Is our task the reverse of Lenin and Maos?

[jacobin1949]

It seems to me that revolutionaries in the 1st world are reverse-Leninists. In the sense that in 20th century Russia the working class was tiny because Russia was too early for the proliteriat revolution. In the modern 1st world, the proliteriat is tiny because we have passed the industrial phase and are in some sense too late for socialist Revolution. So in the same way Lenin launched the revolution "too early" we must launch it "too late".

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:12 pm
It seems to me that revolutionaries in the 1st world are reverse-Leninists. In the sense that in 20th century Russia the working class was tiny because Russia was too early for the proliteriat revolution. In the modern 1st world, the proliteriat is tiny because we have passed the industrial phase and are in some sense too late for socialist Revolution. So in the same way Lenin launched the revolution "too early" we must launch it "too late".
I guess it depends on your definition of the proletariat. I think many middle class 1st world individuals are not actually bourgeoisie, because they do not own a business. However, they are not directly related to the means of production in the traditional sense of the word. It seems to me that the 1st world middle class is made up of lumpenproletariat. Maybe my analysis is naive?

[Dros]

I don't see the first world proletariat as tiny at all. In the U.S., I find the majority of people by far to be either proletarians or "peasents" (poor petty bourgoisie) equivalents.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe my analysis is naive?

Yes, it is. You should go over some of the basics of class and class relations again.

"[T]he main antagonism, or division, in capitalist society exists between the capitalists, who control the means of production (i.e. the tools and technology used to produce the things human beings want and need, such as mines, factories, etc.) but don’t work them, and the workers, who work the means of production but don’t control them.

"In much smaller numbers than the working class exists a “middle class,” the petty-bourgeoisie -- made up of small shop keepers, managers, etc. -- whose individual members strive to join the capitalist class, but are constantly being thrown down into the working class by the very workings of capitalism.

"Another class, the lumpenproletariat, or ‘dangerous class’ -- consisting of swindlers, pimps, hustlers, etc. -- constitutes an even smaller portion of society under capitalism. While sections of this class may ally with the working class at one time or another, its conditions of life -- driven by greed and desperation -- make it more likely to side with the capitalist class during open class conflict."

[lvleph]

So the term lumpenproletariat was incorrect, which I felt it was.

Example: I am a hydrogeologist; I analyze water data to determine if someone should get a permit to have the amount of water they are requesting. This does not have anything to do with management, since I am not a manager and does not have relation to the a product. So what class am I? There are many of other middle class jobs that have blurred that class distinction, and those are the people I was referring to.

[bootleg42]

I think many of the people in the U.S. you're referring to are part of the "labor aristocracy".

Though in the inner cities, there are plenty of real proletariat, I know because I've lived in it my whole live so far. About the rest of the country......I really don't know and I have (from my experiences) reason to believe that most of the rest of the country are a part of the labor aristocracy.

I know we've had this conversation on this many times before here on the site.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Example: I am a hydrogeologist; I analyze water data to determine if someone should get a permit to have the amount of water they are requesting. This does not have anything to do with management, since I am not a manager and does not have relation to the a product. So what class am I? There are many of other middle class jobs that have blurred that class distinction, and those are the people I was referring to.

The only ones who have "blurred class distinctions" are the capitalists, their mouthpieces and their (conscious or unconscious) helpers among the "left."

The class of this "hydrogeologist" would depend on his relation to the means of production. Does he own his own his own equipment, lab, etc.? Is he paid a wage by a corporation for his work? A singer who just sings outside is not a worker, but when she sells her singing to a capitalist theater owner for a wage she becomes one.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think many of the people in the U.S. you're referring to are part of the "labor aristocracy".

Though in the inner cities, there are plenty of real proletariat, I know because I've lived in it my whole live so far. About the rest of the country......I really don't know and I have (from my experiences) reason to believe that most of the rest of the country are a part of the labor aristocracy.

I know we've had this conversation on this many times before here on the site.

Yes, and apparently you weren't paying attention.

The labor aristocracy, as originally described by Lenin, are that minority of bought-off misleaders at the top, i.e. union bureaucrats. Just because workers win some meager gains doesn't mean they are now 'labor aristocrats.'

Here's a thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69157) where this is explained in detail, with sources, etc.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are proletarians. The vast majority of proletarians do not belong to the 'labor aristocracy.'