"Unconscious" Revolutionaries

[Random Precision]

During the "long detour" period of the Fourth International, many leaders of that tendency came to believe that in the present era (30-40 years ago now) a proletarian socialist revolution was impossible and that guerrillas would have to do the fighting for socialism on behalf of the proletariat until they could do it themselves. In particular, the American SWP became known for the claim that Fidel Castro was an "unconscious Trotskyist" who should be supported as a true revolutionary. This, of course, led to the SWP's break with Trotskyism altogether in the early eighties.

Yet this was not the first case of "unconscious Trotskyism". The original unconscious Trotskyist was Josip Broz Tito, who many in the Fourth International idealized for his struggle with Stalin's USSR, despite the reactionary measures his regime imposed on Yugoslavia that were quite similar to the USSR. Mao, in his own time, also became known and lauded as an unconscious Trotskyist for his struggle with the same bureaucracy in the USSR that Tito had struggled with.

I thought the tendency to idealize reactionary leaders of that nature was limited to Trotskyists who were willing to accept any kind of leader so that they could claim a win, until I saw this gem in a thread on the demonstrations in Burma:


In the impoverished developing world, the military is the vanguard of the people due to the absence of a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party.

While that admittedly smacks of the "anyone who's anti-US is good" logic that the Workers' World people are known for, it got me thinking. I think the problem of "unconscious" revolutionaries is one that he entire Left has to deal with. Can anyone be a socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, Trotskyist or what have you without knowing it? That is to say, can they carry out a revolution or fufill a revolutionary role without themselves being revolutionary?

What are your thoughts?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by catbert836
Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

TO be short whoever fights for the liberation of workers is my ally. I don't care bout party line or principles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For all I know, I could be an "unconscious" left-communist. :D

Honestly, while I left both Trotskyism and Stalinism awhile back, my "Leninist" position takes more and more into consideration the uniquely left-communist theory of the structural "decadence of capitalism," which goes beyond the simple notion of the tendency of the rate of profit of fall. There are aspects of imperialism that cannot be attributed to any one country or any group of Great Powers (as Rosa Luxemburg said), but there still remain aspects of imperialism by policy.


Can anyone be a socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, Trotskyist or what have you without knowing it? That is to say, can they carry out a revolution or fufill a revolutionary role without themselves being revolutionary?

The problem with that question is that it doesn't address organization. To me, you may be implying more spontaneity over organization.

[FriedFrog]

Can anyone be a socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, Trotskyist or what have you without knowing it? That is to say, can they carry out a revolution or fufill a revolutionary role without themselves being revolutionary?


In my (limited) experience most lefties start out that way. It begins with the general distrust and dislike of the status quo and the desire for change. In realising this, the soon to be lefty seeks to educate him or herself and thus becomes aware of the 'labels'.

As to whether one could fulfill the role of class war revolutionary without ever hearing about Marx etc. seems pretty unlikely.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the problem with this question is in its assumption that "revolutionary" must necessarily carry the baggage of a given "revolutionary" ideology. The idea of the unconscious Trotskyist (or Maoist, or Post-Leftist, or whatever), for example, is problematic because Trotskyism (or Maoism, or Post-Leftism, or whatever) is an ideology more than a practice - it is concerned with identification with particular symbols, language, organizations, etc., more so than describing a particular means and ends. Can somebody who is theoretically unfamiliar with any particular ideology, however, be a revolutionary? Absolutely! Is it common? No, since most people inevitably come into contact with other radicals, and are introduced to historical revolutionary thought (thus cutting out a shit-tonne of trial-and-error/guesswork).
There is also a question of degrees, as regards anti-American military forces in the third world. Anti-Imperialism is, obviously, a good thing - but anti-imperialist doesn't necessarily translate to "revolutionary" - many anti-imperialists are essentially reformers - lobbying with bombs for a different capitalism. I don't think this undermines the value of violently challenging US imperialism, mind you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This, of course, led to the SWP's break with Trotskyism altogether in the early eighties.

As opposed to your tendency (ISO) which broke from Trotskyism in the early 1950's. :lol:


In the impoverished developing world, the military is the vanguard of the people due to the absence of a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party.

Well, this is obviously wrong on many levels. "The military" is not a monolithic body or class, "the people" cannot have a vanguard as "the people" is not a class but rather made up of everyone - including the capitalists, many countries in the "impoverished developing world" have had or do have "a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party," and very often it has been leading members of the military that have smashed these parties.

Still, the tendency of leftists to cheerlead the supposed pro-democracy monks in Myanmar, without investigating the situation at all, shows a clear lack of direction or understanding. When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as the executive of an imperialist state, you may want to reevaluate your stance (surely the support of your tendency and others for the reactionary CIA and Vatican-backed Solidarność "union" in Poland, which Reagan lauded as he smashed the PATCO air traffic controllers' union in the U.S., should have taught us that).