war, not the other way around.

You seem to be arguing that the problem was "at the top" not at the bottom and that had the European labour parties only been "more revolutionary" in their politics, they would have been able to "lead" the workers of Europe away from nationalism.

In my judgement that approach is dangerously naive.


Are you seriously suggesting that the social democratic parties that dominated the working class movement all over Europe had no influence on the direction of the working class movement?

No, I'm saying that the fact that they were reformist in nature is irrelevent to the question of imperialism. Again, social democracy (at least Bronstein-esque turn of the century social democracy) is just as anti-imperailist as "revolutionary communism".

All of the socialist and Marxist parties were just as opposed in theory to imperialist wars as any communist, if not more so.

The fact that many betrayed this anti-imperialist line and defended their respective nations participation in the war speaks to the monumental appeal of nationalism, not to some "failing" of "leadership".

Many influential theoreticians and revolutionaries who would later go on to form the numerous "revolutionary communist" parties of Europe were caught up in this great fervor, and there's no reason to believe that had they been in overty revolutionary parties then their position on the war would have been any different.

Do you really think that had the Sparticists been formed prior to 1914, Kautsky would have reacted differently? That the mere act of adopting a "revolutionary" line would have somehow "protected" him from the appeal of nationalism?

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Nationalism is not just another political position, it's a social identity, one which strikes at the core of political paradigms. Like racism or sexism is transcends standard ideological lines and can infiltrate just about any political movement.

You commit a grave political error when you miminize the role that nationalism has played. It is not merely another "political question" like any other, it is a fundamental issue of definition and must be treated as such.


But where does this nationalism come from? It comes from bourgeois hegemony

Obviously.

Again, I'm not asserting that the spread of nationalism was anything short of a bourgeois ploy to diffuse the growing labour movement. I'm just questioning your position that all that was needed to combat this difussions was "more revolutionary parties".

Revolutionary parties are just as susceptible to nationalist appeals as reformist ones. What was needed was not more centralized "vanguard parties" to "lead" the workers, but a perceptive and broad movement to educate the workers.


Your line of reasoning almost seems to imply that the working class was somehow inherently nationalist

Not at all!

The proletariat is not "inherently" anything, but they are certainly socialized to be many things. And it is nothing short of delusional to believe that that those socialized identities can be combatted by merely appealing to some "revolutionary" line.

What was needed in the buildup to the First World War was an effective labour movement that understood the nature of and how to combat nationalism as a social institution.

That movement could have been revolutionary, it could even have been reformist, just so long as it reocognized nationalism as a distinct alternative to class conscness and recognized that a national and a class identity are not compatible.

In the end, not even the Bolsheviks managed to recognize that fact. They, like most of their Leninist progeny, saw nationalism as something that could be "used" by communists to serve revolutionary purposes.

They may have been right in the sense that minority communist parties can occasinaly exploit nationalist revolutions for their own ends (as in 1917), but in the larger sense, if nationalism is never challenged it will remain a constant barrier to class solidarity.

It was nationalism that ultimtely defeated revolution in Germany, it was nationalism that stopped the Russian revolution from spreading westwards. And when you contend that nationalism could have been "defeated" had only there been a "German Bolshevik party" you dangerously underestimate the inherent potency of nationalism as a social force.


This is disproven by what happened in Russia, a country where the communist movement was strongest.

:lol:

There was a lot more that distinguished Russia from the rest of Europe than the presence of the Bolsheviks. In 1914, after all, the Bolsheviks were a miniscule minority. And a minority who's opposition to war was often lukewarm at best.

Lenin himself initially saw a war as a potentially "great mover of events" and as such he was vocally in favour of it. He changed this position later of course, but the fact that he was initialy "divided" belies your assertion that "revolutionary-ness" is incompartible with support for imperialist war.

And certainly when the war began, most of the Russian people were reasonably supportive.

It was only once Russia started to lose that opinion turned around. The war became a national embarassement rather than a national triumph and the Czar was seen as harming the "nation" in his handling of the war.

It wasn't "revolutionary communism" that moved the people, it was nationalism. The same nationalism that got them into the war in the first place now drove them to overthrow their government.

In the end, the Russian aristocracy could not control the power that they unleashed and it destroyed them. The nature of the labour movement in Russia was pretty much irrelevent.

Most workers didn't give two shits if Lenin thought the war was a good idea or not. It wasn't Bolshevism that was motivating them in Februaru 1917, it was frustration. The fact that there happened to be a more revolutionary communist movment is a by-product of the same social forces that ultimately brought down the imperial government.

There is correlation but there is no causation. Lenin didn't bring down the Czar, the people of Russia did. Lenin merely took advantage of the subsequent power vacuum.


What was it about WW1 that gave way to nationalist sentiments in the working class

It was the culmination of 50 years of careful deliberate nationalist indoctrination. It was the imperialist venture to end all imperialist ventures.

Historically speaking, great social movments like that have the ability to move "revolutionaries" just as much as they do anyone else. Holding the "right line" on any issue is no guarantee that will not fall prey to the powerful and attractive institutions of bourgeois social control.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)....the Bolsheviks in 1903.[/b]

Although LSD has already dealt quite a blow to your position, I just thought I'd wade in as well. According to you, unless I'm missing something, the reason that the "working class movement in much of Europe did not resist the First World War" was "because that working class movement was dominated and mislead by social democratic reformist parties". And, therefore, the presence of the Bolshevik Party was what meant that "the Russia working class was at the forefront of the international communist movement around the time of WW1".

And this, presumably, means, that unlike their European brothers and sisters, the Russian working class would have resisted WWI. Yet, historical fact doesn't seem to back this up....at least in the way you are suggesting. After all, in 1914, the Russian working class was as happy to participate in WWI as any section of the European working class....and this didn't change until the Russian War effort went to shit.

And the above would suggest, to any rational thinking human being, that the presence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was of minimal importance when compared to objective events....Russia's trouncing in the War. And all that means that it is a grave mistake to consider the "revolutionary party" as more important than the actual conditions of any society.

After all, the vessels through which class struggle is fought, often happen to be temporary and short lived. And that means that the vessel is of little importance....because working class struggle will always find an outlet.


Vanguard1917
Without a revolutionary communist party, there cannot be a revolutionary working class.

Uh, yes there can.

In revolutionary times, all manner of things will be used as the arena on which class struggle will be fought. And more often than not, the working class will use a Union or a temporary Council of some sorts to conduct its struggle....as, if memory serves me correctly, the French working class did during the recent riots.

There, of course, they, more or less, ignored most of the self proclaimed "revolutionary communist parties"....and, I suspect, you'd retort that those Parties weren't "really" revolutionary. Now, of course, that is all fine and dandy....and you are perfectly free to assert that. But, as far as I can see, that is the kind of approach which breeds the worst kind of defeatism.

You see, a while ago, in the course of another debate, I happened to do a quick little probability thing with regards the odds that another Bolshevik Party would emerge. Needless to say, the odds are very long....and the odds of this happening on a world scale are so high that it's virtually impossible.

And, essentially, if I were to accept your approach that "Without a revolutionary communist party, there cannot be a revolutionary working class" and the odds on the chances of said "revolutionary communist party" actually coming into existence, I think I'd try and make money on the horses instead. After all, there's about the same chance that there'll be another "revolutionary communist party" as there is that I'm going to be 6ft.


Britain: As late as 1920.

Actually, there were numerous Socialist and communist organisations in Britain before then. And a few of them, were very similar to Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party....though they were probably more strongly linked to the Unions than the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (and later the Bolshevik Party) ever were.

[Vanguard1917]

No, the implication is that it made its decisions without any "leadership". The labour movement's support for the war came out of the labour class' support for war, not the other way around.

You seem to be arguing that the problem was "at the top" not at the bottom and that had the European labour parties only been "more revolutionary" in their politics, they would have been able to "lead" the workers of Europe away from nationalism.

It was a problem 'at the top' insofar as it was the bourgeoisie who supported the war and in whose interests the war was waged - the war was in their objective interests.

The war was not in the objective interests of the working class.

Therefore, the major reason for why the working class supported the war is two-fold:

1. The politics of the ruling class is the ruling politics of society.

2. The inadequacy of communist politics in challenging the influence of ruling class politics on the working class movement (e.g. SPD - a working class party with a ruling class leadership).

After all, every class struggle is a political struggle, as Marx and Engels state.


No, I'm saying that the fact that they were reformist in nature is irrelevent to the question of imperialism. Again, social democracy (at least Bronstein-esque turn of the century social democracy) is just as anti-imperailist as "revolutionary communism".

All of the socialist and Marxist parties were just as opposed in theory to imperialist wars as any communist, if not more so.

This is a ridiculous claim. Bernstein came from a tradition that gave way to perhaps the single most treacherous political 'tendency' in the workers movement -the SPD.


The fact that many betrayed this anti-imperialist line and defended their respective nations participation in the war speaks to the monumental appeal of nationalism, not to some "failing" of "leadership".

An opportunistic leadership was a key reason for why they chose to side with their respective ruling classes.

Nationalism is a phenomenon of the bourgeois epoch; you make it sound like an eternal infliction on humanity.


Do you really think that had the Sparticists been formed prior to 1914, Kautsky would have reacted differently? That the mere act of adopting a "revolutionary" line would have somehow "protected" him from the appeal of nationalism?

All we can say is that a communist party more deeply rooted in the workers movement of Germany would have had a much greater advantage in opposing the war by fighting the opportunism at the head of the workers' movement - and, at the same, the nationalistic sentiments within large sections of the working class - than a party formed in 1914.


Nationalism is not just another political position, it's a social identity, one which strikes at the core of political paradigms.

No, i agree, nationalism is not 'just another political position' - the nation is a core institution of the bourgeois era and nationalism is promoted as a key part of bourgeois politics whenever it is necessary to maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie of any particular nation.

In order to counter this, a political struggle is needed in the workers' movement.

The rest of your post is filled with misinterpretations of the historical facts of the Russian revolution; I don't have enough time to go into them at the moment.

The purpose of this discussions, from my perspective, is to emphasise the need for political action in the class struggle.

Your anarchist/Redstar2000ite perspective is fatalistic and encourages abstinence from political action.

This is alien to and irreconcilable with Marxism.

The Communist Manifesto's message is as true today as it was then:

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

(My italics)

[Vanguard1917]

According to you, unless I'm missing something, the reason that the "working class movement in much of Europe did not resist the First World War" was "because that working class movement was dominated and mislead by social democratic reformist parties". And, therefore, the presence of the Bolshevik Party was what meant that "the Russia working class was at the forefront of the international communist movement around the time of WW1".

I said that the lack of political struggle against the opportunistic leaders of the working class was a key factor in the lack of working class resistance to the war.

And the existance of the Bolsheviks in Russia was a key reason for why the working class was successful in defeating the bourgeoisie and withdrawing Russia from the war.

It is no coincidence that the communist tradition in Russia - i.e. the Bolshevik tradition - was, from the perspective of the working class movement, the most advanced tradition of that kind at that time. This is partly due to the intensity of the political, as well as theoretical struggles that took place within the Russian communist movement.

Of course there were historical differences between Russia and Germany.

However, the political struggle of the communists is vital, whatever the historical circumstances, in opposing the influence of bourgeois politics in the working class movement.

[LSD]

An opportunistic leadership was a key reason for why they chose to side with their respective ruling classes.

It doesn't matter how many times you assert that, I have already conclusively shown that that is not the case.


This is a ridiculous claim. Bernstein came from a tradition that gave way to perhaps the single most treacherous political 'tendency' in the workers movement -the SPD.

Again, though, that misses the point.

The SPD might have developed out of "social evolutionism", but at the time of the First World War even the most reformist Marxists were still ostensibly anti-imperialist.

They, like the rest of the workers of Europe, were caught up in the nationalist fervour that followed.

The problem was not that the "leadership" was "too bourgeois", it was that the workers' movement in general failed to recognize the danger of nationalism. And unfortunately, all the available evidence suggests that "more revolutionary" parties would almost certainly have made that same mistake.


In order to counter this, a political struggle is needed in the workers' movement.

Agreed!


The rest of your post is filled with misinterpretations of the historical facts of the Russian revolution; I don't have enough time to go into them at the moment.

I didn't "misinterpret" anything. It's historical fact that when the war began most of the Russian working class supported it. Only once Russia started to lose did the population turn against further participation.

The influence of the Bolsheviks over the Russian population in general was minimal in 1914. Most workers had never even heard of Lenin, let alone looked to him to "lead" them.

It was nationalism, not "revolution" that moved them against the Czar and it was nationalism which drove them to overthow the government. The Bolsheviks had virtually no part of the February revolution and they certainly did not create the conditions that lead up to it.

It was the Czar's incompetence that alienated him from the people, not Lenin's exhortations against him.

Besides, the Bolshviks were just as co-opted by nationalism as anyone else. Despite their calls for national self-determination, upon achieving power they pursued a policy of Russian nationalism that would have warmed the heart of any Romanov.

Again, the real problem with the workers' movement in 1914 was not a lack of "parties", it was a lack of understanding. In Germany, in England, in Russia, no one recognized the power that nationalism had to shake up class identify politics.

Unfortunately many "revolutionary" groups today have still not learned that lesson and still mistakingly believe that nationalism and labour struggle are compatable.

They are not.


The purpose of this discussions, from my perspective, is to emphasise the need for political action in the class struggle.

Something which I have never denied.

Indeed, I would propose that it's your approach that discourages practical action. Instead of recognizing the need for an intellgient broad-based workers movement, you are insisiting that a centralized "party" must always be present and that the workers' movement must subjugate itself to that party.

That kind of top-down thinking is so evangelical as to border on the religious. The need for political action is very real, but it's about actual working class issues, not "building a party".

The Leninist obsesssion with "leadership" and centralization may present itself as "practical", but's actually quite divorced from the real issues of the working class.

Workers today are not going to "follow" you because you carry a red flag and can deliver a speech, if you want to work for their issues, you're going to have to step down to their level and do something.

More petit-bourgeois "political leaders" only further legitimates bourgeois politics.

Workers' struggle needs to come out of workers' organizations, that means unions and syndicates, not fucking parliamentary caucuses!


However, the political struggle of the communists is vital, whatever the historical circumstances, in opposing the influence of bourgeois politics in the working class movement.

Again, tell that to the Spanish Anarchists.

[Vanguard1917]

It doesn't matter how many times you assert that, I have already conclusively shown that that is not the case.

You haven't. Your argument is that the workers of Europe were 'caught up' in a 'nationalist fervour'.

My argument is that a materialist analysis of nationalism shows us that nationalism was a product of bourgeois hegemony. While you do not explicitly disagree with this fact, you seem to see nationalism as an almost abstract phenomenon separate from class rule.

Workers did not support nationalism 'on their own', as you claim. They supported nationalism due to the hegemony of bourgeois politics. This hegemony in the political sphere extended to the opportunistic social democratic parties representing great mass of working class people. And this opportunism at the top of the workers' movement was a key reason for why the hegemony of bourgeois politics was not effectively challenged.


The SPD might have developed out of "social evolutionism", but at the time of the First World War even the most reformist Marxists were still ostensibly anti-imperialist.

And it goes without saying that an ostensive opposition to imperialism is not necessarily the same thing as a genuine opposition.


They [the reformist parties]...were caught up in the nationalist fervour that followed.

In other words, they decided to side with their respective ruling classes. By doing so, such parties - the parties dominating the Second International - proved their incapacity in representing the interests of their working class mandate.


Indeed, I would propose that it's your approach that discourages practical action. Instead of recognizing the need for an intellgient broad-based workers movement, you are insisiting that a centralized "party" must always be present and that the workers' movement must subjugate itself to that party.

Yes, i do call for a centralised democractic workers' party. If 'an intellgient broad-based workers movement' means disorganisation and all the things which disorganisation brings, then i will criticise such a movement and call for a revolutionary alternative.

In order to defend itself and fight for its own interests the revolutionary working class party must be highly organised. The alternative is to accept defeat and to have a non-democratic culture in the workers' movement where no one is accountable to no one.


Workers today are not going to "follow" you because you carry a red flag and can deliver a speech, if you want to work for their issues, you're going to have to step down to their level and do something.

I'm not a populist and i will not 'step down' to anyone's level.

The working class does not need to be patronised - they need revolutionary leadership.

*******

The confessions of a Menshevik (Sukhanov):

'The Bolsheviks were working stubbornly and without let-up. They were among the masses, at the factory-benches, every day without a pause. Tens of speakers, big and little, were speaking in Petersburg, at the factories and in the barracks, every blessed day. For the masses they had become their own people, because they were always there, taking the lead in details as well as in the most important affairs of the factory or barracks... The mass[es] lived and breathed together with the Bolsheviks.'

cited in the late Ted Grant's fine defence of the Russian Revolution http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part1.html