Can workers attain class-consciousness by themselves? [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

11th February 2008, 11:50

The point is that the whole mass of working-class folks by itself cannot develop this consciousness. It has to be either imported (petit-bourgeois intellectuals, with their literary works, and ESPECIALLY "coordinator"/managerial individuals per my Theory thread on modern class relations (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)) or developed by informed segments of the working class.

The "whole mass of working-class folks" cannot develop a socialist consciousness within the constraints of a capitalist society.

So your argument is moot.

It is however true that the act of revolution, that is, the act of putting the instruments which form consciousness (educational facilities, the media) into the hands of the working-class is lead by the class-conscious section of the class as a whole, and it is also they who have to put that machinery into effect in order to raise the class as a whole to their level of development.

This does not mean however that "petty-bourgeois intellectuals" form that most advanced part. It is actually predominately workers who are at the helm of the most advanced section of the class.

Lenin didn't believe so either, that is a myth: What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)

Heck, look at me and my business studies (corporate finance, "the books," etc.): aiming specifically to penetrate into the coordinator/managerial class.

How elitist, condescending, and idealist.

Just say that you're studying it for the money, don't try to sugarcoat it by presenting it as a "sacrifice for the working-class".

Don't blame me on this: Lenin said stuff about workers having to learn how to manage the post-revolution, pre-socialist economy using rather capitalistic methods, including management accounting.

He also said that any cook should be able to run the adminstration of the state.

Stop trying to delude yourself into thinking your careerism has anything to do with communist activity.

I don't really care that you're studying business whatever, go right ahead, everyone has to make a living, just don't try to present it as "revolutionary activity".

EDIT: I just noticed that this was in the Revolutionary Marxists forum, I apologize for posting it here, I've moved it to Theory.

Sentinel

11th February 2008, 15:22

renegadoe

12th February 2008, 00:16

If workers cannot attain class consciousness by themselves, then the assertion that social being determines consciousness, the fundamental hypothesis of historical materialism, is completely meaningless.

I am a worker who has attained class consciousness by myself. Thus, the Leninist assertion that we're only capable of "trade union" or "social democratic" consciousness or whatever is bollocks.

Floyce White

12th February 2008, 01:07

Additionally:

1. It cannot be the self-organization of the working class if bourgeois are involved--however petty these exploiters may be, and

2. The only reason capitalists--petty or otherwise--get involved in the struggles of their servants is to rule them.

Thus, small capitalists are not and could never be allies of the working class.

Zurdito

12th February 2008, 01:36

I find it an odd question, because the working class does not exist "on its own", it will always interact with wider society (which is what makes it a class) and it is impossible for any class in society to either "exist" on its own or to failt o be profoundly influenced by wider society. the working class is only part of the "masses" and it willt ake ideas from them and give ideas back to them.

If the question is will the class struggle and the contradiction within capitalism objectively create revolutionary workers without the need for a vanguard then the answer is no. If the question is about the specific class natur of that vanguard, well, what does it matter? As a vanguard, it is by definition at a higher level of consciousness than the mass of the working class - which is what Lenin was referring to, not individual workers themselves.The mass of the working class by itself is not attaining class consciousness, as we can see by looking around us. Why? Lack of leadership. Centrist leadership. Unprincipled, reformist leadership.

I'm going to go on a long rant here to illustrate my point.

Take the recent postal workers strike in Britain. Vanguard, militant posties in places like Liverpool came out on strike, and held public meetings of support which attracted over 800 workers.

Yet the British left refused put forward a political platform linking this struggle with other militants spread around the country to take leadership and call out the rank and file for an indefinite all-out strike which would have brought Royal Mail to its knees - the very thing which the Liverpool militants, by judging the mood on the ground of the workers, believed would happen. But what did the left do? The SWP, which had an executive on the union committee and which led the militant activist newspaper Postal Worker which linked its members within the union, actually refused to even say anything to support the militants, and even boycotted any action committees which were not SWP controlled. And that is the largest force on the British left, the leadership of the British left.

If the British left had acted in a different way and linked the struggles of militants under a political platform using the already existing bodies, rather than using those bodies to sabotage radical action in order to ingratiate themselves to the union leaders, then maybe we would see the working class growing in class consciousness. Because how does class consciousness develop? Through objective developments in the class struggle. What is our role as revolutionaries and as the vanguard? To propose and demonstrate the correct strategies to develop this class struggle via working class victories to squeeze the bosses.

If we don't do this, will examples of localised and spontaneous militancy such as that by the Liverpool posties eventually collapse inr esentment and disillusionment? Yes, they will. So can the working class acheive victory without leadership (the class background of the leaders being irrelevant and a minor point)? No it cannot, and it will not, and anyone who says otherwise is simply an opportunist riding the wave of working class action.

If our message only ever correlates to the existing consciousness then what is the point of speaking at all? Instead, we should be trying to relate to the most advanced workers and set up an effective vanguard movement, not simply betraying them whenever we are approached by a friendly union leader who offers some "revolutionary" a seat ont he executive committee, as currently the vast majority of the left does, at least in Britain

The material conditions exist in much of the world for a much greater class consciousness than exists today, but the "revolutionary" left is failing to provide the leadership necessarry.

The argument that workers will just come round to revolutionary politics on their own on a mass basis is one which is designed by useless "marxists" to excuse themselves for not doing their job properly.

renegadoe

12th February 2008, 02:50

The mass of the working class by itself is not attaining class consciousness, as we can see by looking around us. Why? Lack of leadership. Centrist leadership. Unprincipled, reformist leadership.

If this is the central point of your response, then you have abandoned Marxism. In the Marxist paradigm, consciousness is not formed by the resolute will of an organized minority, no matter the class from whom the minority originates. The central tenet of historical materialism is that the consciousness of human beings is determined by the social existence and their material conditions. And history has repeatedly shown this to be true: leaders always become corrupt, and shitty material conditions inspire more revolutionary consciousness.

The vanguardist assertion that the western working-class is not revolutionary because of a failure for "correct leadership" then must be idealism.

Zurdito

12th February 2008, 03:04

The central tenet of historical materialism is that the consciousness of human beings is determined by the social existence and their material conditions.

Which do not just "exist" but which we interact with dialectically and consciously. Therefore the correct leadership and correct strategy will change material conditions and further the class struggle more then inadequate leadership and strategy or no real leadership and strategy. The class struggle is the driving force of history: if the working class is not properly organised then it cannot drive history forward in the same way as it can when it is.

RNK

12th February 2008, 03:05

And what if the ruling class has stumbled onto this "truely Marxist truth" and has devised a way to indefinately hold of revolutionary change by ensuring the working masses are always kept just happy enough?

Communists are workers - the majority of them, anyway, particularly the majority of communist activists. This whole artificial misconception that communists =! workers is simply not true, and belief in it leads to very erroneous positions like stuffing our hands in our pockets, kicking the dirt and resigning ourself to waiting around for the day the workers "decide" to grow a conscience.

Die Neue Zeit

12th February 2008, 03:06

The "whole mass of working-class folks" cannot develop a socialist consciousness within the constraints of a capitalist society.

So your argument is moot.

It is however true that the act of revolution, that is, the act of putting the instruments which form consciousness (educational facilities, the media) into the hands of the working-class is lead by the class-conscious section of the class as a whole, and it is also they who have to put that machinery into effect in order to raise the class as a whole to their level of development.

I suppose. The bourgeoisie had their universities and academies against the aristocracy. Perhaps the Internet can be this tool of education.

This does not mean however that "petty-bourgeois intellectuals" form that most advanced part. It is actually predominately workers who are at the helm of the most advanced section of the class.

That's what I said (here's to you too, Sentinel) :glare:

"It has to be either imported (petit-bourgeois intellectuals, with their literary works, and ESPECIALLY "coordinator"/managerial individuals per my Theory thread on modern class relations) or developed by informed segments of the working class."

How elitist, condescending, and idealist.

Just say that you're studying it for the money, don't try to sugarcoat it by presenting it as a "sacrifice for the working-class".

I never mentioned any "sacrifices." :rolleyes:

[Oh, and I AM working-class, mind you :p ]

Conventional education on the part of working-class folks, be it high-school only or "college leftist studies" like political science, philosophy, and the arts, has failed rather miserably to raise consciousness.

I question your level of knowledge regarding the content of the "Banks and credit" thread. :(

Now, calling me a careerist? What a new sectarian low. :(

EDIT: I just noticed that this was in the Revolutionary Marxists forum, I apologize for posting it here, I've moved it to Theory.

How the hell did you sneak yourself into there? :cursing:

renegadoe

12th February 2008, 03:10

The class struggle is the driving force of history: if the working class is not properly organised then it cannot drive history forward in the same way as it can when it is.

Obviously. But if you don't realize that the class struggle is dialectically defined by the objective material conditions, then you're left reproducing the failures of the 20th century socialist states.

As Marx said, human beings make their own history, but not under the conditions of their choosing. You seem to be suggesting human beings can do whatever they want, whenever they want, if they have the correct leaders. This is simply idealism.

Zurdito

12th February 2008, 03:13

You seem to be suggesting human beings can do whatever they want, whenever they want, if they have the correct leaders.

I don't see how I am sugggesting that. I in fact made a whole post explainign an actual situation and how the objective conditions existed for it to be handled differently.

renegadoe

12th February 2008, 03:19

No, your post concluded that all we need is "useful" Marxists who "correctly understand" everything. That workers cannot understand how revolution is in their interests unless they're walked through it by a vanguard. Quite frankly, I think the whole idea of a vanguard showing the way is pretty stupid. Ideas do not gain dominance based on how loudly you shout them - memes spread throughout society when they've been put out there, and then the material conditions make them make sense.

As Marxists, we do not just need to "get it right" and then BAM revolution happens. We need to develop a theoretical critique which makes sense and accurately reflects reality, and then work through our lives to continually articulate and repeat it in correlation to our lived experiences, to our fellow workers in the real world. We don't need to organize a "party" that "actually got it right this time" - that mode of thinking has shown itself to be useless!

Zurdito

12th February 2008, 03:30

[QUOTE]As Marxists, we do not just need to "get it right" and then BAM revolution happens.

The conditions for revolution have existed many times in many parts of the world where revolution hasn't happened. It's reductive logic to look at the state of the class struggle and then invent "objective conditions" which must by definition correlate to the class struggle. That takes any agency away from workers or from militants.

Capitalism has clearly failed the majority of the world's population, yet the majority of the world is not in a revolutionary situation. Recently, even in times of economic crisis such as Argentina in 2001/02, there failed to be any sustained assault on capitalism as a system. Why is this? Do you maintain it's not because of anything marxist organisations are doing wrong?

We need to develop a theoretical critique which makes sense and accurately reflects reality,

obviously true, I think this is the stated aim of any marxist. getting it right is the hard part

and then work through our lives to continually articulate and repeat it in correlation to our lived experiences, to our fellow workers in the real world.

Why would we do that? Are you suggesting that we should interact with objective conditions in order to change them? But isn't that "idealist"?

We don't need to organize a "party" that "actually got it right this time" - that mode of thinking has shown itself to be useless!

It didn't show itself to be useless in Russia 1917, though I get the feeling you might not accept that example.

In any case, I'm not convinced by your logic here, because you call me an idealist for saying that a different approach from the left will lead to a better advancement of the class struggle, yet you appear to argue the same thing here yourself - or do you not think that individual communists can actually organise and further the class struggle - and therefore objective material conditions - at all?

More Fire for the People

12th February 2008, 03:39

The point is that the whole mass of working-class folks by itself cannot develop this consciousness. It has to be either imported (petit-bourgeois intellectuals, with their literary works, and ESPECIALLY "coordinator"/managerial individuals per my Theory thread on modern class relations (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)) or developed by informed segments of the working class.

Likewise, we find in the root of the modern term class-consciousness, the German klassenbewusst, a similar understanding. The ‘bewusst’ portion of the term means aware, deliberate, intentional, self-conscious, and self-aware. Class-consciousness is class-awareness and class-motivated action. But this consciousness is not a learned phenomenon; consciousness is the organic product of class struggle. Class-consciousness arises in the dialectical process of the class struggle of the proletariat fighting for political demands and at the same time organizing itself as the proletariat.

This organizing of the proletariat spawns a stratum of organic intellectuals. Because of organization, they work towards organizing. They are the ones who work to change the political terrain in order to raise the level of self-awareness of the working class and aim at developing deliberateness in class action. There is a second type of organic intellectual—those, who like myself, come from ebbs in the class struggle. They come from working class backgrounds, are young—perhaps, so young that they have yet to join the class of wage-laborers. Their encounter with class-consciousness is intellectual. They have passed judgments according to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, etc. They are the most eager and the most idealistic members of the working class but simultaneously the least experienced and most immature. There needs to be a circular flow of knowledge from organic-intellectual proletarians to and from organic-intellectual proletarians.

In addition to the two types of organic intellectual, there is the artificial proletarian intellectual. For example, out of the three founding fathers of revolutionary Marxism, only Dietgzen was proletarian (and he often floated in-between the working class and petty-bourgeoisie). Marx was a middle-class journalist, and Engels was a factory owner.
On the issue of obtaining class consciousness:

But in order to be able to fulfill this task, the working masses must be fully aware of their goal and become a class-organized mass. On the other hand, the bourgeois society must have already reached a state of economic as well as political development which allows the introduction of socialist institutions. These prerequisites are dependent on one another and influence each other reciprocally. The working class cannot attain to any organization or consciousness without specific political conditions which allow an open class struggle, that is, without democratic institutions within the framework of the state. And conversely, the attaining of democratic institutions in the state and their spread into the working class is - at a certain historical moment, in a certain phase in the development of class antagonism - impossible without the active struggle of a conscious and organized proletariat.

Die Neue Zeit

12th February 2008, 03:43

^^^ So are you in agreement or disagreement with me (since I can't make much about what you said)?

I did say "or developed by informed segments of the working class" for a reason.

Led Zeppelin

12th February 2008, 15:22

Thus, the Leninist assertion that we're only capable of "trade union" or "social democratic" consciousness or whatever is bollocks.

Not to mention that it isn't a "Leninist assertion": What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)

I find it an odd question, because the working class does not exist "on its own", it will always interact with wider society (which is what makes it a class) and it is impossible for any class in society to either "exist" on its own or to failt o be profoundly influenced by wider society. the working class is only part of the "masses" and it willt ake ideas from them and give ideas back to them.

All very interesting, yet off-topic and irrelevant semantics play.

The mass of the working class by itself is not attaining class consciousness, as we can see by looking around us. Why? Lack of leadership. Centrist leadership. Unprincipled, reformist leadership.

The mass of the working-class can never attain class-conscious within the constraints of a capitalist system due to the bourgeoisie's control of the tools with create consciousness on a large scale.

The material conditions exist in much of the world for a much greater class consciousness than exists today, but the "revolutionary" left is failing to provide the leadership necessarry.

The material conditions for socialism has existed for over a century, does that mean that the failure of a socialist society to materialize is to blame on Marxists?

The material conditions for a bourgeois society existed centuries before it ever materialized, does that mean that the failure of a bourgeois society to materialize was to blame on bourgeois revolutionaries?

If you are a Marxist, you would have to answer no to both questions.

The problem is not that revolutionary leftists of today have failed to provide leadership, it is that not enough of them exist to provide it. The cause of this is both objective and subjective, that is, related to the economic, cultural and general political conditions of the time, as well as to the ability of individuals, both of these in turn inversely affect the other.

This explains why during the ebb of class-consciousness petty sectarianism rises to a high, while during the flow of it revolutionaries draw together.

The solution for this is not objective however. If you want to affect it then the best way to do it is to immerse yourself in positive revolutionary activity, an act which the Bolsheviks mastered.

As for what that positive revolutionary active entails; I don't have enough time nor the desire to elaborate on it at the moment.

The bourgeoisie had their universities and academies against the aristocracy. Perhaps the Internet can be this tool of education.

I disagree. The internet is a fixed ready-made apparatus of information, comparable to public libraries or bookshops. So while there is the possibility of workers consciously looking for that information, they first have to be inclined to do so. This is not the case with the media and school system, wherein they are forced to take part and assimilate its ideas.

So while it is a helpful tool to widen access to information, it is not the same as taking over the machinery of consciousness-forming (printing presses, media in general, educational facilities etc.) from the bourgeoisie and handing it over to the working-class, for the purpose of spreading class-consciousness.

I apologize for my harsh tone and for the accusation of careerism. Thank you for replying kindly in turn. :)

Zurdito

12th February 2008, 17:36

The mass of the working-class can never attain class-conscious within the constraints of a capitalist system due to the bourgeoisie's control of the tools with create consciousness on a large scale.

A revolutionary situation is when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way. Part of this is when their tools for influencing (not creating) workers consciousness no longer work. How does this happen? Because the proletariat does not have a "false consciousness" in the same way as the bourgeoisie. Capitalist propaganda must dialectically interact with workers consciousness, it must reflect their experiences just enough for them to believe it. Part of the revolutionary situation is the process by which we force bourgeois ideology into a corner, so that in order to retain credibility amongst the masses, it must in itself become revolutionary (as they are objectively living a revolutionary situation), which it cannot do, and therefore a definitive mass break with bourgeois ideology takes place.

Now whether this break happens because the workers have ahceieved genuine class consciousness, or simply because their trade union consciousness objectively brings them into a irreconcilable conflict with the bourgeoisie, is not exactly the point. I did not say that I expected the proletariat to have class consciousness right now under the existing objective conditions,or even that I expected it to acheive this within a capitalist framework. I am just acknowledging that an indispensible part of the prelude to a revolutionary situation is for the masses consciousness to be developing towards class consciousness, and I said that this is not happening at a sufficient rate. You back me up on this yourself when you say that:

The material conditions for socialism has existed for over a century,

So to answer this question:

does that mean that the failure of a socialist society to materialize is to blame on Marxists?

As a trotskyist, surely you acknowledge the role of the leaders of "actually existing socialism" and the leaders of workers movements in helping to defeat revolutionary situations. Do you not think that the Spanish revolution could have been succesful with a different leadership, not just on a national but ona global lever? How about the revolutionary situations in Cuba or Vietnam or France in May 1968? Wasn't the working class defeated primarily by its own leaders, the parasitical bureaucracy which emerged out of it and leant on it?

To say I "blame" marxists is to be simplistic, I didn't demand to know why there is no revolution happening right now, or even why we failed to overthrow capitalism in the examples I gave, I was just making the point that with correct leadership, the objective conditions for class struggle in many past and present situations could and can have been moved forward rather than defeated by bureaucrats and centrists. And therefore, the process of attaining class consciousness, which is part of the development of the objective class struggle, is also moved forward. I don't see why you seem keen to deny the importance of correct leadership. Am I misunderstanding you?

The material conditions for a bourgeois society existed centuries before it ever materialized, does that mean that the failure of a bourgeois society to materialize was to blame on bourgeois revolutionaries?

Well actually, capitalism under feudalism was embryonic and progressive. The bourgeoisie was still being formed as a class, and the process of its development was progressive even when Marx was writing. As you know, as a class is being formed, it can enjoy progress without revolution.

However the working class today is in a different position to that which the bourgeoisie was under feudalism. It is not in the process of being formed as a class. Capitalism was a system which grew within feudalism. The bourgeoisie did have power and property to lose under fuedalism. They had to maintain their power over the masses whilst fighting for revolution, forcing them in reality to oscillate between their opressors and their workers. Marx even called the bourgeoisie the cornerstone of many feudal and semi-feudal monarchies.

Also if we're talking about development towards class consciousness, then you should realise that the bourgeoisie can only ever possess false consciousness, even when it was a revolutionary class. Class consciousness is the class' understanding of its role in the objective historical process. The bourgeoise can never posses this, as bourgeois ideology instead forces it to naturalise the laws of capitalism. These are rationalist and pragmatic laws which value profit above all else, they are not dialectical laws which lead to an intransigent struggle to completely overhaul the existing order. They could only ever work on a short-term, divided, narrowly self-interested basis, following the momentum of the masses, often curbing it through compromises with sections of the feudal ruling class. Therefore we would not even conceive it to be possible for them to undertake a global, vanguardist revolution with the long term conscious aim of transforming society.That can only come from a dialectical understanding - which only the proletariat can posses - and not from the rationalist and short-term perspective which is the inevitable perspective of the bourgeoisie.

So why would we even compare the two revolutions on this question?

The problem is not that revolutionary leftists of today have failed to provide leadership, it is that not enough of them exist to provide it.

But why have so revolutionary situations which were led by the left, still failed or been sabotaged by the leadership? For example in France in 1968 it was precisely the faith that so many workers did have in the Communist Party which allowed that bureacuratic organisation -which nonetheless had emerged out of workers struggles and was not a bourgeois organisation - to help defeat the working class.

The cause of this is both objective and subjective, that is, related to the economic, cultural and general political conditions of the time, as well as to the ability of individuals, both of these in turn inversely affect the other.

I agree. I was not placing the whole blame on the current predominance of capitalism today on marxists. Clearly, right now, the obective conditions do not exist for a revolution, and we cannot just "wish it were so" and it will happen. However, the leadership of the movement is still inadequate and has been inadequate and this is part of the failure to 1.) lead existing movements to success which would then 2.) lead to a change in the objective material conditions and therefore gtrowth of class consciousness among some workers and development of the trade union consciousness (i.e. to us, a development towards eventual class consciousness if it is to be of any use at all) of the mass of the working class.

As for what that positive revolutionary active entails; I don't have enough time nor the desire to elaborate on it at the moment.

Well let me say that it does not entail failing to criticise centrist leaders simply because they call themselves "revolutionary", and it does not entail a broad strategy of "building the left" even if that means betraying existing struggles. A movement which is built through compromises with reformists and bureaucrats and not trhough relation to the existing struggles of vanguard miltiant workers is what Trotsky called "ossified centrism", which can ive the illusion of stability due to its comfortable distance from reality, but which is no use to the working class and which will fail the test of a revolutionary situation anywhere in the world.

BobKKKindle$

12th February 2008, 22:32

I am a worker who has attained class consciousness by myself. Thus, the Leninist assertion that we're only capable of "trade union" or "social democratic" consciousness or whatever is bollocks.The concept of "trade-union consciousness" does not apply to every worker - there will always be a small section of the proletariat that is able to attain a revolutionary class consciousness, and it is these workers that form the core of the vanguard party, such that if the working class were a single, homogeneous bloc, the concept of the vanguard would make no sense.

Die Neue Zeit

13th February 2008, 00:30

Not to mention that it isn't a "Leninist assertion": What They Did to What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)

That's why I said "or developed by informed segments of the working class." ;)

The material conditions for socialism has existed for over a century, does that mean that the failure of a socialist society to materialize is to blame on Marxists?

The material conditions for a bourgeois society existed centuries before it ever materialized, does that mean that the failure of a bourgeois society to materialize was to blame on bourgeois revolutionaries?

The problem lies with Marx's base-superstructure analysis, which is overly simplistic, IMO. I have posited in past threads splitting the superstructure into two: the "framework" and the "skin," since Marx himself based his terms on the structure of a building.

I then posited that the "framework" was organization. :)

I disagree. The internet is a fixed ready-made apparatus of information, comparable to public libraries or bookshops. So while there is the possibility of workers consciously looking for that information, they first have to be inclined to do so. This is not the case with the media and school system, wherein they are forced to take part and assimilate its ideas.

So while it is a helpful tool to widen access to information, it is not the same as taking over the machinery of consciousness-forming (printing presses, media in general, educational facilities etc.) from the bourgeoisie and handing it over to the working-class, for the purpose of spreading class-consciousness.

That's gonna be real tricky, then. Crisis of theory: How can this taking over the machinery of consciousness-forming be done within the framework of a capitalist society? :confused:

[Now that you're talking about consciousness, I think this post of yours merits discussion in our user group (that is, unless all of us drop by in here and discuss this here instead, which I prefer). ::drool: ]

I apologize for my harsh tone and for the accusation of careerism. Thank you for replying kindly in turn. :)

No problem.

Floyce White

13th February 2008, 01:15

Over and over the same petty-bourgeois argument is replayed:

1. Lower-class people, referred to in this discussion as "workers," supposedly are incapable of noticing what is happening around them.

2. The few workers in professional careers or at universities or in petty-bourgeois leftist groups, are told what is happening to them by the hierarchy of management and control. Yet even these "more informed" workers supposedly are inherently incapable of figuring out why--or what to do about it.

3. Without the capacity to see and reason, workers supposedly cannot organize themselves. Workers supposedly need their bosses to manage and direct the workers' struggles.

4. Therefore, it is said to be a useless distraction--a debaters' trick--to discuss how workers should organize themselves. Instead, all discussion must be of the classless "masses" of "the people," "anti-imperialists," "workers and their allies," "progressives," etcetera. All interest is now on the personalities and ideas of "the leadership."

More Fire for the People

13th February 2008, 02:02

The material conditions exist in much of the world for a much greater class consciousness than exists today, but the "revolutionary" left is failing to provide the leadership necessarry.

I agree—and disagree. Whereas the economic preconditions for revolution have existed since the inception of capital relations, the revolutionary subjectivity of anti-capital agents—namely, proletarians—fluctuates. Why? Class struggle is not just a ‘time’—it is a place. The factories, the bannilieus, the ghettoes, and other places of the working class are political places. The behaviour of the working class is dynamic—in one day it is spontaneous political praxis, and the next it is conscious. The decline in conscious political praxis over the past forty years has a twofold source: the incredible weakness of workers’ organisation and the incredible strength of bourgeois organisations and ideology.

Die Neue Zeit

13th February 2008, 05:45

^^^ In other words, it boils down to what I said earlier: organizational framework (getting past base-superstructure analysis).

No, it's not just "leadership" (Great Men crap), however.

Led Zeppelin

13th February 2008, 10:08

That's gonna be real tricky, then. Crisis of theory: How can this taking over the machinery of consciousness-forming be done within the framework of a capitalist society? :confused:

The masses will never change the system as long as it works for at least a majority of them in one form or other.

Lenin always maintained that the Russian revolution was only possible due to the conditions created in Russia by World War 1, the crisis not only in the economic sphere, but also in the sphere of politics in general. The bourgeoisie was as divided and confused as all other classes were, in such a situation only a proletariat with a strong leadership yielding sufficient authority within the class as a whole could change the system into a socialist one.

There have been many cases wherein it was changed in a different form due to the lack of such a strong leadership by the proletariat, see for example the fascist states, wherein the petty-bourgeois showed the necessary leadership and changed the system into a fascist one.

Crisis in society is caused, in general and at first, by a crisis in the economic situation. This is not to say of course that revolutionaries have to "sit and wait" for such a crisis to occur, on the contrary, they must be prepared for it, or their faith will be the same as the faith of so many other revolutionaries who failed to prepare for the flow of revolutionary consciousness during its ebb; they will be swept away by it.

mykittyhasaboner

15th February 2008, 04:23

Bright Banana Beard

15th February 2008, 18:42

true the class councisousness concept in a capitalist society as seen in the US has little hope, for their lives are mostly comprised of the dumb traditions and values advocated by american conservatives. theres no hope for them with out our help.

true. Most American do not realize about the Marxism term of class consciousness due to propaganda and education in their lives, they do realize it about the class but they never bother to look into the deep term that Marxism's class consciousness. Most of the time, peer pressure & compeitition is their only consciousness in their society. They are taught to love their nation and to accept everything that the Congress does or they faced banishness from the country's consciousness of them. (few will be hermit) I am not really good explaining stuff.

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 19:15

No, it's not just "leadership" (Great Men crap), however.

"leadership" does not just mean "great men". The organisational structure is there to provide leadership. This is what Lenin envisioned and put into practice concretely when he talked about a vanguard and leadership: advanced workers organising and providing leadership via a party. The party itself should be democratic.

Comrade Qwatt

15th February 2008, 23:47

Being class consciousness and every member of the proletariat becoming a conscious socialist are two different things, Marx defines quite clearly the position of the communists and the proletariat, and the role of the communists is to be the political party of the workers, to have no sectarian interests apart from the proletariat.

I would fundamentally reject any ultimatist pseudo-Marxism which purports that every worker must become a communist, this flies in the face of the reality of building revolution.

Awful Reality

18th February 2008, 05:46

This entire thread is moot. Basic Marxist ideology dictates that in order for a vanguard force of the working class to emerge and establish the proletarian dictatorship, the workers must attain class-consciousness themselves.

Some other, more revisionist Marxist doctrines namely those in Southeast Asia, including China, believed in the students' revolution. This has its benefits, certainly, and I may say that I almost believe as such, but in order for a true socialist state to emerge, for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the entire working force must be self-united. Having their will enforced upon them is imperialist and counter-intuitive.

Led Zeppelin

18th February 2008, 12:15

This entire thread is moot. Basic Marxist ideology dictates that in order for a vanguard force of the working class to emerge and establish the proletarian dictatorship, the workers must attain class-consciousness themselves.

So basically what you're saying is that you have no idea what basic Marxist ideology consists of or what the Marxist definition of the term "class-conscious" is.

There will never be a situation wherein the majority of the working-class is class-conscious within the framework of capitalism, and to believe so is ridiculous.

You probably believe that the working-class in Russia were "class-conscious" because a dictatorship of the proletariat was established there. Common mistake. Actually Lenin said that the only reason the revolution was succesful there was due to the extreme conditions created by the World War, among other things, and not because the majority of the working-class were "class-conscious communists".

Awful Reality

19th February 2008, 02:40

You probably believe that the working-class in Russia were "class-conscious" because a dictatorship of the proletariat was established there. Common mistake. Actually Lenin said that the only reason the revolution was succesful there was due to the extreme conditions created by the World War, among other things, and not because the majority of the working-class were "class-conscious communists".

When did I say so? I have my own qualms about the implementation or and circumstances surrounding the revolution, and I in no way believe that a proletarian dictatorship ever emerged in Russia.

And yes, I know perfectly well what class consciousness and false consciousness are.

Your argument at first and your pathetic refutation of my claims make you look like nothing but a pompous jerk. To claim that the proletariat cannot achieve total class-consciousness by themselves is self-contradictory, as part of class-consciousness is the ability of a class to act in its own interests- never mind that this makes you sound utterly conceited and condescending. In fact, it just makes you a champagne socialist.

Die Neue Zeit

19th February 2008, 02:47

When did I say so? I have my own qualms about the implementation or and circumstances surrounding the revolution, and I in no way believe that a proletarian dictatorship ever emerged in Russia.

That you are beginning to entertain Lenin's idea of "revolutionary democracy" is a VERY positive sign. :)

This entire thread is moot. Basic Marxist ideology dictates that in order for a vanguard force of the working class to emerge and establish the proletarian dictatorship, the workers must attain class-consciousness themselves.

You sound like a "Luxemburgist" rather than a Trot here.

Comrade Nadezhda

19th February 2008, 03:12

The workers are exploited and often cannot see beyond that. They are blinded by bourgeois morals and told what is good for the bourgeoisie is good for them- that they will someday have the same luxury and excess as the bourgeoisie- most die believing they will.

They are reduced to commodities which they produce, they work long hours without choice, option. Many working people look to religion, as believing that there is a heaven distracts them from the great oppression existent in capitalist society. They do not see themselves in any way united, in revolutionary movement, with the rest of the working class.

They are not class-conscious, which is why they must be enraged to the extent that revolution can occur- making them aware that they are exploited by the bourgeoisie, that they are slaves to the wage- and without revolution they will not be able to break free of the shackles which have bound them.

Only through the central organization of revolutionary proletarian movement, through the presence of the vanguard, through the distribution of propaganda, newspapers, leaflets, all else- will they be enraged into class-conciousness.

Without that, they will not progress beyond their chains, as they are still blinded by the bourgeois lies.

RNK

19th February 2008, 08:57

Consciousness does not develop from nothing; it develops from the continuing process of exploitation and suffering that has marked the capitalist system. The bourgeoisie can do its best to stiffle this development but like evolution it is inevitable.

That said, one of the worst tendencies in the revolutionary left is to prescribe to this damaging notion that we who have 'attained' class consciousness are somehow and indescribably removed from the masses and elevated to some superior position above it. In reality we merely represent that section of the proletariat which has developed consciousness; we are, to use the Matrix analogy, those who have "woken up" from the illusion and it is our duty to help everyone "wake up", to agitate the process of development and be an invigorating tool to hasten it.

Communists should not consider themselves different. We are workers. We are not intellectuals who sit in comfortable offices and rattle day in and day out on typewriters, we should not wrangle over the issue of our involvement with other workers. Our job is not to sit around and wait for the day that everyone pulls themselves out of the muiddy bog of capitalism; we must reach in and help them out so that they can join us as equals, not as followers.

Awful Reality

19th February 2008, 12:17

You sound like a "Luxemburgist" rather than a Trot here.

I don't consider myself to be absolutely anything. I haven't done much research about Luxemburg, so I'm entirely sure of her views. I don't think that any doctrines, in any field, are perfect. But at present, I consider myself a Trotskyist.

Led Zeppelin

19th February 2008, 13:49

When did I say so? I have my own qualms about the implementation or and circumstances surrounding the revolution, and I in no way believe that a proletarian dictatorship ever emerged in Russia.

And yes, I know perfectly well what class consciousness and false consciousness are.

Your argument at first and your pathetic refutation of my claims make you look like nothing but a pompous jerk. To claim that the proletariat cannot achieve total class-consciousness by themselves is self-contradictory, as part of class-consciousness is the ability of a class to act in its own interests- never mind that this makes you sound utterly conceited and condescending. In fact, it just makes you a champagne socialist.

Me sounding pompous? Who was the one touting the line of "basic Marxism" (and then getting it wrong too)?

Who was the one who claimed to know what class-consciousness means, proudly boasting it to all who do not "know the basics of Marxist ideology" (and then getting it wrong too)?

Yeah, I'm the pompous, elitist, condescending one, not you. :lol:

Is this how you make yourself feel better? Deny reality and make stuff up? If so, keep at it, it seems to be working pretty good for you. Too bad other people have to exist to beat you back to reality when you start floating too high.

To wait for the working-class as a whole attaining class-consciousness within the framework of capitalism means to wait forever. Talk about champagne socialism? More like armchair champagne socialism.

Awful Reality

19th February 2008, 23:44

To wait for the working-class as a whole attaining class-consciousness within the framework of capitalism means to wait forever. Talk about champagne socialism? More like armchair champagne socialism.

...And so you are asserting that on its own, capitalism is eternal? Because it sure sounds like it.

And you still fail to have told me how/why I'm wrong.

Then who is to provide whomever provides the proletariat with class-consciousness class-consciousness?

Either way, it doesn't work.

RNK

20th February 2008, 00:41

...And so you are asserting that on its own, capitalism is eternal? Because it sure sounds like it.

And you still fail to have told me how/why I'm wrong.

Then who is to provide whomever provides the proletariat with class-consciousness class-consciousness?

Either way, it doesn't work.

Those who have already attained that consciousness and therefore have been given the ability to do so. The process of the development of class conscience in workers in an inevitably but it is not invulnerable to outside interference; as we have seen, bourgeois imperialism has been very successful (at times) in thwarting progressive class struggle movements in every corner of the planet, through military interventions, invasions, funding anti-progressive forces, and so on and so forth.

So this idiotic claim that workers will attain a conscience on their own is just that - an idiotic claim, which fails to even pay lip service to the efforts of global capital.

As workers who have developed class consciousness it is up to us communists to continue to help foster the development and growth in the rest of the population. It is up to us to take what we have gained and begin to apply it, rather than sit around in armchairs sipping lemonade and waiting for some arbitrary armageddon.

Frankly I think both of you are wrong; on the one hand you're arguing that workers must attain class consciousness on their own. On the other, you're arguing that a proletarian revolution is only possible when certain conditions have been met and certain and unique and prerequisite oppurtunities arise. I think you're both wrong; as communists we must always work to agitate the masses, at all times, and fight for revolutionary change unrelentingly. The only prerequisite lacking here and now is the support for a revolutionary movement in the masses; and it's our job to create that support, as the vanguard of class consciousness.

Led Zeppelin

20th February 2008, 14:07

...And so you are asserting that on its own, capitalism is eternal? Because it sure sounds like it.

Sure, if you want to dismiss 99% of what I said and focus on 1% of it.

And you still fail to have told me how/why I'm wrong.

I did by simply pointing to history. Never before has even half of the working-class attained class-consciousness, not even during the height of revolutionary movements such as in Russia, and here you are asserting that it is still possible...

Sorry, but there was a cause to that, and you are ignoring it. The cause was that within the framework of capitalism, the tools of consciousness-forming (schools, printing presses, media in general etc.) are not in the hands of the workers, they are in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

In Russia the Bolsheviks were able to compete with them on an equal level, and even then they were not able to raise the class as a whole to the level of class-consciousness which they themselves had achieved, i.e., to be a Marxist. Why were they not able to do so? Because the working-class had for decades upon decades been influenced by bourgeois consciousness, you can't just eradicate that within a few months or years.

One of the reasons a dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to exist is to "enlighten the working masses, and raise them to the level of class-consciousness". Which will not take months or years, but perhaps decades. Why will it work? Because finally the means of consciousness-forming will be in the hands of class-conscious workers themselves, and not in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Then who is to provide whomever provides the proletariat with class-consciousness class-consciousness?

The vanguard of the class, i.e., its most advanced section.

Either way, it doesn't work.

Perhaps not to a person who idealizes the act of revolution and believes that every participant in it is "as aware of Marxism as the other".

The vast majority of the working-class has economic interests in the revolution, and that is where their support will be based on, it is our job as Marxists to raise their level to political interests as well.

It is not easy to eradicate centuries of ruling class consciousness.

On the other, you're arguing that a proletarian revolution is only possible when certain conditions have been met and certain and unique and prerequisite oppurtunities arise. I think you're both wrong; as communists we must always work to agitate the masses, at all times, and fight for revolutionary change unrelentingly.

Which is exactly what I said.

I actually criticized the economist outlook of "sitting around waiting for the revolution".

Of course there has to be an organization and significant support amongst the working-class in place for when those "certain conditions and prerequisite oppurtunities" are met.

The only prerequisite lacking here and now is the support for a revolutionary movement in the masses; and it's our job to create that support, as the vanguard of class consciousness.

Yes but you're deducing it wrongly.

The fact that those prerequisites lack at the moment is based on the economic conditions, or the condition of the superstructure in general.

If they did exist, forming that support would have been a lot easier, no? Every active Marxist knows that when the "times get tough", it is much easier to approach other workers with the idea of revolutionary change.

The working-class is shocked out of apathy by hardship, just like any other class in society.

All revolutions which replaced one class by the other have occured in a state of utter destruction in all fields of the system, which are all in turn based on the economic situation.

The only reason Marx argued in favor of communism is because he foresaw the unsustainability of the capitalist economic system.

Now once again, I'm not saying that Marxists should just "sit around and wait". If we do that then we will be ill-prepared when the time does arrive. Fascism saved capitalism more than once because of that, and it is wrong to believe that it will not do so again if it gets the chance.

Awful Reality

20th February 2008, 15:39

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing that at any point the entire proletariat will be class-conscious- that's ridiculous. I just think that whomever provides the revolutionary force with class-consciousness must be internal, or a worker/proletariat himself.

I don't think it's reasonable for a member of the petit-bourgeoise to mobilize a class-consciousness in the proletariat; they may certainly play a leading role as such, yet the proletariat, I still contend, must develop class-consciousness internally, to any degree,

Led Zeppelin

20th February 2008, 22:56

I agree with you there comrade.

Lenin also did, though I know a lot of people try to misrepresent his views and rip quotes out of their historical context.

Check out this work: What they did to What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section1)

RNK

21st February 2008, 03:55

If they did exist, forming that support would have been a lot easier, no? Every active Marxist knows that when the "times get tough", it is much easier to approach other workers with the idea of revolutionary change.

My point is that times are tough and have been for quite some time. Exploitation is at its highest in a century and standards of living have been steadily dropping for decades.

I get the feeling that many communists unintentionally fall for the same ruse that the rest of the working class has fallen for; that things are "ok" when they infact are not at all okay. Poverty, homelessness, unemployment and crime are rampant through a massive portion of the population of all western countries as the wage gap between rich and poor continues to increase. Standards of living in western countries (atleast the US and Canada) have been steadily falling for decades, with workers working more hours but being paid less on average than they were 30 years ago.

Perhaps it is just a matter of difference of opinion. I personally feel that times are just as ripe now for revolutionary change as they were during the great depression; the only problem is mass complacency, a crippled morale, and the inability of the already class conscious (ie, us) to mobilize effectively.

RNK

21st February 2008, 03:56

or a worker/proletariat himself.

I don't know about you, but I am a worker, as are most communists. Again, communists are not seperate from the working class -- we are the worker's class-conscious.

Led Zeppelin

21st February 2008, 14:08

I personally feel that times are just as ripe now for revolutionary change as they were during the great depression

Then, I'm sorry to say, you are delusional.

the only problem is mass complacency, a crippled morale, and the inability of the already class conscious (ie, us) to mobilize effectively.

Once again you are deducing it wrongly.

The fact that those things existed (to a much higher extent than they do now) during the great depression had to do with the material conditions created by the great depression, or rather, the consciousness those material conditions aroused in the working-classes.

RNK

22nd February 2008, 04:56

Then, I'm sorry to say, you are delusional.

Your knack for providing counter-points to opposing arguements is impeccable.

The fact that those things existed (to a much higher extent than they do now) during the great depression had to do with the material conditions created by the great depression, or rather, the consciousness those material conditions aroused in the working-classes.

That's a good point. Things were worse during the Great Depression, and yet still, class-consciousness did not become widespread and no great proletarian movement erupted, even while a quarter of the population of the United States lived in absolute poverty and still more endured hardships many of us can not imagine today.

I understand, then, the thinking that "if things weren't bad enough then, they certainly aren't now". This, however, shows only your inability to move beyond the propagandist arguements of bourgeois economists who have always maintained that "things are good". I would argue that you have, unintentionally, fallen victim to the same defeatist apathy that affects the modern working class -- that everything is OK, there's no need or will to change anything.

Do us all a favoir and become a union rep, so you can more effectively convince workers that things aren't bad enough for them to do anything.

STI

22nd February 2008, 10:36

One term that seems shrouded in mystery through this whole thread is "by themselves".

Can a worker, exposed to communist ideas (say, the Manifesto), decide that "yeah, these guys are really on to something" without being hand-held and walked through every step of the process? Well, sure. This seems especially likely in times where the class struggle is "out in the open" - ie: when a bitter strike casts bourgeois ideology in a different light.

Will every worker come up with a coherent analysis of class society and a rough outline of the economy post-revolution without having ever heard or read about it from anyone else?

If that's what we're talking about, we might as well be asking, "Can workers learn statistics by themselves?"

Sure, she didn't write the Manifesto (much less Capital!) herself, but whatever insights the pamphlet has to offer would put into words what already made sense to that worker intuitively.

So then why doesn't every worker who reads this or that pamphlet go up in arms against their boss?

Fucked if I know, but damned if I don't have a few speculations. I'd expect that "receptivity to communist ideas" is a trait that is normally-distributed... sometimes the "curve" is in our favour, and sometimes it isn't. Different factors on the macro level (political/economic situation, prevalence of "revolutionary solutions" to current problems) will push the curve in one direction or another, while other micro-level factors (job satisfaction, regard for authority) effect where on the curve one particular worker will fall vs. another. It would seem as though, right now at least, the curve isn't in our favour.

Also worth considering is that the specific "communist ideas" to which a given worker is exposed might lack relevance or appeal because of their content per se. I'd expect that to be the case when proposing that we abolish this class society only to replace it with another on the condition that we'll be genuinely liberated from wage slavery "someday" (in a decade? A generation? A century? We'll see! Promise!).

Led Zeppelin

22nd February 2008, 11:35

Your knack for providing counter-points to opposing arguements is impeccable.

It's like trying to prove to you that water is wet.

Any sane person knows that the workers' movement was much bigger and stronger during the depression, as it is during any economic slump.

Either you haven't been active in the movement for a long time, or you're just delusional. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying the latter, be happy.

That's a good point. Things were worse during the Great Depression, and yet still, class-consciousness did not become widespread and no great proletarian movement erupted, even while a quarter of the population of the United States lived in absolute poverty and still more endured hardships many of us can not imagine today.

It was a hell of a lot more widespread than it is today, which was my point.

Thanks for reaffirming it.

I understand, then, the thinking that "if things weren't bad enough then, they certainly aren't now". This, however, shows only your inability to move beyond the propagandist arguements of bourgeois economists who have always maintained that "things are good". I would argue that you have, unintentionally, fallen victim to the same defeatist apathy that affects the modern working class -- that everything is OK, there's no need or will to change anything.

Yes, the working-class person who used to not be able to buy food but can now afford all the basic things of life is just as well off as he was during the great depression.

Tell that to a worker and he'll (rightly) laugh his ass off at you.

Of course the current situation is still bad and "worth changing", however it isn't bad enough for enough people to instill a sense of revolution within them.

The fact that your organization probably has no more support than 100 people should prove this to you, but I guess you're delusions of grandeur are blinding you of it.

Do us all a favoir and become a union rep, so you can more effectively convince workers that things aren't bad enough for them to do anything.

Why? I'll just do the same as you and pretend that living conditions are as bad as they were during the great depression, you know, give the workers a comedy routine so they can laugh their asses off.

I know it's hard for someone like you to get it, but the fact of the matter is that no revolution has ever been won while the system was still functioning for the majority of people, and to say that currently the system is not functioning for the majority of people in the imperialist nations is ridiculous and delusional.

Of course, as I have already said but have to repeat because you clearly didn't grasp it, that doesn't mean that a bad economic situation equals a revolutionary movement. It also requires organization, active work by communists and all the things you do, like sell papers and talk to workers about how cool Mao was.

There is however an objective reason why in some cases the working-class is more receptive to that and why it isn't in others, and the economic situation is that objective cause, just ask those guys Marx and Lenin.

Die Neue Zeit

1st March 2008, 01:48

Uneven development of consciousness: rebutting the reductionist spontaneists

Just as there is uneven capitalist development in the sphere of economy (between nations and, as has yet to be contested in my Stamocap thread, between wholesale economic "sectors" :D ), there is uneven development of consciousness amongst the working class (hence the vanguard and vanguard party).

The point is that the whole mass of working-class folks by itself cannot develop this consciousness [particularly at the same time]. It has to be either imported (petit-bourgeois intellectuals, with their literary works, and ESPECIALLY "coordinator"/managerial individuals per my Theory thread on modern class relations (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)) or developed by informed segments of the working class.

[As a revolutionary Marxist side rant, Kautsky made a reductionist error by saying that the "bearers of consciousness" in his time were exclusively petit-bourgeois.]

AlanMaki

1st March 2008, 20:33

I find this discussion very strange because workers come to class consciousness through real struggles.

The more workers struggle around the "property question" and participate in struggles which challenge the capitalist ownership of the industries the deeper their understanding and class consciousness will be.

It seems to me, without discussing some kind of "property question" this entire discussion is kind of meaningless.

I find it interesting that Trotskyites, and anarchists, seem to shy away from any current struggle where the "ownership" question surfaces.

One example would be around the plant closing issues.

Not once have I heard or seen Trotskyites, or anarchists, working to develop struggles to keep these plants open through public ownership or nationalization.

Here in Minnesota, the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant is closing and the Trotskyites pased out a leaflet in the plant urging a "no" vote on the contract but failed to even note that closing this plant was part of the contract!

In fact, the Trotskyites, and anarchists, have not lifted a finger to try to bring this plant under public ownership.

Under the circumstances, all this talk about class consciousness is mostly useless, idle talk, because, in the end, class consciousness is learned through real life struggles.

Of course, if it is simply one or two workers you seek to instill with "class consciousness" such discussion devoid of real life issues might yield a few results... I thought the idea was to instill this consciousness in the entire working class... and it takes moving the working class into action to accomplish this.

Die Neue Zeit

1st March 2008, 20:40

^^^ Good point! :scared:

Why not bring the Argentinian example to the US itself? :ohmy:

This skips minimum demands and delves straight into reformist demands (between minimum demands and revolutionary demands).

RNK

1st March 2008, 21:24

Anyway, Led, you're right, it's not very easy to conclude that materialistically revolution is just as plausible today as it was yesteryear -- atleast without me having to put more effort than I'm willing.

But your arguement nonetheless consists of reverse science; it hasn't happened, so it must not be able to happen, and these must be reasons why.

Not once have I heard or seen Trotskyites, or anarchists, working to develop struggles to keep these plants open through public ownership or nationalization.

I've been to several protests at plant closures, and throughout Quebec over the past decade or so there's been a huge increase in the number of plant closures with thousands of workers being laid off as their manufacturing jobs are shipped to choice Central American countries. However, no organization around has managed to penetrate their ideas into these workers. Most are utterly resigned to their fate, scoff at "evil communism" and are concerned only with how to get back on their feet, to return to the status quo. Nobody's interested in the grand notions of the big picture.

Led Zeppelin

1st March 2008, 21:46

Anyway, Led, you're right, it's not very easy to conclude that materialistically revolution is just as plausible today as it was yesteryear -- atleast without me having to put more effort than I'm willing.

But your arguement nonetheless consists of reverse science; it hasn't happened, so it must not be able to happen, and these must be reasons why.

Fair enough, however I never said that it is not able to happen. I said that the reason it hasn't happened yet is due to objective material conditions, and that inevitably the objective material conditions required for a revolution will come about, because capitalism is an unsustainable economic (and as a result also political) system.

I wasn't arguing for people to just sit around and do nothing, if they do that they'll miss the opportunity when it does arise. We have to be prepare ourselves during the ebb of revolutionary consciousness, or else we'll miss the flow of it.

AlanMaki

1st March 2008, 21:49

If you know how to do this, please explain.

I am not sure how you would do this. You are certainly free to come to Minnesota to try. I don't think you will find any opposition from any of us working to save this plant and most importantly, the two-thousand jobs.

In fact, there have been some local supporters of just the concept you advocate, but, it is strange, they haven't brought this concept forward in the plant or in the community.

When I asked one woman who advocates this why she has not done so, she replied, and these are her exact words, "This is your issue, not mine." She lives less than two blocks from the plant!

I say to you or anyone else, just let me know what time the plant takeover is scheduled to begin... I will be there.

Let me know when you intend to lay down in front of the bulldozers like Rachel Corey did... and I will be there.

On September 3, 2008 during the Republican National Convention being held in the Twin Cities we will have a picket line in support of public ownership of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant... I hope a delegation from those of you occupying the plant will come out and join us and the others who get done throwing their rocks and bottles through windows the previous days will join our picket line for public ownership.

With all due respect, I see this call for the plant's occupation, as justified as it is, as an excuse to do nothing.

One anarchist told me, "We aren't going to let the wrecking ball take that plant down... they will have to get over our bodies first." Ya, sure... like they say here in Minnesota, "You betcha."

Here are several resolutions that have been passed in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party precinct caucuses held on February 5, 2008...

Participants in the February 5, 2008 Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party Precinct Caucuses passed the following resolutions:

Resolution in Support of Senate File 607

Whereas Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party State Senator Richard Cohen has authored, together with his DFL Senate colleagues--- Senate File SF 607---legislation which would keep the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and the hydro dam which powers the manufacturing operation for free, together as an industrial unit for at least two years after Ford ceases production until a plan can be devised for its continued operation;

Whereas DFL State Representative Tom Rukavina successfully steered companion legislation to SF 607 through a House Committee with bipartisan support;

Therefore, be it resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party supports the efforts of MN DFL State Senators James Metzen and David Tomassoni to have SF 607 reconsidered in the Senate Committee on Business, Industry and Jobs;

And, be it further resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party uses its majority status in both the Senate and the House to bring forward legislation as provided for in SF 607 aimed at saving two-thousand jobs by keeping the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and the hydro dam together as a manufacturing unit until a solution is found to re-open the Plant.

Resolution 0n the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant/Hydro Dam and 2,000 Union Jobs

Whereas Ford Motor Company has stated its intent to close the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, sell the hydro dam to a foreign corporation, and displace two-thousand workers in the near future without consultation from the workers, the community, or local and state governments;

Whereas this plant, its operations, and the hydro dam have received continued support from every level of government including tax-payer funding, tax-breaks and tax abatements under promises to maintain manufacturing operations and with assurances workers would have job security in St. Paul, Minnesota;

Therefore, be it resolved, the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is for public ownership being used to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, hydro dam, and two-thousand jobs.

Resolution on Bush’s Economic Stimulus Plan and Initiative

Whereas George Bush’s “economic stimulus plan and initiative” is based upon 150 billion dollars---tax-payer dollars--- being used to bail out a failing economy which includes subsidies to private industries;

Therefore be it resolved that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is for tax-payers owning the industries which tax-payer dollars subsidize in proportion to what they subsidize.

RNK

1st March 2008, 23:01

I wasn't arguing for people to just sit around and do nothing, if they do that they'll miss the opportunity when it does arise. We have to be prepare ourselves during the ebb of revolutionary consciousness, or else we'll miss the flow of it.

Of course, I will not discount that this may be true. But I am both optimistic and critical; I think there is enough cause, even if not directly related to material conditions, for something to be done. But I can not say this with certainty.

Throw a dozen people into a pit and watch them starve and they will become viscious animals -- or will come together in an epic example of co-operation.

I can not speak for America but in Canada, particularly in Quebec, I believe there is a much thicker, or atleast more pertinent history of worker's actions, but also the telltale signs of division.

For instance, a couple of years ago, there was an "illegal" strike by members of city workers here in Montreal (iirc, public workers can not legally go on strike). They organized a demonstration along some street downtown. What was the population's response? A class-action suite was filed against the striking workers by motorists "inconvenienced" by their demonstration. They won over a million dollars in damages from the pockets of those workers.

So what drives some people to such stupidity? Why would a worker demonize another for something they may one day have to rely on? I've even met workers who oppose unions and support anti-union laws. The reason? "Unions need to be kept in check -- they can't have too much power".

It's infuriating, sometimes.

Die Neue Zeit

1st March 2008, 23:08

^^^ Could it be because some of those workers have had the displeasure of dealing with union bureaucracy? I never was a unionized worker, and while I believe that working within unions isn't a bad thing, we should do something to build organizations like NGOs as alternatives.

RNK

1st March 2008, 23:52

Could be, but there is definately an undertone of anti-worker organization out there, or at the very least a high amount of apathy for organized workers and complacency to the authority of executives and managers.

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2008, 02:59

Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing.

Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed.

nanovapor

19th April 2008, 06:32

Hey i like your signature, and i think you are right, most leftist parties in this world are led by burocrat-leaders looking for personal wealth, there are very few pure, honest, moralist, revolutionary leftist parties and/or movements in this world

nanovapor

Additionally:

1. It cannot be the self-organization of the working class if bourgeois are involved--however petty these exploiters may be, and

2. The only reason capitalists--petty or otherwise--get involved in the struggles of their servants is to rule them.

Thus, small capitalists are not and could never be allies of the working class.

piet11111

19th April 2008, 14:17

More Fire for the People

19th April 2008, 16:47

If Led Zeppelin’s criticisms reek of Cognac, perhaps mine will provide something a little stouter.

First of all, the notion of ‘basic Marxist ideology’ is reductionist nonsense. Marxism is like a 16th century ship at sea exploring the uncharted waters of the New World. It travels through these waters not as an impenetrable fortress but as a wooden mass subject to decay and mishap. Therefore, it is always using parts from one region of the ship in order to repair another until it can no longer repair itself and must land on unfamiliar islands and use island material to fix the damages.

So to reduce such a complicated process to a formula (cc→ v → pd), is to take a catamaran of barrels and bedsheets on a transatlantic trip.

Secondly, Led Zeppelin is wrong but you fail to illustrate why… instead you take up a wimpy position in the corner in order to nurse your ego’s wounds. Class conscious is the political subjectivity of a class who, once determined by their conditions, is now determining their conditions. In Russia this process of the determined determining appeared sporadically as individual subjectivity (personal dissatisfaction with the war, wages, rations, etc) became class (and political) subjectivity.

“From criticism the masses pass over to action. Their indignation finds expression first of all in food disturbances, sometimes rising to the height of local riots. Women, old men and boys, in the market or on the open square, feel bolder and more independent than the workers on military duty in the factories.”

[…]

The provinces are passing through the same stages, only more slowly. The growth in massiveness of the movement and in fighting spirit shifts the centre of gravity from the textile to the metal-workers, from economic strikes to political, from the provinces to Petrograd. The first two months of 1917 show 575,000 political strikers, the lion’s share of them in the capital. In spite of new raids carried out by the police on the eve of January 9, 150,000 workers went on strike in the capital on that anniversary of blood. The mood was tense. The metal-workers were in the lead. The workers all felt that no retreat was possible. In every factory an active nucleus was forming, oftenest around the Bolsheviks. Strikes and meetings went on continuously throughout the first two weeks of February. On the 8th, at the Putilov factory, the police received “a hail of slag and old iron.” On the 14th, the day the Duma opened, about 90,000 were on strike in Petrograd. Several plants also stopped work in Moscow. On the 16th, the authorities decided to introduce bread cards in Petrograd. This novelty rasped the nerves. On the 19th, a mass of people gathered around the food shops, especially women, all demanding bread. A day later bakeries were sacked in several parts of the city. These were the heat lightnings of the revolution, coming in a few days.

Led Zeppelin

19th April 2008, 19:31

Secondly, Led Zeppelin is wrong but you fail to illustrate why… instead you take up a wimpy position in the corner in order to nurse your ego’s wounds. Class conscious is the political subjectivity of a class who, once determined by their conditions, is now determining their conditions. In Russia this process of the determined determining appeared sporadically as individual subjectivity (personal dissatisfaction with the war, wages, rations, etc) became class (and political) subjectivity.

If it truly was a class-wide "subjectivity" then the class as a whole, or at least a majority thereof, would have been ready to run the new state on the basis of Soviet Democracy, and there would have been no need to temporarily suspend multi-party and later multi-faction democracy.

No, sorry, but that is idealist. The vast majority of the class were not dedicated communists or Marxists, and they weren't spurred to action because they "believed in Marxism". The vast majority of them probably didn't even know the Bolsheviks were "communists" or what communism was in terms of theory.

Nor did they need to know. Because the class has an economic and political interest in the revolution, they do need to read Das Kapital or State And Revolution; they are living the way of life required to understand the need for revolution, for they exist as proletarians.

This way of life is not a fixed state, however. As you said, things like "personal dissatisfaction with the war, wages, rations, etc.", i.e., real issues impacting their real daily life was what they needed to be spurred to action, and that has been the case in every revolution. As Gramsci said, for the working-class to want to change the system it has to stop working for at least a majority of them.

Having said that, I don't believe that a worker needs to be well-versed in Marxist phraseology and theory to understand the need for a socialist and/or communist society. The majority of the working-class will never be "Marxists", because they don't need to be. Taking over the means of production (or rather, the economy in general) and running it in a rational manner, and thereby creating the material conditions which will establish a socialist/communist society, is what Marxism in practice basically comes down to.

Everything else is a direct consequence or result of that.