radical inclinations

[cullinane]

The proletariat is not inherently revolutionary. The working class, or sections of it, becomes revolutionary
as a result of the influence of a radical intelligentsia on it. The working never becomes spontaneously revolutionary.
Even in the case of Russia it was the influence and leadership provided by the Bolshevik and other radical circles of intelligentsia that led to much of the political
development within the working class.

If the working class was spontaneonously revolutionary because of its objective character social revolution would have occurred along time ago. The number of times the working class have challenged the system are few when set against the longevity of capitalism. This is because its revolutionary development is a function of the existence and character of the radical intelligentsia
prevailing during any given period.

Consequently it would seem that Lenin's vanguardist elitism was a necessary tool. However this is not to say that a Bolshevik party seizes power in the
interests of the working class arbitrarily. In general a party such as the Bolsheviks can only seize power under a restricted set of circumstances. This entails a conjuncture in which the working class are in a high state of rebellious ferment. The communist vanguard party must exploit this in the interests of the working class.

The political action of the working class cannot be separated out from the influence of the intelligentsia on it. The character of the inseparable combination of its own substantial conduct and the character of the
influence of the intelligentsia on it.

[DaNatural]

great post culli, u seem to drop some real interesting shit most times. however i disagree when u say the proletariat is not on its own a revolutionary force. I think it is, when it is forced to the brink of extinction like it was in russia. in the initial stages of hte revolution, it was not invoked by the bolsheviks atleast to my knowledge. as the revolt went on definantly but , initially it was brought about thru the oppressive actions of the czar. but i think i agree overal, because only when faced with near extinction did they revolt and that is pathetic. we need to educate the masses because honestly they seem to brainwashed and ignorant. all they want is better conditions they dont realize how exploited they are. peace comrade.

[Freiheit]

To be revolutionary you must have a certain knowledge. You must know that you have a chance, you must know what you want, but the most important thing: YOU MUST KNOW THAT THE OLD CONDITION SUCKS!
To know that you need a certain level of education, you need an aim and SOMEONE MUST TELL IT TO YOU! you need a leader and teacher, you need a certain level of organisation.
But there is one big problem: THE HIGHER CLASS TRYS TO KEEP THE WORKING CLASS DUMM! They controll everthing they control what you learn in school, they controll commercials in tv, radion etc. They use everthing to keep you dumm.

[cullinane]

Hello DaNatural,
On working class consciousness, Leon Trotsky observed (I'm not a trotskyist by the way) "even the proletarian psychology includes in itself a terrible inertia of conservatism". Indeed this holds true today, due to the stagnant prescene of Social Democracy and Trade Unions, who don't challenge the wage labour system, just merely look for 'better conditions, higher wages' etc..This in itself, holds back working class consciousness from the realisation that its objective interests are actually the aboilition of wage labour, not particularly just better conditions in which to sell their labour as a commodity. The workers under present condition retain a 'trade unionist' consciousness.
In the February Revolution 1917, the workers did indeed topple the Romanov dynasty and established soviets. Effective power in Petrograd was in the hands of the workers, but they were reluctant to use it, in fact they didn't really know what to do, but hand it over to the middle class leaders of the Duma. The revolution of 1917 had no intentions of going beyond bourgeois democratic limits. It continued the war effort. It needed to be continued beyond this, something the workers consciousness on their own hadn't really developed. It would have been a repeat quite possibly of the Revolution of 1905. Regards,

[vox]

cullinane,

Here's the question, though:

Does there have to be a split between the intelligentsia and the working class? Is it necessary for there to be a vanguard elite?

While there's no doubt a need for spreading the message, what I doubt is the need for a separate body, a vanguard, that would lead the proletariat.

vox

[DaNatural]

good question vox, and great quote by trotsky cullinane. i agree the workers tend to be conservative. vox to answer your question i think the proletariat does need a leading class,cus they themselves are not capable of doing it alone. its two fold, the thinkers need the workers, and the workers need the thinkers. Lenin mentioned this, if i can find the quote i will post it. peace

[Freiheit]

every social sytem on this earth is a hierachy (every animal, human, even plants). the human must learn a lot more, before he can build a system with political, social, economic equality (anarchy).
Communism has a hierarchic structure and is more possible, may not yet, but the time of communism will arrive.

[vox]

DaNatural,

I don't mean to say that there's no need at all for "intellectual workers," but I find it a bit presumptuous and elitist to assume that workers need to be lead. I, after all, am a worker, and I was able to find my own way to Marx. In the course of that, I was aided by the thinkers of the past, to be sure, and I'm very glad that I was able to avail myself of them (through the public library, no less, a great example of socialist thinking for the development of all people).

I'm not opposed to supplying theory to people at all. I am, however, opposed to any group that presumes to speak for me without listening to me, that presumes to speak for the working class while disdaining the working class. What I'm for is a total and complete breakdown of cultural barriers that are imposed by class and class alone, and I think that this is one of them. Snobbery takes many forms, and it can even be seen in the working class avoiding opera as something to "upscale" for them.

vox

[Guest1]

Sounding a bit like Orwell there, DaNatural. If you've read 1984, the "proles", as he calls them, don't think, they never revolt. They're given just enough to keep them from doing that, because they don't see far enough to understand the trick.

But I don't believe that. The workers can think freely and come to these revelations by themselves. The leaders shouldn't represent or lead the workers, they should be the workers. Only then can we be sure that the revolution doesn't turn sour. Never lose sight of who the revolt was for in the first place, the proletariat. Only then can you ensure that disasters like those in countries where the intentions were good at first, but eventually the revolution became more concerned with the preservation of the party than the common good of the people don't happen. Let the people lead. Democracy after the revolution (if the society is educated enough), and this part is my own theory, would further that aim. If the people want socialism, let them decide how to go about implementing it. If not, the revolution is mis-timed. The goal is to educate before revolution, have grass-roots support. Provided you've done that right, democracy would ensure a revolution that doesn't eliminate economic classes in favor of political classes. As long as great inequality exists, the revolution fails.

I guess I went off on a tangent...

(Edited by Che y Marijuana at 4:56 am on Nov. 20, 2001)

[DaNatural]

good post che, i agree with what u and vox have said. I dont think the intellects should run the show, but like i said before both must be invovled. Once one or the other gets cut out thats when chaos insues. peace

[cullinane]

>Does there have to be a split between the >intelligentsia and the working class? Is it necessary >for there to be a vanguard elite?

A split between the intelligentsia and the working class would be disasterous. What I propose, and in this i'm influenced by Gramsci, is the organic development of Marxist theorections from within the working class. A vanguard elite "above" the working class cannot work, its merely a form of Blanquism and not strictly Marxism/Leninism.

The vanguard will exist within the working class, not as something transcending it. Inevitably from at the beginning, it will take the form of a outside vanguard, a vanguard who are entirely impotent, but who will have to create some class conscious workers who will working as an organic agent from within. From without is not something I am entirely in favour of either.
Regards

[vox]

Cullinane,

Sounds like we pretty much agree on this one.

vox

[DaNatural]

yea great post cullinane i agree comrade, sounds like the right idea.

[gogo gomez]

Quote: from Freiheit on 8:26 am on Nov. 18, 2001
To be revolutionary you must have a certain knowledge. You must know that you have a chance, you must know what you want, but the most important thing: YOU MUST KNOW THAT THE OLD CONDITION SUCKS!
To know that you need a certain level of education, you need an aim and SOMEONE MUST TELL IT TO YOU! you need a leader and teacher, you need a certain level of organisation.
But there is one big problem: THE HIGHER CLASS TRYS TO KEEP THE WORKING CLASS DUMM! They controll everthing they control what you learn in school, they controll commercials in tv, radion etc. They use everthing to keep you dumm.


wow, i actually understood that. im not ignorant but i know enough to know that: you could tell the world what you know and they still wont hear you, feel you, nada. and according to the u.s. dept of labor we went into a technological revolution years ago. not important? i beg to differ.

[Freiheit]

so you are against any communist party, and parties in general?
a party is a seperation from the inteligensia, right?

i think at least at the begin a party is needed, but the interligensia shouldnt have any privileges, thats sure.

[gogo gomez]

Quote: from cullinane on 3:13 pm on Nov. 17, 2001

This entails a conjuncture in which the working class are in a high state of rebellious ferment. The communist vanguard party must exploit this in the interests of the working class.

The political action of the working class cannot be separated out from the influence of the intelligentsia on it. The character of the inseparable combination of its own substantial conduct and the character of the
influence of the intelligentsia on it.



i dont understand all these intelligent words, im sorry but it sounds like your implying that "revolution?" could never work without the involvement of the working class? then it will never work. i dont agree with all of this. i thought everything was quite simple, obviously by the sound of it, it's been worded impossible.

i cant say what im against becomes im not completely sure of what i would be going against but i know what i am for and i certainly believe in an "answer" .

[gogo gomez]

Quote: from Freiheit on 12:15 am on Nov. 27, 2001
i think at least at the begin a party is needed, but the interligensia shouldnt have any privileges, thats sure.


that depends? it doesnt necessarily have to mean money, power, luxury's, pls these are the way of fools, no? now resources? hmm resources are whats needed and so are jobs. i believe people should never be subjected or asked to give these things up unless something within themselves has devoted them to do so. im sure im not understanding, so i apologize i realize i risk sounding the fool myself.