Marx and the Petty-Bourgeoisie

[Rawthentic]

I think today, there is a problem in that many self-described communists insist on allying with the petty-bourgeoisie, when Marx and Engels always advocated against it and understood that the petty-bourgeoisie was one reactionary class that joined the proletarian movement so long as it could further its own position. Lets discuss.

Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm)
"We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, then there is nothing left for us,..."

"So far as we are concerned, after our whole past only one way is open to us. For nearly 40 years we have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; hence, we can hardly go along with people who want to strike this class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International, we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself."--emphasis added

I think that this is self-explanatory.

Karl Marx in his Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League: " While the democratic petty bourgeois is everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation...that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social democratic phrases prevail while...the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would to their complete disadvantage of the proletariat"

More, "If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view...In a worker's party they are an adulterating element."

The message here is that, basically, compromise with the petty-bourgeoisie means a loss for the proletariat.

This gets me into Marx's important contribution on historical materialism: "Being determines conscience."

This is in contrast to those self-described communists that put political and ideological line above class background or social being, the false idea and idealist nonsense that someone, say, from a petty-bourgeois background could have a "proletarian line", even they are not proletarian themselves.

Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)
"The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible."

"The relationship of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position."

Can I make this more obvious?

Engels:
"This proposition [that the petty-bourgeoisie is one reactionary mass] is true only in certain exceptional instances, for example, in the case of a revolution by the proletariat,...or in a country in which not only has the bourgeoisie constructed state and society after its own image but the democratic petty-bourgeoisie...has already carried that reconstruction to its logical conclusion."-- emphasis added

So we need to think here about these things, these are very important quotes because Marx and Engels' core program was of proletarian self-emancipation, not class collaboration at any point. Compromising with the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois appendages is a reactionary and antithetical to the proletarian cause.

[la-troy]

Hmm this may sound weird but it is my belief that an alliance with the petty bourgeois
may be come necessary or rather tolerable. In a society in which a proletarian revolution may not be eminent the need to improve the state of the working class takes precedence over adherence to theory and Marxist principle. Yes they are reactionary for the most part, they do not necessarily have the working class interest at heart but they can provide gains for the working class. The bourgeois and the state are strong, I don't think anyone denies this, so to me the working class allowing itself to be used by the petty bourgeois in order to fight the major bourgeois is not that bad.

I think in our dealings with the petty bourgeois we should employ Marx suggestion to the ( can't remember if it was the French or the Germans, or either) that we should ask them for more than they are willing to give. They will try to please the working class in the early part so we should use this to our advantage. Yet I have a problem with this( the class consciousness gained may be lost due to betterment in their situation). when the petty bourgeois have reached the end of their usefulness, when the revolution is more feasible, when they have proven their reactionary roots and when the working class want it the bourgeois on a whole, and the bourgeois state will be smashed and replace with something else.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But the question is: who counts as petty-bourgeois nowadays?



Consider me:

1) I once worked (recently) for strictly wages.
2) I now am a salaried worker/"worker."
3) I invest in the means of production and other areas of the economy through mutual funds (though it's MUCH less than $10K).
4) I am NOT a supervisor/manager and never was (in spite of my organizational skills) because of my relatively "immature" experience in the workforce.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am going to be employed at Tim Hortons for the upcoming summer and my mother is opening a business across the street from me. Once I am out of my job, will I immediately become petty-bourgeois?

[Rawthentic]

Hammer, I would consider you working class.

And the petty-bourgeoisie are not just small shopkeepers, but "middlemen" as well, such as managers and "specialists."

So, I would say yeah Dali.

But I mean, stick to the message on the post.

[Marxmade]

I think an alliance could have benefits, though I am completely against it. The big thing to think about here is, why would the petty bourgoisie ally itself with the proletariat. I guess it depends on the country you are in; in the US, it is not likely, in my estimation, since the petty bourgoisie is completely content with its situation. There is no reason for them to fight for what they do not need. The risk is too great, the reward, too menial. And i don't think the petty bourgoisie, especially here in the US, has the moral fiber to fight for anyone but themselves.
Basically, if they allied with us, and the revolution suceeded, their place in life would be lower than before; a risk their greed will not allow them to take.

[More Fire for the People]

I think it may be important for aligning with the petty-bourgeoisie in some particular struggle of the working class when it is to the advantage of the working class and breaking with the petty-bourgeoisie when it is not advantageous to the working class.

Remember, the defining characteristic of the proletariat is that in its struggle it pursues universality. When it negates racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. it also negates it for other classes, primarily the middle class. For instance, it was the English working class that opposed British intervention in the American Civil War which gave the North an upper hand in abolishing slavery. As a consequence of this, The Abolitionists movement gave women one of the widest and most circulating formal and informal organizations for their own emancipation. Likewise, in England the protests against British intervention served a training ground for the struggle of right to vote for male workers. And if you think I'm blowing out of my ass think about what Marx doing at this time: being at the theoretical and practical forefront of all of these movements.

[angus_mor]

I guess it depends on the country you are in; in the US, it is not likely, in my estimation, since the petty bourgoisie is completely content with its situation.

While it is true that much of the petty-bourgeoisie is content with its situation in the United States, in most cases this is only because of the vigor of Nationalism and the American Wet Dream. However, many petty-bourgeois are frustrated and overwhelmed by the WAL*MART effect (as I call it) and the grande-bourgeois superstructure; these realities of the modern global economy have nullified and displaced the relative importance and "prestige" the petty-bourgeois once bore on its chest.


I think an alliance could have benefits, though I am completely against it. The big thing to think about here is, why would the petty bourgoisie ally itself with the proletariat.

Of course, the petty-bourgeois, in their current state, are not to be trusted under any circumstances. But the growing situation is realizing the disappearance of the petty-bourgeoisie, and its destruction is indicative of the decadence which yields revolution. Capital will continue to be held by fewer hands, and accumulated further by the grande bourgeoisie, and it will certainly displace the petty-bourgeoisie, which means the continued growth of the proletariat from the ranks of separate classes.

[black magick hustla]

The petty bourgeois as a class is extremely reactionary, it was one of the backbones of fascism.

however petty bourgeois individuals can be revolutionary.

engels wasnt really a proletarian, he was very rich, even after selling his stock, because, being a big stockholder of a huge multinatioinal company, selling his stocks meant he would still live very comfortable without working at all-

he probably was better off than much of the petty bourgeois.

class is a huge determiner of the consciousness of individuals, but it is not absolute- there are numerous stimuli that mold each individual, we are complex organisms. saying that class is absolute is really unmaterialistic.

[Morpheus]

Well Marx was part of the petty bourgeoisie and Engels was an outright member of the capitalist class, so this seems like a contradictory position. Workers of the World, Marx doesn't want you to ally with him!

[JC1]

Well Marx was part of the petty bourgeoisie and Engels was an outright member of the capitalist class, so this seems like a contradictory position.

1) Both Marx and Engels divorced themselves from there class of origin. Albeit, Engels still lived quite comfortably.

2) In the pre-imperialist stage of capitalism, the petit-bourgoise was still capable of signifigant revoloutionaryu activity. This was cuz the middle class still had indpendence from capital in that small buissness didnt rely on big capital for loans, they didnt rely on bourgouise university for advancement, and the proccess inwicth the small shopkeepers of that era became the balifs and managers of todays petit-bourgoise had not been completed.

3) The material conditions of that epoch of capitalism required there be petit-bourgoise involvement in the workers movement. The Working Class even in the first world didnt have the faculty's it has today (e.g. universal literacy), it required the intelegensia to create revoolutionary ideas and inseminate them in the workers movement. The petit-bourgoise was nessecary to get the ball rolliong, but its not nessecary anymore.

To sum up, that was then, this is now.

[Rawthentic]

I thank all the comrades for the responses, this is the type of discussion I was hoping for.

JC1, I agree with your analysis. The United States today is a country where bourgeois democracy has reached its limits, only proletarian democracy, a working peoples republic, can make the necessary changes in society.

The petty-bourgeois has ceased to be an ally as a class, but I agree that certain individuals' consciousness can be molded otherwise, and then break with their class backgrounds. This is not an excuse for allying with them, albeit.

Karl Marx was proletarian in his time as being a communist. Engels attempted to break, but was not as successful as Marx was, hence approving JC1's analysis.

Hopscotch, I also like what you are saying, but keep in mind that Marx was working class, he broke with his former background. They derided those who attempted to "lead" the proletariat but didnt break from their class backgrounds, and for those who refused to or couldnt, gave them the only role that they saw for such pety-bourgeois: intellectual slaves of the proletariat and nothing more.

Y'all see, what is central to Marx and Engels' philoshophy and theories, as much as class, is proletarian self-emancipation, and I believe that many people and groups have lost touch with this.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

"If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view...In a worker's party they are an adulterating element."

case fucking closed. petty bourgeois people who adopt a proletarian point of view like Engels for example, are nothing but beneficial. Some of us, like me, want to win this revolution, especially in a society where there are folks like Hammer, or there are folks who are technically working class in that they work as a worker for a company, but yet because they're white collar, they make a good amount of money (like my moms), and then their people who own small shops and probably make very little at all yet since they control the means of production are petty bourgeois (like my dad used to be but not anymore). In a society like this, I can see no other way of winning revolution other than by trying to win over as many people as we can attract, because as Mao said, weapons aren't thoroughly descisive, the amount of people who fight the war, especially revolutionary war, are descisive.

[luxemburg89]

Well Marx was part of the petty bourgeoisie and Engels was an outright member of the capitalist class, so this seems like a contradictory position. Workers of the World, Marx doesn't want you to ally with him!


Is this not becoming a case of judging people by the class they came from not the class they support? In other words, if a member of the Upper Class disowns his family, removes his title, and declares his support for proletarian revolution does he not become a member of the revolutionary class? That is, by casting off his class he becomes part of the revolutionary class, or does he, by a circumstance of birth, remain part of that reactionary class? If that were to be the case, what class would Lenin be? He was born middle-class yet detested the middle-classes and furthered proletarian revolution, what class would he be?

[black magick hustla]

thw pwrry bourgeosie cant have a proletarian line, in the same way a white cant have a black line, nor a prole can have a slave line-

they can however, have a communist line.

engels didnt break with his class, that is bullshit. if i had millions of dollars in my bank accoiunt and didnt really work, i wouldnt have broken with my class line, because atleast objectively, revolution would be against my interests.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

so perhaps the most important marxist theoretician in history didn't have a "proletarian line" what about Marx? He lived off of Engels when he wrote his shit. Rationality then must play a role in consciousness. Consciousness is being but also thinking.

[Rawthentic]

And thinking is a result of the conditions you are put under, it doesnt sprout out of nowhere.

While I agree that we should unite forces, it must be temporary, strictly watched over by the proletarian leadership, and with a strong ability to not compromise with them.

But, way to address the original post. And Henry, come on, petty-bourgeois, cannot adopt a proletarian point of view.

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting what I am trying to say in my last sentence?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 12:38 am
And thinking is a result of the conditions you are put under, it doesnt sprout out of nowhere.

While I agree that we should unite forces, it must be temporary, strictly watched over by the proletarian leadership, and with a strong ability to not compromise with them.

But, way to address the original post. And Henry, come on, petty-bourgeois, cannot adopt a proletarian point of view.

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting what I am trying to say in my last sentence?
No I think Line is decisive. Line comes down to a variety of circumstances, but the idea that Engels didn't hold the proletarian line is just upsurd. That's why thinking is part of consciousness and thinking comes from being but also from a variety of other circumstances and material conditions that you are under. That is the only logical explanation

As for the second part, I agree to an extent, no one is saying we compromise with the petty bourgeois, but I do think that uniting can only aid the revolution in that it'll be more people fighting for us

And why can't the PB adopt a proletarian point of view? Marx himself wasn't proletariat when he wrote his most marxist shit.

[Rawthentic]

Marx himself wasn't proletariat when he wrote his most marxist shit.
Yes he was. He broke with his class background as he started to adopt his communist theories.


but the idea that Engels didn't hold the proletarian line is just upsurd.
He was a communist but did not hold a "proletarian line", because he was not proletarian. But he was an intellectual, he understood the "line of march" of the proletarian movement, practical and theoretical. He was on the theoretical side, unlike Marx who was on both.

[luxemburg89]

He was a communist but did not hold a "proletarian line", because he was not proletarian. But he was an intellectual, he understood the "line of march" of the proletarian movement, practical and theoretical. He was on the theoretical side, unlike Marx who was on both.

I would agree with that. I think that's a realy good way of looking at it, particularly with what Marmot said. That not being a proletarian you cannot see things from the proletarian point of view but you can, however, all share in the communistic view. I think that pretty much answers my question, that by actively supporting proletarian revolution one, no matter class background, can become part of the revolutionary class' struggle as a result of your revolutionary beliefs. That does also, of course, involve actively denouncing your previous background as being evocative of a bad system. It would be wrong for someone to lead an aristocratic life whilst claiming to support proletarian revolution.

[Rawthentic]

That does also, of course, involve actively denouncing your previous background as being evocative of a bad system. It would be wrong for someone to lead an aristocratic life whilst claiming to support proletarian revolution.
Bingo Luxembourg. While denouncing it, you must be actively willing and attempting to break with it.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 am
thw pwrry bourgeosie cant have a proletarian line, in the same way a white cant have a black line, nor a prole can have a slave line-

they can however, have a communist line.

Yeah, thats the way I understand it too. It's absurd to say the Communism is inherent in the proletariat-- what is it apart of our DNA? True the members of working-class and the poor share alot of resources with eachother-- hand me down clothes, hand me down cars, and sometimes even in a poor or working-class household you see multiple generations living together to pay rent. The poor and working-class can fix things themselves, do chores, and with enough knowlege-- even run society itself. Communism isn't inherent, but its a concept we can adapt to, and its the theory which benefits the working-class the most, because it seeks to get rid of classes, so we will never have to be on the bottom of the totem pole and exploited ever again.

Alot of people make the mistake that when one becomes class-conscious, they automatically understand Communism. No, they understand their class position, their relation to the other classes, their interests (work very few hours, higher wages to pay all the bills, job security, knowlege on how stuff works, and be able to have more fun during time off work), and the antagonistic nature with the other classes over maintaining and gaining power.

Can a member of the working-class be Communist-Conscious, yes they certainly can! True, the first Communists who figured out that Communism would be the benefit of the proletariat, and the only way to it was revolution were bourgeois intellegentsia, but none of them could understand thoroughly what the Proletariat goes through on a daily basis and how it interacts within itself-- they couldn't understand a Proletarian Class Consciousness or outlook.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

he understood the "line of march" of the proletarian movement, practical and theoretical. He was on the theoretical side, unlike Marx who was on both.

Marx lived off of Engels dude. He didn't work when he wrote his pieces, Engels supported him. That's just the way it works. Capitalism creates a contradiction between mental and manual labor, and we can only break that down by uniting with the intelligestia, rather than casting them away. Eventually by uniting with other class forces, they will become proletarian. And yeah social being does determine consciousness, but this consciousness can then be grasped by people of other class backgrounds (like Engels). This is both why you're never going to get anywhere near a revolution without proletarian base & class leadership in the rev, but its also why people like Engels held "proletarian lines" because maybe they're not being exploited but they thoroughly understand the "line of the march" and while they don't feel it daily, they see it, they know it, and thus know why its gotta go as well as any. Whether you recognize it or not, the Mao quote in your sig is very good at grasping the unity concept i think is important.

Kamblamo, you make a really good point. The proletariat is the most socialized class we make the shoes in sweatshops, we ship it, we sell it, (our youth then study it?). That's why they have to be the base class of socialism.

At the same time, the capitalist system attempts to keep us as uneducated as possible and brainwashed as possible. Members of the petty bourgeois, while they are kept uneducated to an extent, they are much better educated, at the same time, they aren't a socialized class, a class which knows how to produce everything in your eyesite, but they have knowledge, and through breaking down the contradiction through unity, they'll become proletarait.

[Rawthentic]

The "uneducation" is why the principal task of communists is to educate our class brothers and sisters to lead the movement that belongs to them, and in revolutionary society to run the society that they create.

As opposed to funneling the effort into one person. Besides that, I don't see anything wrong with your analysis, Henry.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 13, 2007 10:13 pm
The "uneducation" is why the principal task of communists is to educate our class brothers and sisters to lead the movement that belongs to them, and in revolutionary society to run the society that they create.

As opposed to funneling the effort into one person. Besides that, I don't see anything wrong with your analysis, Henry.
its not about funneling effort into one person, its about leaders like the leader of the party I'm active with drawing people to the movement. Bob Avakian's works are very educational I think. In his new talks there's one talk on Why we're in the situation we're in today and it basically goes all the way back to Columbus and moves forward from there talking about how imperialism has developed and shit (and how we can get out of it). There are things that we don't know though, that leaders don't know, like surgery and very tough shit like that. That's all part of the mental manual contradiction. Just because you're a communist doesn't mean you've even broken that contradiction. Only socialism can and only uniting with the middle strata like Mao did, giving doctors roles in manual labor, sending intellectuals to the countryside to teach people and to work, thus educating the masses and at the same time becoming working class. Workers and peasants then would eagerly fill up universities and earn degrees in medicine, teaching and all kinds of shit. That's the approach we need to take I think, but not just after revolution but during it.

[Rawthentic]

I agree with what you say, the thing I might add is that intellectuals dont become working class after a revolution, neither do managers or specialists.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
Eventually by uniting with other class forces, they will become proletarian. And yeah social being does determine consciousness, but this consciousness can then be grasped by people of other class backgrounds (like Engels).

Um no, you can't understand a point of view unless you are the viewer. It's like looking at the DVD case of a Thriller Movie. You know its a thriller, you know whos it in, you get kind of an idea of what its about by reading the case, but you haven't seen it. When an upper-class person is around alot of working-class people alot, sure they may adapt mannerisms, but they still may maintain that they must be the leader of this pack-- if they are aware of it or not. They shouldn't lead any movement, they should try to avoid the task, unless they are absolutely wanted at that position.

Someone mentioned the intelligentsia. I think they should be reguarded with suspicion, and should only be reguarded as informatives, because in the past they have been unwilling to share information and give up their prestige.

[Rawthentic]

Thats what I've been tryin' to get across comrade.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

comrade Jose,

no of course not, bourgeois managers, specialists, and intelligestia don't become working class, but that's a contradiction that needs to be broken down. They NEED to become working class. How do we do that? Not by banishing them form our movement but by making sure that the managers now are elected, that they work alongside the workers as well as do the paper work, that they are forced to take the imput of the workers, in otherwords, they serve only the purpose of serving the people. same has to go with all others I think, and this happens in steps.

Kablamo,

I'm tired and I'm not sure that's correct. I'll think about that analogy

[syndicat]

the phrase "petit bourgeoisie" means small business. These are people who businesses, and have a few employees, but have to manage their employees themselves. the plutocracy -- the haute bourgeoisie -- have layers of managers between themselves and workers.

with the emergence of the big corporation at the end of the 19th century and the growth of the state, capitalism developed a third main class, the top professionals and managers, which i call the coordinator class, to have a name for it. the position of this class isn't based on ownership of capital. they don't run businesses they own. their class position is based on the positions they hold, and the concentration of decision-making, conceptualization work, certain key kinds of expertise for the management of labor and carrying on of the system. This class includes managers, corporate lawyers, top professionals in fields like accounting, engineering, law, who help devise systems to control workers, help break unions, etc. People in this class don't get into this position by inherting capital but through things like connections, college degrees. This class, in extreme cases, can also become a ruling class, as in the old USSR.

because this class participates in the domination and exploitation of the working class in capitalism -- the bosses we deal with mainly are these people -- and is a danger to worker power, the liberation of the working class can't happen without dissolving the power of this class over the working class. because its power isn't basded on ownership, just changing ownership, from private to public, isn't sufficient to get rid of the power of this class.

what's needed is to break up and redesign the jobs, so as to re-integrate expertise and decision-making discretion into the jobs of workers. the working class needs to take over the position of this class.

it's not sufficient to talk about electing managers. in Yugoslavia they had a system like that, but the professionals and managers really ran the show, concentrated the expertise in their hands and kept workers dependent on them. if you work 40 hours a week running a machine or sweeping floors, how will you ever learn things like financial analysis or engineering so you challenge the plans for the industry? so, the decision-making needs to be just part of the job of a person who is elected to that, so they also do part-time regular work, and workers in general have in their job tasks doing design and conceptual work, skilled work, so they are knowledgeable about the industry, and can participate effectively in the making of the decisions.

Avakian talks about after a revolution where you keep a hierarchy of managers and professionals in power to run things. this means that he favors the continued existence of the class system, and thus of exploitation and oppression. that's because it doesn't matter what ideas these people have. they can call themselves "socialists" or whatever, they'll think up ways to justify continuing their power. no dominating class in history has ever given up its power voluntarily. to think that just because these people in power, presiding over a state hierarchy and a managerial structure in industry, call themselves "socialists" or "communists" whatever means that eventually workers will gain power is the worst sort of idealist nonsense.

[Rawthentic]

One thing to add: in ascendant capitalism, they were small shopkeepers and artisans, etc., and to a small extent, still are. The thing is, in Marx's time, he observed their demise through capitalism and into a new "coordinator" class like you say. That is their origin.

[syndicat]

Nope. That's not their origin.

In the 19th century the working class still possessed the technology, for the most part. The capitalists hired skilled artisans and they organized the work, had the craft skills. for example in the steel industry there were "puddlers" and they even hired their own assistants.

in the early 20th century there was a transition to science-based engineering, the huge growth of university education, of professional engineers, as the big companies systematically analyzed and reorganized work. that's because taking away the control and autonomy of the skilled workers gave the bosses more control over production, more ability to speed up work. this means that tasks of conceptualization and orgnization of work was taken away from workers and vested in a growing professional/managerial bureaucracly in the corporations.

so the authority, skill and control of the growing professional/managerial class was based on taking away the skill and discretion and autonomy of workers, it was a form of exploitation, of appropriation from workers. this new bureaucracy did not "derive" from the petit bourgeoisie but were built up as part of the process of exploitation of the working class, denying to workers the development of their potential for skill, conceptualization and discretion and control in their work.

[syndicat]

if you want to understand the origin and growth and nature of the professional/managerial class, here are some things to read:

Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital
Steve Marglin, "What do bosses do?"
David Noble, The Forces of Production
Pat Walker, ed., Between Labor and Capital, especially the essay
"A Ticket to Ride" by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I didn't read your entire post so maybe I missed something, but managers especially in socialism, which retains alot of capitalist elements that communism doesn't, managers are necessary in some form or another. But managers in socialism can't be like capitalist managers, they have to be the most dedicated communists and workers there are, they have to be the guys who work the hardest, who are most devoted to their workers and thus are chosen on the basis that they are gonna lead us to communism because they are the best of the class conscious proletariat. As opposed to capitalism where the managers are chosen because their going to exploit the workers in the most efficient way. This is a fundamental difference the proletarian state has wit the bourgeois one and that's why liberalism is shit.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

and avakian doesn't want a hiarchial system of managers, he just realizes that just because socialism retains so many capitalist elements (that's why socialism was able to be reversed after the proletarian reovlution) that managers are necessary, but they need to be fundamentally different then the capitalist managers, they need to be the model worker. Be working on the floor, in adminstration and just be the most dedicated motherfucka around.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

at the same time I personally think this would only apply to the large factories and warehouses and department stores. In shops where there aren't so many workers a there wouldn't be such a need as decisions aren't as major

[syndicat]

leftyH:
and avakian doesn't want a hiarchial system of managers, he just realizes that just because socialism retains so many capitalist elements (that's why socialism was able to be reversed after the proletarian reovlution) that managers are necessary, but they need to be fundamentally different then the capitalist managers, they need to be the model worker. Be working on the floor, in adminstration and just be the most dedicated motherfucka around.

then why support "socialism"? managers are only "necessary" because he says they are. in reality that shows class bias right there, even if it is unconscious.

having a layer of managers and top professionals in charge creates a class division. to imagine that their ideology could somehow enable this to be a path to "eventual" working class empowerment is the worst sort of idealist nonsense. no ruling class in history has ever given up its power voluntarily and none ever will. Avakian is supposing that "ideas" (of "communism" or whatever) can somehow prevent their material privileges from changing their consciousness. this means he is supposing that the "nice ideas" of certain bosses is our path to liberation. this is complete nonsense.

[Rawthentic]

I think what Henry means is managers that are proletarians. That is to say, they are elected from the workplace committee or assembly and there it is a rotating position with instant recall as well. That's how it should be.

[syndicat]

I think what Henry means is managers that are proletarians. That is to say, they are elected from the workplace committee or assembly and there it is a rotating position with instant recall as well. That's how it should be.

well, first of all, that's not what Avakian says. He says there will be authoritarian hiearchies, class division, under "socialism" for a long time.

secondly, election of managers isn't sufficient to avoid the consolidation of a coordinator ruling elite. look at Yugoslavia in the '70s/'80s. workers elected the managers. they had workers councils. but the top professionals and managers were in charge, and the elite eventually figured out a way to steal the public assets, too.

if workers are working 40 hours a week running a machine, driving a bus, cleaning toilets, whatever, they won't be learning what they need to know to be able to effectively challenge what the professionals and managers say. you have to change the jobs, so that a person, say, drives a bus half the time, then works on planning for the transit system, or works on the coordinating commitee, part of the time. all the workers need to have the education and the work experience that gives them the know-how to participate effectively in the decision-making.

otherwise "worker power" is a sham and a lie.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 14, 2007 08:37 pm
I think what Henry means is managers that are proletarians. That is to say, they are elected from the workplace committee or assembly and there it is a rotating position with instant recall as well. That's how it should be.
The way I understand is that its the representative that is elected and sent to the local and regional councils, this revokable representative just gives testimony on behalf of the workers on what supplies they need, work-place concerns, etc and fowards the results of the meeting to the other workers-- as whats going to happen, what society wants of the workplace (more product x to be produced).

The workers in any-workplace figure it out amongst themselves what needs to be done, and schedualing. If you have routines and safety precauctions, what good is the manager when all they do is crack the whip to tell you to work faster? Totally useless. All they are are nit-picky about in what manner things are done, you are to do the operation their way, not your way.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, thats what I meant Kablamo.

Oh and syndicat, easy with the utopianess. Post-revolutionary society will retain many elements of the old society, of capitalism, they dont magically disappear overnight. Thats why there is a transition period, to struggle against this.

[black magick hustla]

syndicat, i think you address the crucial problem of socialims-

the division of labor.

Technology necessarily leads to specialization and division of labor. This is why the most succesful collectives in anarchist spain were the agricultural ones, there wasnt need of much division of labor, contrary to the urban collectives.

how do we solve that problem of technology?

i would think that education is the key, in order to not allienate people from intellectual labor. but then again, would education be compulsive or not?

[syndicat]

Technology necessarily leads to specialization and division of labor. This is why the most succesful collectives in anarchist spain were the agricultural ones, there wasnt need of much division of labor, contrary to the urban collectives.

how do we solve that problem of technology?

i would think that education is the key, in order to not allienate people from intellectual labor. but then again, would education be compulsive or not?


The minute division of labor is not technologically determined. I mentioned a series of writings that deal directly with this topic:

David Noble, The Forces of Production
Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital
Steve Marglin, "What do bosses do?"
Michael Albert & Robin Hahnel, "A Ticket to Ride"

The development of expertise about something doesn't say that workers in production don't get to know that expertise. Historically artisans had the technology in their heads, in the 19th century. As technology develops, it is possible for the artisans to be developed along with it, to learn science-based engineering. this doesn't happen because capital needs to keep wages to the lowest level, doesn't want to pay to train people, and also depends upon weakening the bargaining power of workers. De-skilling workers was historically part of the process of weakening the working class and forcing speed up in the 20th century.

Take a transit system. Instead of hiring a person from college to be a service planner and hiring someone to just drive a bus 40 hours a week, you could hire someone to do both. This would be a bus driver part of the time who also designs the routes that she and other bus drivers work. There is relatively simple math involved in transit service planning, and many transit workers are interested in this topic. This doesn't happen, not because it's impossible, but because it doesn't serve the interests of capitalist and coordinator classes to organize things this way.

It's true that more education is required. But people should also be paid to do the studying. It's a form of work, and a part of the job.