Are social and cultural workers a vanguard?

[More Fire for the People]

When I say social workers I mean public school teachers, nurses, employed counselors, child advocates, volunteer workers, and similar workers engaged in protecting and helping working class communities. As for cultural “workers” I mean musicians, actors, athletes, artists, etc. from working class backgrounds.

Does this section of the working class act as a vanguard or group of organic intellectuals? They are the ones who must think about and criticize the most the way capitalism treats workers. The nature of their training is intellectually rigorous and most of their careers involve deep intellectual thought.

[PRC-UTE]

Generally speaking no, but in a time of crisis many would be.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 10, 2007 05:57 pm
Generally speaking no, but in a time of crisis many would be.
I don't know, as generally speaking, no workers are a vanguard as most workers most of the time are reformist.

[Luís Henrique]

Certainly not.

The vanguard is composed by those workers that are more active and class-conscious, regardless if they are teachers or janitors.

Luís Henrique

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 10, 2007 12:18 pm
Certainly not.

The vanguard is composed by those workers that are more active and class-conscious, regardless if they are teachers or janitors.

Luís Henrique
I did not say the vanguard, I said 'a vanguard'. I am asking, as a tendency determined by their profession, do social and cultural workers tend to be more 'class conscious' and active than other branches of labor?

[rouchambeau]

Maybe, maybe not. Really, I'm more inclined to believe that one needs to take into account the input of all of the disenfranchised. There is no one group that has the final say on what is revolutionary and what is not revolutionary. In fact, the best way to figure out the answer to that question is to get as many points-of-view as possible (barring, of course, people like the rich).

[More Fire for the People]

I’m using vanguard in its most literal sense: a forefront. That doesn’t mean anyone’s being excluded. It just means that they are the most apt, most conscious sect of the working class.

[Lamanov]

Well, for most active, it varies from time to time, and from one place to another.

But, no, I don't think that "social workers" are necessarily more conscious. To be quite honest, I never heard of a social revolt that was started by workers in public or even service sector...

1917 was started by textile female workers, but the Baker's Union held out for years as anarcho-syndicalist, in Ruhr it was obviously the miners, in Poland it was heavy industry and docks, in Hungary 1956 most active members of workers' councils were electricians from certain factories and members of old pre-war Metalworker's Union, in 1968 France it was car industry and transport including airlines but obviously after the students, and it today's France students hold on to their traditional class conscious role... Both France and Hungary were initiated by students.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10, 2007 07:39 pm
They are the most apt, most conscious sect of the working class.
I don't think so. The most "conscious" sects of the proletariat will probably the most disenfranchised. These are going to be the most revolutionary elements of society, those who are systemically disenfranchised. I think these will be oppressed nations and workers.

While the sections you talk about may be revolutionary, they will never be able to accomplish revolution.

Could you ellaborate on what you mean by "vanguard" if you are not referring to "the Vanguard" as Lenin saw it?

[La Comédie Noire]

I wouldn't say so. Usually the people who eat the most shit are the first to revolt. I mean a teacher or a film maker would have a lot to lose if they openly rebelled where as a dock worker could only improve his/her situation. This is the line that divides the revolutionaries from the reformists.

[MarxSchmarx]

I’m using vanguard in its most literal sense: a forefront. That doesn’t mean anyone’s being excluded. It just means that they are the most apt, most conscious sect of the working class.


Surely this cannot be true of athletes or the overwhelming majority of entertainment workers.

Whatever their background, they are like the clergy, they are spinsters who distract the working class. They are complicit in the capitalist delusions, and most of them know they provide little else than respite from a shitty work-week. We are better off without the bunch.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:10 am
While the sections you talk about may be revolutionary, they will never be able to accomplish revolution.

What does that mean?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10, 2007 07:39 pm
I’m using vanguard in its most literal sense: a forefront. That doesn’t mean anyone’s being excluded. It just means that they are the most apt, most conscious sect of the working class.
I think you're probably onto something.

Teachers, probation officers, social workers, and low-level civil servant are probably amongst the most progressive sections of the class. I'm not sure about the causation/correlation here. It may be that these professions just attract "progressive" and open-minded people, or it may be, as you suggest, that their training and their relationship to the wider operations of bourgeois society leads them towards this.

I think the case of "cultural workers" is more difficult. These people are not directly involved, in many cases, in the actual processes of material production (self-employed painters, writers etc). Their class interests, therefore, are not directly bound up with that of the proletariat. Their lives are affected, however, by subordinate position in the "culture industry".

Intuitively, these people should not really tend towards the left. Indeed, many people in this group were attracted, in Germany and Italy at least, towards fascism in the early 20's and 30's.

But, I think it's pretty clear nowadays that most artists tend towards the left. I mean, we only have to look at what's going on with the WGA in America right now. The strike has been solid and the support from other people in that industry, including many famous actors, has been noticeable.

The first group may form, or may be capable of becoming, an advanced section of the class. The second group is more likely to follow the contours of the class and ideological struggle.

[MarxSchmarx]

Intuitively, these people should not really tend towards the left. Indeed, many people in this group were attracted, in Germany and Italy at least, towards fascism in the early 20's and 30's.

Well, to be fair, many artists were quite leftist in the early 20th century. Picasso, Twain, Orwell, Stravinsky, Hughes, Kahlo, Tolstoy, Hu Shih, Gorky, Robeson, Rivera, [EDIT] Hemingway, Chaplain, ...

Freedom of expression comes part and parcel with being good leftists.