Can you be revolutionary left if you are not working class?

[Cruxev]

I have this question that i have thought of a long time. If you life in a country were most of the people are "middle class", such as Sweden, can they still be some kind of revolutionary left? When people are living quite good, and does not have to worry that much about money, but still does not own any of the means of production? What does the revolutionary left have for those people? How can they identify with it? And so on.. Would be happy for some answers.

[Panda Tse Tung]

define 'middle class'.

[Everyday Anarchy]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class. I disagree.

A desire for a stateless and classless society can be imagined and strived for by anyone, no matter social status or income. It all has to do with the kind of person you are. If you cherish freedom and equality and want to arrange life communally, then by all means-- you are revolutionary.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If you life in a country were most of the people are "middle class", such as Sweden, can they still be some kind of revolutionary left? When people are living quite good, and does not have to worry that much about money, but still does not own any of the means of production? What does the revolutionary left have for those people? How can they identify with it? And so on..

Under a Marxist class definition the "Middle Class" could refer to a number of classes and is an inadequate label. When people refer to the middle class they usually mean it as a group of people defined by an arbitrary concept of what average living standards and wages are. For Marxists however a class is defined a group of people defined by their reltions to the means of production. However I recognise the group you are referring to as primarily white collar workers of the service industry.

To answer your question, Yes "middle class" members can be revolutionary. So long as this "middle class" is made up of proletarians it can be (but not always is) revolutionary.

In western countries where the "middle class" and even "working class" have relatively good standards of living, a revolutionary consciousness may be hard to envisage, this is not to say that it is impossible. Any individual as a member of the proletariat (with some exceptions) can identify and be a member of the revolutionary left.

In most developed western nations the standards of living are very high for two reasons. One is the exploitation of third world wage labour. In nations under the heel of imperialism the standards of living are much lower and one would presume the revolutionary consciousness much higher (this is not always true though for a number of reasons). The "Middle Class" and working class of the Western world own their high standards of living largely to imperialism.

The other reason for the relatively high standards of living for workers and "middle class" in the West is due to an extensive welfare state and social democratic politics. The idea that reform can provide better standards of living for all is a significant force which dents revolutionary esteem in the West.

Despite all this the workers and "middle class" and the West can attain class consciousness and a revolutionary outlook. The only way this can be achieved is constantly bringing to the front the limitations of the current system and the real relations between the "middle class" and workers to the bourgeoisie. No matter whether the chains by which the capitalist enslave them are caste of gold or iron or how much of the scraps from the table of the bourgeoisie they feed on, they all share a common relation to the means of production and this is what unites them as a class whether they are conscious of it or not.

[RaiseYourVoice]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class. I disagree.

A desire for a stateless and classless society can be imagined and strived for by anyone, no matter social status or income. It all has to do with the kind of person you are. If you cherish freedom and equality and want to arrange life communally, then by all means-- you are revolutionary.
First of all, no marxist would say that. There is more factors than just objective class relation determining which side you fight on. Of course there can be people who are revolutionary and fight on the side of the working class, but objectively have a different status. Class consciousness is more than just class relation. It is also a state of mind. A worker without and class consciousness is no more revolutionary than lumpenprof without it.

On the other hand, it would be unmaterialist crap to say that it ONLY depends cheerishing freedom and equality. If you have never suffered oppression it is highly unlikely that you become truly revolutionary. Its more often the case, that petit-bourgoise children radicalise and see themselves as some kind of avantgarde, truely though detached from real working class struggle. I could name ideologies or groups which result from this, but i guess thats what you would call sectarian ;)


@ Zeitgeist

You forget one important part in the high living standart in western countries. That was the system competition between the west and the socialist block states. One couldnt afford to keep the workers in alot worse condition than on the other side of the iron curtain. You can clearly see a wave of imperialism, deeper gaps between the classes, cut on "democratic" rights etc. since beginning of the 90s in all of europe, now reaching the scandinavien countries as well. With the fall of the soviet block we also had an ideological offensive about the end of history etc.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class. I disagree.Nonsense. Marx recognized that there will always be a section of the bourgeoisie which will defect to the side of the workers when faced with a revolution. From the Communist Manifesto:


Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.This passage probably refers to Marx and Engels - they were not of working-class origin, but made important contributions to the theoretical development of Socialism.

Any Marxist who argues that only workers can be revolutionary lacks a sound understanding of Marxism - although all Marxists, myself included, would argue that the working class is the only class that is capable of leading the revolution, although they may form alliances with other classes such as the peasantry, when the proletariat does not possess sufficient strength to carry out the revolution alone. Most Anarchists would place similar emphasis on the working class.

You made an assertion which exposed your lack of theoretical knowledge.

As for the general question of "middle class" revolution, it should first be noted that "middle class" is not a term which belongs to the Marxist analysis of class relations. Marxists analyze class based on an individual's relationship to the means of production, and so the two main classes in a capitalist society are the bourgeoisie, the group which owns the tools and machinery used to produce goods, and the proletariat, the group comprised of those who must sell their ability to labour in order to survive. "middle class" is more commonly used in the discourse of mainstream class analysis, and is based on income, and so obscures the importance of ownership relations as a social division.

On the more important issue of whether revolution can occur in the oppressor nations, revolution is possible, even if conditions in these countries are better than the conditions in the oppressed nations, because workers are still faced with economic hardship, which will intensify in the near future as a result of economic depression. There is currently strong popular discontent in many oppressor nations, due to the failure of governments to show adequate concern for the needs of their people, and the perceived betrayal of many parties which have, in the past, been seen as the parliamentary representation of the working class, especially in the case of the British labour party. The events of May 1968 also suggest that factors that are not connected with living standards can also create the possibility of revolution, such as the alienation experienced by workers in any capitalist society.

[Tower of Bebel]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class. I disagree.

What about Friedrich Engels?


A desire for a stateless and classless society can be imagined and strived for by anyone, no matter social status or income. It all has to do with the kind of person you are. If you cherish freedom and equality and want to arrange life communally, then by all means-- you are revolutionary.This most certainly counts for marxism as well.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some of the old guard Bolsheviks were not of working class origins. It's certainly possible.

[Luís Henrique]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class.

Nope, that is obviously false. No serious Marxist would ever say such stupidity.

Luís Henrique

[Marsella]

It's wrong to apply a strictly deterministic approach.

However, no, capitalists will not overthrow themselves :/

[Enragé]

Yes, you can, so was Engels.

Aside from that, much of what is considered not-working class IS working class.

Basically, everything not in possesion of control of either the state or the economy is working class, or an offshoot of it (like students). I say students are an offshoot since the university as well as schools in general are a method by the ruling class to retain control over the children of the proletariate (ironically literally meaning "those who have nothing but their children"... capitalism has destroyed the family comrade, they sent everyone to school to learn bourgeois ideology).


However, no, capitalists will not overthrow themselves :/

True, but they just might sell us the means by which to hang them ;)

[RedArmyFaction]

Of course you can be a revolutionary and be middle class! Engels was a factory owner!

[F9]

Everyone can be revolutionary left.He just has to act like one too.If you are middle class and you have those spare money because of your hard work and to raise your family then you certainly can be revleft!

Fuserg9:star:

[Dros]

The Marxists here would tell you that you can't be revolutionary if you are not working class.

No one who actually understands Marxism would say that.

The simple answer to this question is yes.

Many of the people on this board aren't working class. Many are.

[Prairie Fire]

"Can you be revolutionary left if you aren't working class"?

sure you can; just look at revleft.

[shorelinetrance]

you are more likely to be a leftist if you come from a working class family obviously, but of course anyone can be a leftist, it would absurd to restrict people, if leftists did that we would be like the very reactionaries we fight against!

[TC]

The majority of people on this forum and indeed the immature left use the term "working class" to refer to a culturally defined social strata (including by mere association with 'working class' people via family relations, a definition of class that Marx and Engels explicitly rejected in their analysis of the family).

What is taken as the "working class" in most imperialist states does not correspond to the proletarian in that it includes any people who are not part of the industrial proletariat (i.e. the people who are actually responsible for making everything, not people who provide services, ideas, entertainment, transport, health care, education, etc).

The reason why Marxists want the proletarian to be the ruling class is not out of any particular affinity for them (as sadly, most Trotskyists and anarchists seem to believe) but because putting ownership of production in the hands of the producers (not the badly paid distributors who are often identified incorrectly with the proletariat) eliminates the potential for a stratification of power based on control of the means of production.

[black magick hustla]

What is taken as the "working class" in most industralized countries (including Mexico, Iran, Turkey, Chile, Argentina, etc) does not correspond to the proletarian in that it includes any people who are not part of the industrial proletariat (i.e. the people who are actually responsible for making everything, not people who provide services, ideas, entertainment, transport, health care, education, etc).

fixed

[black magick hustla]

"Can you be revolutionary left if you aren't working class"?

sure you can; just look at revleft.

i am pretty sure most of us are workers (no, not all working class leftists are stalinists like that marcos retard in the other thread said):lol:

[Enragé]

The majority of people on this forum and indeed the immature left use the term "working class" to refer to a culturally defined social strata (including by mere association with 'working class' people via family relations, a definition of class that Marx and Engels explicitly rejected in their analysis of the family).

What is taken as the "working class" in most imperialist states does not correspond to the proletarian in that it includes any people who are not part of the industrial proletariat (i.e. the people who are actually responsible for making everything, not people who provide services, ideas, entertainment, transport, health care, education, etc).

The reason why Marxists want the proletarian to be the ruling class is not out of any particular affinity for them (as sadly, most Trotskyists and anarchists seem to believe) but because putting ownership of production in the hands of the producers (not the badly paid distributors who are often identified incorrectly with the proletariat) eliminates the potential for a stratification of power based on control of the means of production.

The definition Marx gave is obviously outdated (if that in fact is the definition marx gave, im not a marx-expert). The seperation of those who produce and those who distribute production is counter-productive, and nonsensical. Produce cannot reach those who need it without those to distribute it, and has therefore no use-value whatsoever. Moreover, those who enable production, teachers for instance, have in reality no position different from the working class, and should therefore be considered proletarian.

Proletarians are those, literally, who own nothing but their children. The only point to be added to this is that capitalism has destroyed the family and no one owns their children anymore.

[Luís Henrique]

The definition Marx gave is obviously outdated (if that in fact is the definition marx gave, im not a marx-expert).

Of course it is not. What an idea.

Luís Henrique

[gla22]

Most socialist revolutions have not come from the lower class or the proletariat but the middle class. What Marx said isn't law. There are fundamental flaws in his ideology.

[Dros]

Most socialist revolutions have not come from the lower class or the proletariat but the middle class. What Marx said isn't law. There are fundamental flaws in his ideology.

What Marx said isn't "law" but all revolutions led by Communists have been guided by the interests of the proletariat and carried out by the working class and the masses of people more broadly. I don't know where you got that absurd notion.

And there certainly aren't any "fundamental flaws" in Marxism. If you are going to make a statement like that, it would do you well to back it up with an argument instead of tedious blather.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ NewKindOfSoldier: I was about to direct TC towards my article submission "Simplification of class relations?" - feel free to read that article.


The definition Marx gave is obviously outdated (if that in fact is the definition marx gave, im not a marx-expert).

You aren't a "Marx-expert." The 19th-century definition he and Engels gave is outlined in my chapter-article on class relations. :)


The separation of those who produce and those who distribute production is counter-productive, and nonsensical. Produce cannot reach those who need it without those to distribute it, and has therefore no use-value whatsoever. Moreover, those who enable production, teachers for instance, have in reality no position different from the working class, and should therefore be considered proletarian.

Again, you're spot on, but please consider my chapter-article.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

In the 19th century we saw two noblemen, Bakunin and Kropotkin, become passionate anarchist revolutionaries. Kropotkin was a descendant of the princes of Kiev, and even bore the title of "Prince" before renouncing his royal status and committing his life to revolution.

In modern times, Brad Will, the anarchist journalist who was killed at Oaxaca, came from a very wealthy family- but he nonetheless renounced his priveledges and went to live in squats.

So it's not impossible that someone with a middle or even upper-class background decides to become a sincere revolutionary. It might be rarer the higher up the ladder you go, but we know it's not impossible.

[Enragé]

yes, and sorry mate, but a few years later we saw Kropotkin join the cry for war on the side of the russians, and all that Bakunin accomplished was fighting with some arrogant dipshit called Marx thus splitting the 1st internationale.

(still, i'd rather read Kropotkin than anyone else ^^)


edit: DISCLAIMER: views expressed in posts by NewKindOfSoldier may not be thouroughly thought through, especially since NewKindOfSoldier still hopes to be one day be allowed in that group which has the most fun, the Anarchists.

[RedFlagComrade]

Most revolutionaries arent working class-Guevara,Lenin,Castro etc.-People with an education and a moral need to help those worse of then them.
Often you need an education to percieve the inequality of the capitalist system
Thats why we have to educate the working class before we can have a true lasting revolution

[RHIZOMES]

Basically, everything not in possesion of control of either the state or the economy is working class, or an offshoot of it (like students). I say students are an offshoot since the university as well as schools in general are a method by the ruling class to retain control over the children of the proletariate (ironically literally meaning "those who have nothing but their children"... capitalism has destroyed the family comrade, they sent everyone to school to learn bourgeois ideology).

Yeah I'm going to university to learn about Music and Film. I must be getting brainwashed by the bourgeois! :scared::scared::scared:

[RedFlagComrade]

-Judging by the amount of posts a lot of people are worried about this question.
-Most people here are middle class in the traditional sense of the words, but they still support leftist revolution to liberate the working class-I am and do!
-we cant rely on centuries old marxist manuscripts to tell us whether we are revolutionary or not-by being on this site at all we have proven where our hearts lie.

-Communism is for ALL of the PEOPLE not just the working class.If it was just the overthrow the middle and upper class by the working class than you would still have the same system-a new larger upper class made of what was once the lower class and a new smaller oppressed lower class made of the old middle/upper class.
-The point communism is that everyone would be equal-no class would be raised to a higher level than other people.

[Black Dagger]

-Communism is for ALL of the PEOPLE not just the working class.This is true to the extent that communists support the liberation of all humanity - not just freedom for workers - but that all should be free from exploitation, oppression or domination. However communism as a methodology is for the exploited and oppressed - not for the exploiters - though all can be 'communists' - communism as an idea is that a specific class (the proletariat) should/will (depending on your POV) organise to overthrow class society and establish a classless society.



If it was just the overthrow the middle and upper class by the working class...This is precisely what communism as a methodology is.



...than you would still have the same system-a new larger upper class made of what was once the lower class and a new smaller oppressed lower class made of the old middle/upper class.Only if the victorious working class replaced existing society with a new government, as opposed to the free association of all. Though even in that case, society would probably not be made of a small oppressed class of former bourgeoisie, but rather as it was in the USSR and all countries that have undergone revolutionary statism - with the working class held captive to a new ruling class of government bureaucrats.



-The point communism is that everyone would be equal-no class would be raised to a higher level than other people.I agree - and the way this is to be achieved is by abolishing class society - that is all classes, authority and government.