Comrade-Z
15th August 2006, 09:56
We've been discussing the problem with middle-class elements within the anarchist movement in this thread here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54333), which got me thinking, what exactly is the role of a revolutionary middle-class individual? What is such an individual really aiming for? It can't be proletarian self-emancipation, at least for the vast majority of cases. That would be against the middle-class individual's class interests. I think there are two main options for the middle-class revolutionary: fascism (right-wing authoritarianism), and left-wing proletarian-hijacking, a sort of left-wing "authoritarianism." Which one the middle-class individual chooses depends on what role the middle-class individual is willing to play, and how ambitious this individual is in the first place. Of course, a third (and very popular) option is the usual middle-class reformist liberalism, which dominates during non-revolutionary times. But I am interested in revolutionary circumstances. So let's look at the two options that a middle-class individual faces in revolutionary circumstances.
For the purposes of this discussion, we can define the middle-class as those people with the means to employ themselves and/or employ a small workforce and an amount of capital sufficient to sustain itself and them, but insufficient, for the most part, to self-expand itself and compete with "the big boys" (the capitalist class). Because their competition against the big capitalists is so difficult, middle-class individuals, even when employing others, will often remain employed themselves in work that is either identical or intimately connected to that of their employees. (Edit: as per Severian's suggestion, I will expand this category to include salaried professionals who have enough wealth to invest to a significant enough degree that they can build up enough wealth to live a significant part of their later life without working for a wage, and still have some surplus to pass on to their heirs after they die---see the example of the doctor below).
Someone I know is a perfect example of this. He was co-owner of a small roofing business which employed some 5 or 6 people. Furthermore, he engaged in the exact same work as all of the employees up on the roof (of course, not on equal terms), and he did paperwork, bookkeeping, bidding, and other "managerial" tasks besides that. Although his business was enough to support him and his co-owner partner, at least with them working in the business as well, the business was not large enough to produce any self-expanding capital or seriously compete against the big roofing shops, and so after about 15 years in business (and increasingly sluggish years in the late '90s), he parted with his portion of the business and went to work for a different roofing company.
Another example: while a doctor earning $100,000 per year, working under someone else, is not a small capitalist per se, such a doctor has the capability (and the hope of exercising the capability) to save income for several years and start his/her own private practice and/or buy small amounts of stocks in companies, so we can practically count him/her and all other wealthy professionals as small capitalists. In any case, they will develop the same class consciousness.
So, what's it like to be a small capitalist? What kind of mindset does this social status produce? Well, first one must recognize the kind of managerial consciousness that such a position produces. Being a small capitalist entails, first of all, managing capital. This directly confronts the small capitalist with all the various rules that the capitalist class (and its executive committee, the State) has written circumscribing the management of capital and the capitalist system in general. All of this produces a keen political awareness, involvement, and theorizing that is often not seen among the proletariat. This is one reason why we see so few truly proletarian theorists; even now the communist movement draws most of its theorists from middle-class-traitors--not an ideal situation for the proletariat. (And the double-meaning of the term "middle-class-traitors" is fully intended. Whom will these middle-class-traitors ultimately betray, the middle-class or the proletariat? It is difficult to say, which is why the proletariat is in a weak position any time it must rely on these middle-class-traitors for theoretical guidance. The proletariat must truly produce its own Marxes and Engelses--and numerously (one might even say ubiquitously)--before its prospects for self-emancipation can look bright.
Now then, how does the small capitalist view the other classes? On the one hand, the small capitalist looks at the big capitalists with some disdain, not so much with regards to their fundamental activities (because he and the big capitalists share that), but with regards to their excesses, which threaten to upset the social order and arouse the proletariat to action. The small capitalists find themselves threatened by this emerging proletarian upheaval, which entails strike action, increased labor costs, and such "horrible things" against the small businesses, which have the least amount of power as far as court-hassling, strike-breaking, state-violence, and class intimidation, whereas, of course, the big capitalists have a few more tools in their arsenal to deal with all of this and bear the damages. So the small capitalists will chide the big capitalists and their lawmakers for being to harsh. Furthermore, the small capitalist will also criticize the big capitalists with regards to their "unfair" competitive advantage, as the small capitalist no doubt perceives it. For instance, what hope does a small upstart retail company have against the likes of Wal-Mart? After all, every small capitalist ultimately dreams of becoming a big capitalist, free from any real work, allowing your managers and CEO's to take care of things and your capital to self-expand into infinite prosperity, but this cannot happen while the big capitalists remain competitively untouchable. Also, sure, imperialist war helps the likes of Halliburton, but does it help you, the small capitalist? No, not really, and yet you're paying for it (in taxes--even moreso than the proletariat--and possibly in your own children). Usually this produces a steady stream of liberal reformism from the middle-class, aimed at curing the "excesses" of the capitalist system while leaving its fundamental process intact. Small capitalists will not criticize leadership in general; instead they will call for "better leadership" in government (ideally, their leadership--what they often like to call "bringing in a fresh face from outside the establishment," where the establishment is the code-word for the capitalist class proper.)
(As a side note, in fact, a position of abstract, absolute pacifism when it comes to war or violence makes sense to the small capitalist. In no case does war of any kind benefit the small capitalist. As a class, they are neither numerous and powerful enough to take on the big capitalists in class warfare, nor are they numerous and powerful enough to defend against the proletariat in class warfare, nor do they gain a whole lot from imperialist war, when all is said and done after the cost in taxes, deaths, proletarian upheaval, etc.)
However, the small capitalist doesn't just find himself set against the capitalist class, but also against the proletariat. One of the small capitalist's worst fears is being thrown back into the ranks of that "disgraceful mass" which must humble itself before the masters of capital in order to survive. The small capitalist treasures the little slice of priviledge that he has acquired, and he views with hostility any proletariat who would deprive him of that priviledge or of the "free-exercise" thereof. On the free-exercise of capital, Marx comments in the manifesto,
"[The capitalist class] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade...By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying."
The small capitalist, like the big capitalist, views the proletariat's occasional interruptions of this "free" management of capital (strikes, collective bargaining, revolt, pressuring the government for regulations on business) with hostility, and the small capitalist views the proletariat's inherent (but usually unrecognized and hidden) power over production with fear and loathing. Indeed, though the proletariat is often not class-conscious enough to recognize its own power in this regard, the small capitalist, along with the big capitalist, is very class-conscious and very aware of the proletariat's threat against his own power and priviledge. (This awareness stems, in part, from the small capitalists involvement in the management of production, which the proletarian is denied, and also perhaps from the elevated level of education of the average small capitalist over the average proletariat.) Thus, however much the small capitalist may criticize the big capitalist, the fact that they share the same relationship with capital and with the proletariat ensures that, when push comes to shove with the proletariat, the small capitalist will nearly always side with the capitalists.
There have, indeed, been instances in history where push has come to shove with the proletariat, which brings us to the first topic of this post, the middle-class origins of right-wing authoritarianism, which henceforth I shall call "fascism." In all of the instances of fascism (Germany, Italy, Spain, Chile under Pinochet, Greece under Papadopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos), etc.) involved a combined middle-class and capitalist class response to proletarian unrest. It is unnecessary to recount in detail all of the various economic problems and proletarian unrest that beset these countries; their general character is a matter of common knowledge. The German middle and capitalist classes faced a potent KPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPD), the Bolshevik "menace" on the horizon, frequent strikes, massive unemployment, etc. Italy faced enormous waves of strikes and factory occupations after WWI. Spain faced a complex assortment of reformist socialists and extremely violent anarchists. Peronist Argentina Greece faced left-wing unrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_/_Post-war_development_and_turmoil).
Specifically, what we see in these instances are mass movements of the middle-class in order to subdue proletarian unrest (through repression, concessions, or both simultaneously) and in order to thus save the capitalist system (and thus their own priviledge). In general, the middle-class is forced to resign itself to acting as the mass movement for saving the capitalist system---but subordinate to the capitalist class, which still controls the major levers of power in society, and which provides the leadership and determines the nature and scope of the fascist period, although occasionally the middle-class, recognizing the extent to which the captialist class depends on its help, is able to influence policy in its favor.
This theory is borne out by historical facts. The middle-class was, by far, the most numerous supporter of the Nazis during their rise to power (and the most important supporter, after the capitalist class). Likewise in Italy. Likewise in Spain, notably among small landholders, such as the clergy. In Chile, a confluence of Chilean middle-class, Chilean capitalist class, and U.S. imperial capitalist class elements brought about support for the Pinochet regime. I am less familiar with the situation in Greece.
Among these, the middle-class mass movement was probably the strongest in Germany, and here we can see the greatest middle-class element in state policies. For instance, in addition to all of the measures aimed at subduing and/or tranquilizing the proletariat, the Nazis instituted greater government regulation of big business, which manifested itself in a cartel system, diminishing the importance of competition among businesses and allowing the small capitalists, as well as the capitalists, to prosper in an organized manner which would also not give rise to economic instability and proletarian unrest. We can also see in various Nazi movements an emphasis on isolationism and protectionism, which deprives the big capitalists of markets, but which works very much in the favor of small capital.
To summarize: these are cases of the capitalist class mobilizing the middle-class against the proletariat. The capitalist class stays in power, the middle-class gets a cut of the winnings, and the proletariat gets fucked.
Now I'm going to turn to "left-wing proletarian hijacking," which can be thought to be comprised of any proletarian movement in which a section of the movement comes to lead, dominate, and exploit the rest of the movement as foot-soldiers, ultimately in order to catapult this priviledged sector into power, first into power over the movement, and finally into power society-wide as the new ruling capitalist class. In other words, these movements are characterized by the fact that the entire proletariat within these movements does not rule. The dominating sector of the proletarian movement will often be initially comprised of middle-class individuals (although not necessarily), in which case the first stage of gaining leadership over the movement is more quickly achieved. This phenomenon may manifest itself in movements sporting a variety of labels: anarchism, autonomism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism. (Because Maoism doesn't deal primarily with the proletariat in the first place, but instead the peasantry, it doesn't really apply here.) No movement is immune simply because of its label or rhetoric. Some anarchist or communist movements may not suffer as much from this phenomenon--but here I'm addressing the ones that do. The attribute that all such movements share which concerns us here is the assertion of the primacy of a leadership over the proletarian movement (and over the proletariat in general), usually argued "for the good of the proletarian movement." This assertion can take place in rhetoric, in practice (such as in reformist campaigns that middle-class intellectuals organize), or both. When it comes to revolutionary success or even partial success, the historical record of these types of movements is well-known: they either get nowhere near revolution (most common), or they subjugate the proletariat after a successful revolution.
It is my opinion that middle-class revolutionaries who end up turning against the proletariat start out genuinely desiring to advance proletarian revolution. However, their class interests inevitably give rise to a warped conception of proletarian revolution. Their proletarian revolution is one in which certain sections of revolutionaries--usually the (non-proletarian, middle-class) "professional" revolutionaries--are to be the "essential" leaders of the revolution. They cannot escape their class interest. After all, why would they labor so persistently in order to advance a programme that would not benefit them economically, that would not enrich their lives--that might even harm them, even? And so they modify the programme to provide for a special privileged spot for the likes of them when all is said and done. You will also notice that Leninists, Trotskyists, and Stalinists all dwell on the "necessarily lengthy" phase of socialism, during which the all-important vanguard party (led by them) will "lead the way" in defending against the capitalist class and "instructing" the proletriat on the proper way of "building socialism," so that "one day" in the far future the society will be able to transition to stateless communism (which, of course, would be an inconvenient development for the privileged vanguard party--which is partly why they don't recommend that it happens very soon). You can already sense that these revolutionaries are not of the proletariat, but instead have a patronizing and even managerial view of the proletariat, which foreshadows their designs somewhat.
But now let's back up a bit and talk about what would cause a middle-class individual to become interested in proletarian revolution in the first place. It's possible that the middle-class revolutionary foresees the imminent collapse of the capitalist system and is jumping ship to cast lots with the proletariat before he gets strung up on a pole during the revolution. It is possible that the middle-class revolutionary is okay with proletarian rule as long as, in the process of revolution, he can help mobilize the proletariat in order to pursue some progressive achievement that the rest of the middle-class and capitalist class cannot/will not implement because of contradictory interests and/or plain incompetence. Examples might include women's rights, gay rights, atheism, consumerism, an end to wasteful, expensive, and destructive imperialist war, environmentalism, and the abolition of school. Personally, I probably fall into this category, although I have a sprinkling of the following category as well.
The final category I want to discuss is the possibility that the reason for the small capitalist's support of proletarian revolution is the middle-class revolutionary's desire to be catapulted into the ruling class of society. Being in the middle-class gives the small capitalist a keen awareness, a "taste," if you will, of what being in the ruling class is like. And it seems achievable, with enough hard work, so the small capitalist is motivated to strive for becoming a part of the ruling class. Normally this desire would manifest itself as the usual dream of growing his small business and becoming a big capitalist himself. But under certain circumstances this appears to the small capitalist to be extremely difficult or well-nigh impossible, especially in periods of increasing economic stratification, and political corruption, monopoly, and cronyism among the ruling class. Under these circumstances, the middle-class revolutionary sees greater chances of being catapulted into the ruling class through a mobilization of the proletariat. After all, although the proletariat may not be class-conscious and aware of its own power, the middle-class individual is very class-conscious, and with this consciousness comes an awareness that the proletariat is potentially devastatingly powerful, if united and mobilized. Additionally, history is rife with examples of middle-class leaderships riding proletarian cannon-fodder to power (English Civil War, French Revolution, heck, any bourgeois revolution). "If only this power could be harnessed...." the small capitalist thinks to himself.
Of course, the small capitalist does not explicitly think in terms of mobilizing the proletariat to catapult himself and his vanguard party into the seat of power. The middle-class revolutionary imagines that he will be catapulted into the ruling class as a proletarian along with all other proletarians. But his class background cannot help but predispose him to grasping for a more privileged, managerial position when the opportunity to do so presents itself.
And an underdeveloped, timid, unsure proletariat gives such individuals plenty of opportunities to seize the reins of power. For instance, the proletariat as existed in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution was scarcely 20% of the population. It was mostly illiterate, newly arrived from the countryside and largely unskilled, and fraught with superstition and ethnic, religious, and geographic divisions (at a time when geographical separation was a huge impediment to communication and understanding between proletarians of different regions or countries.) Such a proletariat is bound to be hesitant about taking power, unsure of how to wield that power, and thus very likely to appeal to leaders who have an idea of how things are to be managed, and these leaders with theoretical knowledge about the management of society are going to be found predominantly in the middle class for the reasons just described. In this way an underdeveloped proletariat makes it relatively easy for an aspiring leader to assume authority over the proletariat. Likewise, in an underdeveloped society such as Russia at the time, many proletarians will be happy to simply have a functioning electrical grid (or a regime promising "Peace, land, and bread"). When you are concerned with such matters of daily survival, it is difficult to formulate ideas for radically altering the functioning of society. Allowing someone else to take care of it all, even if they are oppressive, sounds a lot easier.
(Needless to say, as the proletariat develops and matures, it will be less and less likely to look for these leaders, these vanguard parties, these "Moses" figures to lead them out of bondage. And, indeed, we see that in the advanced capitalist countries, where workers have almost entirely turned deaf ears on the middle-class radical intellectuals and their vanguards promising heaven on earth if only the workers will "trust them." More and more the proletariat trusts only itself and looks at the middle-class and capitalist ideologues with cynicism and scorn. What will real proletarian self-emancipation look like when it arrives? Like nothing ever before seen, in short. It will look nothing like the revolutions in Russia or China, for one. We will see intelligent, confident proletarians banding together, not looking for leaders, but figuring things out together as equals and unhesitatingly executing their revolutionary designs by the tens of millions, upon their own initiative and with a feeling of determination, mercilessness, and electric glee as they sense the enormous possibilities of the new world they are creating.)
Anyways, let's take another look at the Bolshevik revolution, working from this framework. We see a situation where elements of the middle-class mobilize and lead the proletariat, which forms the mass movement or the "base" of support for the revolutionary transformation. This revolutionary transformation manifests itself as a small sector of the middle-class transforming itself into the ruling capitalist class proper, which can only be finalized with the seizure of the means of production from the workers, which is made tricky by the fact that this new ruling capitalist class owed its ascendancy to those very same workers. The notion of proletarian rule is still very much in the air. The proletariat is confident from its recent apparent victory. Thus, the new ruling capitalist class must resort to authoritarian measures in order to solidify its power. It may rely in part on presenting the notion of various counter-revolutionary threats to the proletariat, the defeat of which necessitate sacrifices from the proletariat. The proletariat, still somewhat weak, divided, and unsure of its own power to crush counter-revolutionaries, assents. The new ruling capitalist class is aided in this endeavor by real counter-revolutionary threats which emerge from the old ruling class, which is hostile to any power wishing to supplant it, and foreign ruling classes, which are hostile to any regime believed to be of an anti-capitalist character or of a type that threatens their imperialist spheres. The Bolsheviks were the first of its kind, so the foreign ruling classes were understandably freaked out and chose to intervene with military forces. The foreign ruling classes didn't realize that the Bolsheviks were proletarian in name only. The foreign intervention might have also had something to do with bringing back a regime (the Provisional Government) with which existing foreign (imperialist) investments would be safe. This is always a primary concern of foreign ruling classes when a country undergoes dramatic upheaval.
Over time the "socialist" (in reality State-monopoly capitalist) society transforms itself into a society with the usual class divisions. There are the capitalists--the top government bureaucrats and technocrats who do most of the mangement of capital. There are new small capitalists--the lower level party bureaucrats, professionals, managers, etc. And then the proletariat. And then eventually the State-monopoly capitalist structure becomes unsuited to the developing capitalist economy, which demands increasing competition and flexibility of capital for its proper functioning, and the socialist ruse is shed altogether. The top party bureaucrats emerge as capitalists of new privatized industries. The lower level bureaucrats enter into managerial jobs in this new "private" enterprises. And the proletariat continues on, as usual.
So to recap, with fascism we have the capitalist class leading a middle-class mass movement for the protection of capitalism against the proletariat. But with left-wing proletarian-hijacking, we have a sector of the middle-class leading a proletarian mass movement for the overthrow of the existing capitalist class and the institution of a new one. With this left-wing authoritarianism (we can't really call it "fascism," it needs a new word...), though, the new capitalist class relies on the proletariat for its mass movement. Therefore, the proletariat is still able to exert some pull on policy (just as the middle-class was able to exert some pull on policy under fascism), and the new capitalist class must expend some efforts placating the proletariat to which it owes its ascendancy. Consequently, the left-wing authoritarian society is inevitably more progressive than the right-wing authoritarian society. We get things like equal rights for women, atheism, full access to birth control and abortions, pro-labor reforms, free medicine, healthcare, secular education, and housing, and such other things that benefit the proletariat. These reforms by no means make up for being shunted back down into the position of an oppressed class, but they are better than fascism. At least at first. Eventually, the new society will give rise to a new middle-class, made up of lower-level party members and bureaucrats, and these people will form a mass movement--which now manifests itself as the "Communist" Party itself (the irony!)--with the leadership duties of the party and its middle-class mass movement being taken up by the capitalist class, which manifests itself as the top party bureaucrats.
This is all perpetuated, of course, for the preservation of capitalism because, ironically, the new capitalist class is caught in a position of having to promote concepts of proletarian rule in order to justify the ruling class's own "communist" label. So in this way they constantly put their own rule in danger and create the need for fascism (although over time this ruling class will twist the ideas of proletarian rule and communism so that these concepts are no longer threatening to this "communist" capitalist class). And so we have fascism again by a different route, albeit formed from a slightly more progressive legacy. And then eventually, when capitalism is safe again and fascism, with its cumbersome measures of naked coercion, is no longer needed, the fascist regime will be shed, and the society will emerge as a liberal capitalist "democracy." But, despite the fact that it evolves into fascism anyways, the immediate stage before that is something quite different, where a sector of the middle class leads a mass movement of the proletariat in the overthrow of an existing capitalist class and the institution of a new one formed by the former middle-class revolutionary elements. And in this different manifestation we find a final reason for why middle-class individuals become radical revolutionaries, contrary to their apparent class interests.
So if you are a small capitalist, and your society is entering a stage of economic upheaval, with lots of proletarian unrest, what do you do? It depends. If the proletariat is well-developed and mature, it would probably be a good idea to band together with the capitalist class in the way of fascism, with you, the small capitalist, joining a mass movement like the Nazis, that will terrorize, minimally placate, and subdue the proletariat. However, if the proletariat is not well-developed, immature, and easily duped, and if you are feeling particularly audacious, you might have the opportunity to appeal to the proletariat during its economic unrest, gain their support, mobilize them under your movement, and lead them to the overthrow of the old capitalist class, allowing you to assume a position in the new ruling capitalist class--an even better outcome than you would have obtained with fascism. The risk is higher, the difficulties larger, but the payoff much bigger. So far in history, it has only been managed a few times. On the other hand, there have been numerous successful fascist regimes. In the end, both strategies, right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing proletarian-hijacking, are middle-class ideologies, with the middle-class playing different roles in each. Most interestingly, we find that left-wing proletarian-hijacking is a revolutionary, yet pro-capitalist, middle-class ideology.
The moral of the story? The middle class can never be a reliable part of a movement for proletarian emancipation. That doesn't mean proletarians necessarily need to "shun" middle-class intellectuals. Proletarians just need to make sure that they don't depend on middle-class organizational or intellectual leadership. Proletarians need to make sure that they approach middle-class intellectuals from a position of strength, as equals, with their own separate "proletarian-only" organizations, and that they only accept the suggestions from the middle-class that makes sense for proletarian self-emancipation, as the proletarians conceive it, and not hesitate to discard the middle-class suggestions and help that don't make sense for proletarian self-emancipation. Proletarians need to learn, and feel in their gut, that middle-class people are not their "social betters." Proletarians need to feel pride about their own class and confidence in their own ability to rule society themselves.
For the purposes of this discussion, we can define the middle-class as those people with the means to employ themselves and/or employ a small workforce and an amount of capital sufficient to sustain itself and them, but insufficient, for the most part, to self-expand itself and compete with "the big boys" (the capitalist class). Because their competition against the big capitalists is so difficult, middle-class individuals, even when employing others, will often remain employed themselves in work that is either identical or intimately connected to that of their employees. (Edit: as per Severian's suggestion, I will expand this category to include salaried professionals who have enough wealth to invest to a significant enough degree that they can build up enough wealth to live a significant part of their later life without working for a wage, and still have some surplus to pass on to their heirs after they die---see the example of the doctor below).
Someone I know is a perfect example of this. He was co-owner of a small roofing business which employed some 5 or 6 people. Furthermore, he engaged in the exact same work as all of the employees up on the roof (of course, not on equal terms), and he did paperwork, bookkeeping, bidding, and other "managerial" tasks besides that. Although his business was enough to support him and his co-owner partner, at least with them working in the business as well, the business was not large enough to produce any self-expanding capital or seriously compete against the big roofing shops, and so after about 15 years in business (and increasingly sluggish years in the late '90s), he parted with his portion of the business and went to work for a different roofing company.
Another example: while a doctor earning $100,000 per year, working under someone else, is not a small capitalist per se, such a doctor has the capability (and the hope of exercising the capability) to save income for several years and start his/her own private practice and/or buy small amounts of stocks in companies, so we can practically count him/her and all other wealthy professionals as small capitalists. In any case, they will develop the same class consciousness.
So, what's it like to be a small capitalist? What kind of mindset does this social status produce? Well, first one must recognize the kind of managerial consciousness that such a position produces. Being a small capitalist entails, first of all, managing capital. This directly confronts the small capitalist with all the various rules that the capitalist class (and its executive committee, the State) has written circumscribing the management of capital and the capitalist system in general. All of this produces a keen political awareness, involvement, and theorizing that is often not seen among the proletariat. This is one reason why we see so few truly proletarian theorists; even now the communist movement draws most of its theorists from middle-class-traitors--not an ideal situation for the proletariat. (And the double-meaning of the term "middle-class-traitors" is fully intended. Whom will these middle-class-traitors ultimately betray, the middle-class or the proletariat? It is difficult to say, which is why the proletariat is in a weak position any time it must rely on these middle-class-traitors for theoretical guidance. The proletariat must truly produce its own Marxes and Engelses--and numerously (one might even say ubiquitously)--before its prospects for self-emancipation can look bright.
Now then, how does the small capitalist view the other classes? On the one hand, the small capitalist looks at the big capitalists with some disdain, not so much with regards to their fundamental activities (because he and the big capitalists share that), but with regards to their excesses, which threaten to upset the social order and arouse the proletariat to action. The small capitalists find themselves threatened by this emerging proletarian upheaval, which entails strike action, increased labor costs, and such "horrible things" against the small businesses, which have the least amount of power as far as court-hassling, strike-breaking, state-violence, and class intimidation, whereas, of course, the big capitalists have a few more tools in their arsenal to deal with all of this and bear the damages. So the small capitalists will chide the big capitalists and their lawmakers for being to harsh. Furthermore, the small capitalist will also criticize the big capitalists with regards to their "unfair" competitive advantage, as the small capitalist no doubt perceives it. For instance, what hope does a small upstart retail company have against the likes of Wal-Mart? After all, every small capitalist ultimately dreams of becoming a big capitalist, free from any real work, allowing your managers and CEO's to take care of things and your capital to self-expand into infinite prosperity, but this cannot happen while the big capitalists remain competitively untouchable. Also, sure, imperialist war helps the likes of Halliburton, but does it help you, the small capitalist? No, not really, and yet you're paying for it (in taxes--even moreso than the proletariat--and possibly in your own children). Usually this produces a steady stream of liberal reformism from the middle-class, aimed at curing the "excesses" of the capitalist system while leaving its fundamental process intact. Small capitalists will not criticize leadership in general; instead they will call for "better leadership" in government (ideally, their leadership--what they often like to call "bringing in a fresh face from outside the establishment," where the establishment is the code-word for the capitalist class proper.)
(As a side note, in fact, a position of abstract, absolute pacifism when it comes to war or violence makes sense to the small capitalist. In no case does war of any kind benefit the small capitalist. As a class, they are neither numerous and powerful enough to take on the big capitalists in class warfare, nor are they numerous and powerful enough to defend against the proletariat in class warfare, nor do they gain a whole lot from imperialist war, when all is said and done after the cost in taxes, deaths, proletarian upheaval, etc.)
However, the small capitalist doesn't just find himself set against the capitalist class, but also against the proletariat. One of the small capitalist's worst fears is being thrown back into the ranks of that "disgraceful mass" which must humble itself before the masters of capital in order to survive. The small capitalist treasures the little slice of priviledge that he has acquired, and he views with hostility any proletariat who would deprive him of that priviledge or of the "free-exercise" thereof. On the free-exercise of capital, Marx comments in the manifesto,
"[The capitalist class] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade...By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying."
The small capitalist, like the big capitalist, views the proletariat's occasional interruptions of this "free" management of capital (strikes, collective bargaining, revolt, pressuring the government for regulations on business) with hostility, and the small capitalist views the proletariat's inherent (but usually unrecognized and hidden) power over production with fear and loathing. Indeed, though the proletariat is often not class-conscious enough to recognize its own power in this regard, the small capitalist, along with the big capitalist, is very class-conscious and very aware of the proletariat's threat against his own power and priviledge. (This awareness stems, in part, from the small capitalists involvement in the management of production, which the proletarian is denied, and also perhaps from the elevated level of education of the average small capitalist over the average proletariat.) Thus, however much the small capitalist may criticize the big capitalist, the fact that they share the same relationship with capital and with the proletariat ensures that, when push comes to shove with the proletariat, the small capitalist will nearly always side with the capitalists.
There have, indeed, been instances in history where push has come to shove with the proletariat, which brings us to the first topic of this post, the middle-class origins of right-wing authoritarianism, which henceforth I shall call "fascism." In all of the instances of fascism (Germany, Italy, Spain, Chile under Pinochet, Greece under Papadopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos), etc.) involved a combined middle-class and capitalist class response to proletarian unrest. It is unnecessary to recount in detail all of the various economic problems and proletarian unrest that beset these countries; their general character is a matter of common knowledge. The German middle and capitalist classes faced a potent KPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPD), the Bolshevik "menace" on the horizon, frequent strikes, massive unemployment, etc. Italy faced enormous waves of strikes and factory occupations after WWI. Spain faced a complex assortment of reformist socialists and extremely violent anarchists. Peronist Argentina Greece faced left-wing unrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_/_Post-war_development_and_turmoil).
Specifically, what we see in these instances are mass movements of the middle-class in order to subdue proletarian unrest (through repression, concessions, or both simultaneously) and in order to thus save the capitalist system (and thus their own priviledge). In general, the middle-class is forced to resign itself to acting as the mass movement for saving the capitalist system---but subordinate to the capitalist class, which still controls the major levers of power in society, and which provides the leadership and determines the nature and scope of the fascist period, although occasionally the middle-class, recognizing the extent to which the captialist class depends on its help, is able to influence policy in its favor.
This theory is borne out by historical facts. The middle-class was, by far, the most numerous supporter of the Nazis during their rise to power (and the most important supporter, after the capitalist class). Likewise in Italy. Likewise in Spain, notably among small landholders, such as the clergy. In Chile, a confluence of Chilean middle-class, Chilean capitalist class, and U.S. imperial capitalist class elements brought about support for the Pinochet regime. I am less familiar with the situation in Greece.
Among these, the middle-class mass movement was probably the strongest in Germany, and here we can see the greatest middle-class element in state policies. For instance, in addition to all of the measures aimed at subduing and/or tranquilizing the proletariat, the Nazis instituted greater government regulation of big business, which manifested itself in a cartel system, diminishing the importance of competition among businesses and allowing the small capitalists, as well as the capitalists, to prosper in an organized manner which would also not give rise to economic instability and proletarian unrest. We can also see in various Nazi movements an emphasis on isolationism and protectionism, which deprives the big capitalists of markets, but which works very much in the favor of small capital.
To summarize: these are cases of the capitalist class mobilizing the middle-class against the proletariat. The capitalist class stays in power, the middle-class gets a cut of the winnings, and the proletariat gets fucked.
Now I'm going to turn to "left-wing proletarian hijacking," which can be thought to be comprised of any proletarian movement in which a section of the movement comes to lead, dominate, and exploit the rest of the movement as foot-soldiers, ultimately in order to catapult this priviledged sector into power, first into power over the movement, and finally into power society-wide as the new ruling capitalist class. In other words, these movements are characterized by the fact that the entire proletariat within these movements does not rule. The dominating sector of the proletarian movement will often be initially comprised of middle-class individuals (although not necessarily), in which case the first stage of gaining leadership over the movement is more quickly achieved. This phenomenon may manifest itself in movements sporting a variety of labels: anarchism, autonomism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism. (Because Maoism doesn't deal primarily with the proletariat in the first place, but instead the peasantry, it doesn't really apply here.) No movement is immune simply because of its label or rhetoric. Some anarchist or communist movements may not suffer as much from this phenomenon--but here I'm addressing the ones that do. The attribute that all such movements share which concerns us here is the assertion of the primacy of a leadership over the proletarian movement (and over the proletariat in general), usually argued "for the good of the proletarian movement." This assertion can take place in rhetoric, in practice (such as in reformist campaigns that middle-class intellectuals organize), or both. When it comes to revolutionary success or even partial success, the historical record of these types of movements is well-known: they either get nowhere near revolution (most common), or they subjugate the proletariat after a successful revolution.
It is my opinion that middle-class revolutionaries who end up turning against the proletariat start out genuinely desiring to advance proletarian revolution. However, their class interests inevitably give rise to a warped conception of proletarian revolution. Their proletarian revolution is one in which certain sections of revolutionaries--usually the (non-proletarian, middle-class) "professional" revolutionaries--are to be the "essential" leaders of the revolution. They cannot escape their class interest. After all, why would they labor so persistently in order to advance a programme that would not benefit them economically, that would not enrich their lives--that might even harm them, even? And so they modify the programme to provide for a special privileged spot for the likes of them when all is said and done. You will also notice that Leninists, Trotskyists, and Stalinists all dwell on the "necessarily lengthy" phase of socialism, during which the all-important vanguard party (led by them) will "lead the way" in defending against the capitalist class and "instructing" the proletriat on the proper way of "building socialism," so that "one day" in the far future the society will be able to transition to stateless communism (which, of course, would be an inconvenient development for the privileged vanguard party--which is partly why they don't recommend that it happens very soon). You can already sense that these revolutionaries are not of the proletariat, but instead have a patronizing and even managerial view of the proletariat, which foreshadows their designs somewhat.
But now let's back up a bit and talk about what would cause a middle-class individual to become interested in proletarian revolution in the first place. It's possible that the middle-class revolutionary foresees the imminent collapse of the capitalist system and is jumping ship to cast lots with the proletariat before he gets strung up on a pole during the revolution. It is possible that the middle-class revolutionary is okay with proletarian rule as long as, in the process of revolution, he can help mobilize the proletariat in order to pursue some progressive achievement that the rest of the middle-class and capitalist class cannot/will not implement because of contradictory interests and/or plain incompetence. Examples might include women's rights, gay rights, atheism, consumerism, an end to wasteful, expensive, and destructive imperialist war, environmentalism, and the abolition of school. Personally, I probably fall into this category, although I have a sprinkling of the following category as well.
The final category I want to discuss is the possibility that the reason for the small capitalist's support of proletarian revolution is the middle-class revolutionary's desire to be catapulted into the ruling class of society. Being in the middle-class gives the small capitalist a keen awareness, a "taste," if you will, of what being in the ruling class is like. And it seems achievable, with enough hard work, so the small capitalist is motivated to strive for becoming a part of the ruling class. Normally this desire would manifest itself as the usual dream of growing his small business and becoming a big capitalist himself. But under certain circumstances this appears to the small capitalist to be extremely difficult or well-nigh impossible, especially in periods of increasing economic stratification, and political corruption, monopoly, and cronyism among the ruling class. Under these circumstances, the middle-class revolutionary sees greater chances of being catapulted into the ruling class through a mobilization of the proletariat. After all, although the proletariat may not be class-conscious and aware of its own power, the middle-class individual is very class-conscious, and with this consciousness comes an awareness that the proletariat is potentially devastatingly powerful, if united and mobilized. Additionally, history is rife with examples of middle-class leaderships riding proletarian cannon-fodder to power (English Civil War, French Revolution, heck, any bourgeois revolution). "If only this power could be harnessed...." the small capitalist thinks to himself.
Of course, the small capitalist does not explicitly think in terms of mobilizing the proletariat to catapult himself and his vanguard party into the seat of power. The middle-class revolutionary imagines that he will be catapulted into the ruling class as a proletarian along with all other proletarians. But his class background cannot help but predispose him to grasping for a more privileged, managerial position when the opportunity to do so presents itself.
And an underdeveloped, timid, unsure proletariat gives such individuals plenty of opportunities to seize the reins of power. For instance, the proletariat as existed in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution was scarcely 20% of the population. It was mostly illiterate, newly arrived from the countryside and largely unskilled, and fraught with superstition and ethnic, religious, and geographic divisions (at a time when geographical separation was a huge impediment to communication and understanding between proletarians of different regions or countries.) Such a proletariat is bound to be hesitant about taking power, unsure of how to wield that power, and thus very likely to appeal to leaders who have an idea of how things are to be managed, and these leaders with theoretical knowledge about the management of society are going to be found predominantly in the middle class for the reasons just described. In this way an underdeveloped proletariat makes it relatively easy for an aspiring leader to assume authority over the proletariat. Likewise, in an underdeveloped society such as Russia at the time, many proletarians will be happy to simply have a functioning electrical grid (or a regime promising "Peace, land, and bread"). When you are concerned with such matters of daily survival, it is difficult to formulate ideas for radically altering the functioning of society. Allowing someone else to take care of it all, even if they are oppressive, sounds a lot easier.
(Needless to say, as the proletariat develops and matures, it will be less and less likely to look for these leaders, these vanguard parties, these "Moses" figures to lead them out of bondage. And, indeed, we see that in the advanced capitalist countries, where workers have almost entirely turned deaf ears on the middle-class radical intellectuals and their vanguards promising heaven on earth if only the workers will "trust them." More and more the proletariat trusts only itself and looks at the middle-class and capitalist ideologues with cynicism and scorn. What will real proletarian self-emancipation look like when it arrives? Like nothing ever before seen, in short. It will look nothing like the revolutions in Russia or China, for one. We will see intelligent, confident proletarians banding together, not looking for leaders, but figuring things out together as equals and unhesitatingly executing their revolutionary designs by the tens of millions, upon their own initiative and with a feeling of determination, mercilessness, and electric glee as they sense the enormous possibilities of the new world they are creating.)
Anyways, let's take another look at the Bolshevik revolution, working from this framework. We see a situation where elements of the middle-class mobilize and lead the proletariat, which forms the mass movement or the "base" of support for the revolutionary transformation. This revolutionary transformation manifests itself as a small sector of the middle-class transforming itself into the ruling capitalist class proper, which can only be finalized with the seizure of the means of production from the workers, which is made tricky by the fact that this new ruling capitalist class owed its ascendancy to those very same workers. The notion of proletarian rule is still very much in the air. The proletariat is confident from its recent apparent victory. Thus, the new ruling capitalist class must resort to authoritarian measures in order to solidify its power. It may rely in part on presenting the notion of various counter-revolutionary threats to the proletariat, the defeat of which necessitate sacrifices from the proletariat. The proletariat, still somewhat weak, divided, and unsure of its own power to crush counter-revolutionaries, assents. The new ruling capitalist class is aided in this endeavor by real counter-revolutionary threats which emerge from the old ruling class, which is hostile to any power wishing to supplant it, and foreign ruling classes, which are hostile to any regime believed to be of an anti-capitalist character or of a type that threatens their imperialist spheres. The Bolsheviks were the first of its kind, so the foreign ruling classes were understandably freaked out and chose to intervene with military forces. The foreign ruling classes didn't realize that the Bolsheviks were proletarian in name only. The foreign intervention might have also had something to do with bringing back a regime (the Provisional Government) with which existing foreign (imperialist) investments would be safe. This is always a primary concern of foreign ruling classes when a country undergoes dramatic upheaval.
Over time the "socialist" (in reality State-monopoly capitalist) society transforms itself into a society with the usual class divisions. There are the capitalists--the top government bureaucrats and technocrats who do most of the mangement of capital. There are new small capitalists--the lower level party bureaucrats, professionals, managers, etc. And then the proletariat. And then eventually the State-monopoly capitalist structure becomes unsuited to the developing capitalist economy, which demands increasing competition and flexibility of capital for its proper functioning, and the socialist ruse is shed altogether. The top party bureaucrats emerge as capitalists of new privatized industries. The lower level bureaucrats enter into managerial jobs in this new "private" enterprises. And the proletariat continues on, as usual.
So to recap, with fascism we have the capitalist class leading a middle-class mass movement for the protection of capitalism against the proletariat. But with left-wing proletarian-hijacking, we have a sector of the middle-class leading a proletarian mass movement for the overthrow of the existing capitalist class and the institution of a new one. With this left-wing authoritarianism (we can't really call it "fascism," it needs a new word...), though, the new capitalist class relies on the proletariat for its mass movement. Therefore, the proletariat is still able to exert some pull on policy (just as the middle-class was able to exert some pull on policy under fascism), and the new capitalist class must expend some efforts placating the proletariat to which it owes its ascendancy. Consequently, the left-wing authoritarian society is inevitably more progressive than the right-wing authoritarian society. We get things like equal rights for women, atheism, full access to birth control and abortions, pro-labor reforms, free medicine, healthcare, secular education, and housing, and such other things that benefit the proletariat. These reforms by no means make up for being shunted back down into the position of an oppressed class, but they are better than fascism. At least at first. Eventually, the new society will give rise to a new middle-class, made up of lower-level party members and bureaucrats, and these people will form a mass movement--which now manifests itself as the "Communist" Party itself (the irony!)--with the leadership duties of the party and its middle-class mass movement being taken up by the capitalist class, which manifests itself as the top party bureaucrats.
This is all perpetuated, of course, for the preservation of capitalism because, ironically, the new capitalist class is caught in a position of having to promote concepts of proletarian rule in order to justify the ruling class's own "communist" label. So in this way they constantly put their own rule in danger and create the need for fascism (although over time this ruling class will twist the ideas of proletarian rule and communism so that these concepts are no longer threatening to this "communist" capitalist class). And so we have fascism again by a different route, albeit formed from a slightly more progressive legacy. And then eventually, when capitalism is safe again and fascism, with its cumbersome measures of naked coercion, is no longer needed, the fascist regime will be shed, and the society will emerge as a liberal capitalist "democracy." But, despite the fact that it evolves into fascism anyways, the immediate stage before that is something quite different, where a sector of the middle class leads a mass movement of the proletariat in the overthrow of an existing capitalist class and the institution of a new one formed by the former middle-class revolutionary elements. And in this different manifestation we find a final reason for why middle-class individuals become radical revolutionaries, contrary to their apparent class interests.
So if you are a small capitalist, and your society is entering a stage of economic upheaval, with lots of proletarian unrest, what do you do? It depends. If the proletariat is well-developed and mature, it would probably be a good idea to band together with the capitalist class in the way of fascism, with you, the small capitalist, joining a mass movement like the Nazis, that will terrorize, minimally placate, and subdue the proletariat. However, if the proletariat is not well-developed, immature, and easily duped, and if you are feeling particularly audacious, you might have the opportunity to appeal to the proletariat during its economic unrest, gain their support, mobilize them under your movement, and lead them to the overthrow of the old capitalist class, allowing you to assume a position in the new ruling capitalist class--an even better outcome than you would have obtained with fascism. The risk is higher, the difficulties larger, but the payoff much bigger. So far in history, it has only been managed a few times. On the other hand, there have been numerous successful fascist regimes. In the end, both strategies, right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing proletarian-hijacking, are middle-class ideologies, with the middle-class playing different roles in each. Most interestingly, we find that left-wing proletarian-hijacking is a revolutionary, yet pro-capitalist, middle-class ideology.
The moral of the story? The middle class can never be a reliable part of a movement for proletarian emancipation. That doesn't mean proletarians necessarily need to "shun" middle-class intellectuals. Proletarians just need to make sure that they don't depend on middle-class organizational or intellectual leadership. Proletarians need to make sure that they approach middle-class intellectuals from a position of strength, as equals, with their own separate "proletarian-only" organizations, and that they only accept the suggestions from the middle-class that makes sense for proletarian self-emancipation, as the proletarians conceive it, and not hesitate to discard the middle-class suggestions and help that don't make sense for proletarian self-emancipation. Proletarians need to learn, and feel in their gut, that middle-class people are not their "social betters." Proletarians need to feel pride about their own class and confidence in their own ability to rule society themselves.