Fetishizing the working-class

[Led Zeppelin]

It is an objective fact that the working-class is bourgeoisified at its inception. The class is "created" or "developed" out of capitalist property relations, with the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, and as we know, the ruling ideas of society reflect the ideas of the ruling class of society.

The means of forming mass consciousness such as the media in all its forms, the school system, and even social relations between people, are all influenced and dominated by the ideas of the ruling class, and for obvious reasons; they own most of those means.

A concrete example; A working-class child who is born is influenced from all sides by the ruling ideas of society, starting from his or her parents (we are of course presuming for the sake of argument that the child is not born in a family with communist parents, which is the rule rather than the exception), going all the way to going to school, watching TV, social relations with friends (who are also for the sake of argument not communists, which is the rule rather than the exception), etc. etc.

So, then, this explains why most working-class people are not class-conscious revolutionaries.

Now, this is all basic knowledge for any Marxist, at least it should be, but I find it worrying that some people want to fetishize those members of the working-class who are not class-conscious, as if it is somehow the goal of Marxists to bring back or stifle our own class-conscious to the level of the bourgeoisified workers? Surely that is not right, I mean, Marx was quite right when he said:



The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Yes, exactly, communists "are the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class", it would be....silly...if we gave that up and became "just as most other workers", which means in effect bourgeoisified.

What would be the point of being a communist if we did that? Well, actually, that was the idea upheld by Social-Democracy, and they ended up becoming reformist because they believed they had to "think like the majority of the working-class thinks", which is not a logical way of looking at the matter because the objective is to raise the class-conscious of the class as a whole, not stoop down the level of the consciousness which the working-class already has in a capitalist society, which can be nothing but trade-unionist consciousness at the highest.

It is important to keep in mind that we do not support the working-class because we like workers as people, or because we think they're all good at heart, or any other such idealist utopian garbage. We support the working-class because it is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development, that is of course when the class in-itself becomes a class for-itself, or, to put it more simply; when the class becomes conscious of itself and its role in the system of production, i.e., when it becomes class-conscious.

Of course our "job" as class-conscious workers is to aid the "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat", that is, "be that section which pushes forward all others", and that requires a certain...politeness when trying to spread such ideas, that is something entirely different from fetishizing workers as they are though, if we did that we wouldn't have had to bother to try to spread such ideas to begin with, because we would have believed that they were "fine to begin with".

Having said that, when due to objective economic conditions it is very hard, if not impossible, to do any revolutionary work, it would be silly for you to say "Oh well, they're fine as they are! They don't need changing, I just love them 'cause they're workers!"

No, as Engels said of the majority of workers during Britain's height of colonial power:


You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm)

Living through such a period can be hard, but there's nothing you can do about it. Fetishizing workers is not the solution, and saying that they've all "turned bourgeoisie and are no longer exploited" is no solution either, all you can do is say fuck em' for the time being, and wait till the tide of reaction has passed, while at the same time trying to keep your own head above water, or as Lenin said "keep active in an embryonic forum".

It should be kept in mind that we are part of the working-class too.

[Tower of Bebel]

It reminds me of many discussions on the Labour parties of the former 2nd Internationale. Some believe the workers will push the Labour Party to the left because the current leadership has failed and has no political authority left. But I'm pessimitic here. I don't believe that the working class will push these parties to the left because they are not conscious. They do not trust the state (actually the government but other parts of the state don't have much moral backing as well), but that doesn't mean they are conscious enough to push politics to the left (whatever left might mean).
The working class today has not overcome the defeat of 1933 and 1945. Sure there has been some serious struggle (May 68, the oil crisis, etc.) but those struggles didn't organise the workers longer than a few months or years.

Also today's socialist or communist parties are focusing to much on economic struggles instead of organising the working class (as a political class!) against the state. Too many alliances with pro-statist parties or organisations may prove my idea. Too many articles of many revolutionary parties focus on governments and parties, persons and currents, instead of capital and the state that is used to defend it. Workers are urged to attack certain governments through certain temporary alliances and too many times (class) struggle, politics and organisational matters are restricted to the trade unions (hoping that some "honest" shop keepers would join their alliances or parties instead of bourgeois parties) instead of organizing the proletariat as a whole in more permanent structures.
I don't ignore unions and immediatly call for soviets. I call for a mass workers' party with many different organisations of the proletariat (and this also means the possibility of having unions) under its wings in order to teach the working class about the role they have to play. That was what social democracy was all about before WWI. You can still read it in the texts of Lenin and Luxemburg for instance.

Of course we have to adapt our tactics to the fact that we are confronted with a less militant working class (because of failures, imperialism and the "welfare" state), but that doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to the level of the workers - indeed.

What would be the point of being a communist if we did that? Well, actually, that was the idea upheld by Social-Democracy, and they ended up becoming reformist because they believed they had to "think like the majority of the working-class thinks", which is not a logical way of looking at the matter because the objective is to raise the class-conscious of the class as a whole, not stoop down the level of the consciousness which the working-class already has in a capitalist society, which can be nothing but trade-unionist consciousness at the highest.No, I believe not that the ideas caused the downfall of the 2nd International. Opportunism will always be there. You wrote it yourself; this is a capitalist world after all. I believe that the inability of revolutionaries to organise themselves to effectifly combat opportunism caused the downfall of the 2nd International. An example are Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht who - unorganised as they were within the 2nd Internationale - got overwelmed by the right wing, while the Bolsheviks - organised by lenin - defeated the Mensheviks who after a certain periode of time were the opportunists' Trojan horse within the labour movement.

[Led Zeppelin]

No, I believe not that the ideas caused the downfall of the 2nd International. Opportunism will always be there. You wrote it yourself; this is a capitalist world after all. I believe that the inability of revolutionaries to organise themselves to effectifly combat opportunism caused the downfall of the 2nd International. An example are Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht who - unorganised as they were within the 2nd Internationale - got overwelmed by the right wing, while the Bolsheviks - organised by lenin - defeated the Mensheviks who after a certain periode of time were the opportunists' Trojan horse within the labour movement.

Well that was a rather simplistic explanation I gave, and I was just focusing on the ideological tendency which drove them to reformism, there were many other factors of course.

I don't believe organization was the most important of those though, it was material conditions.

The Social-Democracy became intertwined with the capitalist systems they were supposed to oppose, so naturally they became part of them and when the time came they defended them, being determines consciousness rang true here.

[Tower of Bebel]

Btw, is this thread meant to be a reply to certain persons, parties, or other "things"? Just interested.

The Social-Democracy became intertwined with the capitalist systems they were supposed to oppose, so naturally they became part of them and when the time came they defended them, being determines consciousness rang true here.
Do you believe that a purge of pro-capitalist elements could have saved the 2nd Internationale? Because it didn't work in the 3rd Internationale (though it kept "revisionists" back for a while).
I believe that mass workers party will alwas suffer from a right wing that - consciously or not - represents capitalist interests; because I believe it is the very nature of a solid and permanent organisation working within the capitalist system and its structures to attract such elements. Just like workers their representatives can become "bourgeois".

[Led Zeppelin]

Btw, is this thread meant to be a reply to certain persons, parties, or other "things"? Just interested.

I was talking about this with Red October and he asked me to post it on Revleft, it's not really a reply to any party or ideological tendency, just a general observation I had about some leftists.


Do you believe that a purge of pro-capitalist elements could have saved the 2nd Internationale? Because it didn't work in the 3rd Internationale (though it kept "revisionists" back for a while).

It would have been impossible to purge the party of pro-capitalist elements because the party bureaucracies and leaderships were dominated by those elements.

I don't think it would have been possible to purge them before that happened either, it was just a natural process which comes with the course you set for your organization. They wanted to become this "mass opposition party working within the system", so that's what they eventually became, a part of the system.


I believe that mass workers party will alwas suffer from a right wing that - consciously or not - represents capitalist interests; because I believe it is the very nature of a solid and permanent organisation working within the capitalist system and its structures to attract such elements. Just like workers their representatives can become "bourgeois".

Sure, when you work inside the system, even if it is only on a conditional basis, there are some members of the organization who will be drawn towards that more than others, and eventually start to believe that it is the only (and best) way of working, just as you'll have members who will dislike working within the system and won't do it at all, even if it is only on a conditional basis.

The important thing is to keep a balance between the extremes, this is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks were good at.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Rakunin, you of all people should be able to distinguish between the various shades of revisionists. A small part of me is for a class-strugglist labour / labour-democratic party (notice the absence of the more obvious words "socialist" and "workers"). "Class-strugglist labour" means that, while the workers may not necessarily be socialists yet, they acknowledge Marx's correctness regarding class struggle (a key failing of "democratic-socialist" and "social-democratic PARLIAMENTARIAN parties).

The rest of me, however, is for United Social Labour, or preferrably Class-Strugglist Social-Labour Democracy:

1) Class struggle;
2) Class-strugglist democracy (participatory democracy);
3) Class-strugglist labour;
4) Labour Democracy;
5) Social Labour; and
6) Other combinations. ;)


It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's theory is the class struggle. But this is wrong. And this wrong notion very often results in an opportunist distortion of Marxism and its falsification in a spirit acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the theory of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and, generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.

And here's my disagreement my Lenin here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/central-aspect-marxism-t85350/index2.html


EDIT: Furthermore, with all the bourgeois clap-trap about "no class conflict," "lib'ral class warfare" (as if they're trying to portray class struggle as a myth), etc., I think it is time that "pro-merger" revolutionary leftists (as opposed to the "propagandists of the deed" and similar hooligans) appropriate the concept known as Der Klassenkampf.

BTW, the full term "Class-Strugglist Social-Labour Democracy" does indeed "extend the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat." ;)

[Niccolò Rossi]

I find it worrying that some people want to fetishize those members of the working-class who are not class-conscious, as if it is somehow the goal of Marxists to bring back or stifle our own class-conscious to the level of the bourgeoisified workers?

Who exactly are these workerists you are referring to?


It is important to keep in mind that we do not support the working-class because we like workers as people, or because we think they're all good at heart, or any other such idealist utopian garbage. We support the working-class because it is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development, that is of course when the class in-itself becomes a class for-itself, or, to put it more simply; when the class becomes conscious of itself and its role in the system of production, i.e., when it becomes class-conscious.

Whilst the first half of what you have mentioned here is undeniably true, the second half reeks of objectivist Second International Marxism which totally neglects class struggle.

"We" do not "support the working-class because it is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development", rather we support the working class because (as members of it) we express nothing more than the objective interests of the proletariat in it's class struggle, it's struggle for it's self-abolition as a class.

[Led Zeppelin]

Who exactly are these workerists you are referring to?

If you had spent any time in the revolutionary leftist movement you wouldn't have had to ask this.


Whilst the first half of what you have mentioned here is undeniably true, the second half reeks of objectivist Second International Marxism which totally neglects class struggle.

That is ironic because what I said actually runs counter to Second International "Marxism".

Maybe you just don't understand it?

Just because the words themselves aren't used doesn't mean that the concepts are not undeniably implied in the phrase, how for example would the proletariat take over the means of production without class struggle? How would they advance society to its next stage of development, i.e., socialism and communism, without class struggle?


"We" do not "support the working-class because it is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development", rather we support the working class because (as members of it) we express nothing more than the objective interests of the proletariat in it's class struggle, it's struggle for it's self-abolition as a class.

The "objective interests of the proletariat in its class struggle" is just another way of saying that the proletariat "is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development", which of course would result in its abolishment as a class, and which of course entails class struggle.

Also, Social-Democracy actually believed that the "objective interest of the proletariat in its class struggle" was to defend capitalism in exchange for some reforms, so your phrase for why we support the working-class is closer to the 2nd International's line than mine, which is ironic because you accused me of that.

You are just nitpicking for a semantical argument here, and I'm not interested in arguing about such pettiness.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If you had spent any time in the revolutionary leftist movement you wouldn't have had to ask this.

So what you are saying is that it is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Either way there is absolutely no need for such hostility to an honest question.


That is ironic because what I said actually runs counter to Second International "Marxism".

Of course in terms of the tasks of revolutionaries yours is most certainly not a Second International position. Where your views (and those of Leninists generally) align with that of the Second International is your eschewing of the subjectivity of the working class and it's struggle against it's alienation and exploitation in favour of the view that socialism and the workers revolution is necessitated solely by a need to progress where capitalism can not.


Maybe you just don't understand it?

Or maybe you, me? Possibly a more appropriate term for the "objectivist" interpretation that portion of your OP in question is shaded with which may avoid confusion is "Orthodox Marxism".


Just because the words themselves aren't used doesn't mean that the concepts are not undeniably implied in the phrase, how for example would the proletariat take over the means of production without class struggle? How would they advance society to its next stage of development, i.e., socialism and communism, without class struggle?

But see here I think you actually locate the problem: you subsume the class struggle to the development of the productive forces. Class Struggle is made into a means by which the end (development) is realised.


The "objective interests of the proletariat in its class struggle" is just another way of saying that the proletariat "is the only social class which has the inherent ability of taking-over the means of production and progressing society to its next stage of development", which of course would result in its abolishment as a class, and which of course entails class struggle.

When I posted the message I did not much like the wording I used but I had little time to edit it, but no, my intended point is not like your own.

You see the working class as the revolutionary class not because of it's class struggle against it's exploitation and alienating circumstances but because it offer the way "forward" in the development of society's productive capabilities. For you the abolition of class is simply a by-product and the constant and ongoing class struggle merely a tool.


You are just nitpicking for a semantical argument here, and I'm not interested in arguing about such pettiness.

The fact that you characterise my posts with being semantical or petty after once admitting to such in another thread is totally unnecessary. My original point was only a side matter (albeit one which in my own opinion is not at all petty and is actually very important) which I felt appropriate to make known. Either way I'm sure you'll agree that this has gone too much off-topic and I have no desire to hijack your thread of which the opinions presented I am laregly in agreement with.

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes, exactly, communists "are the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class", it would be....silly...if we gave that up and became "just as most other workers", which means in effect bourgeoisified.

This expresses the basic difference between the vanguard party and "normal" party organizations which reject the viability of revolutionary transformation and restrict political activity to the framework of the existing system. "Normal" parties adapt their policies to reflect the most dominant prejudices and attitudes amongst key electoral groups, because the key objective of these parties is to gain as many votes as possible when they stand in elections, in the hope that they might be able to form a government or at least take control of a local council. By contrast, the primary role of the vanguard party is to change the consciousness of the working class by means of persistent agitation and intervening in workers struggles, to show that all workers share interests in common, and to link economic issues (such as the struggle to to gain improvements in working conditions, or wage increases when faced with the threat of rising living standards) to the broader problems of the capitalist system. This means that the vanguard must maintain a consistently revolutionary program and not conform to bourgeois ideology, because this would undermine the ultimate objective of proletarian revolution. This point is summed up by Lenin:

"Attention, must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the working masses.”

Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm), “The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries” (1901)

[Led Zeppelin]

Either way I'm sure you'll agree that this has gone too much off-topic and I have no desire to hijack your thread of which the opinions presented I am laregly in agreement with.

Yes I do, and I'm sorry for the hostility on my part.

And great post and quote Bobkindles, that is exactly the crux of the matter, as Lenin would say. :p

[Sentinel]

When I saw the thread title from the main page, I was a bit confused -- I thought it would be about the importance of the working class in the revolution or something. :lol:


"Attention, must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the working masses.”

How could anyone disagree on this. It's obvious that we can not descend to the level of the 'average worker' when it comes to revolutionary consciousness, but that our job is the exact opposite´-- to elevate them to our level.

I'm an anarchist, but I do full well realise that class conscious workers indeed do form a 'vanguard', and not grasping this would indeed be silly. This 'vanguard' should, however, only act as teachers, mentors, rolemodels until the working class is ready to take power, and that by itself.

A certain level of class consciousness and ability to self-organisation is necessary amongs the class as a whole for a true workers revolution to be possible.

[dez]

How could anyone disagree on this. It's obvious that we can not descend to the level of the 'average worker' when it comes to revolutionary consciousness, but that our job is the exact opposite´-- to elevate them to our level.



Sometimes people mistake communism with "descending to the level of the average worker". Specially revolutionary activists.

[Sentinel]

You couldn't just read the whole of the sentence then? The 'when it comes to revolutionary consciousness' part? In every other aspect I'd assume that I'm on the level of the average worker already, given that I am a worker?

Also, did you read any of the rest of this thread, before making your 'witty' oneliner?

[dez]

You couldn't just read the whole of the sentence then? The 'when it comes to revolutionary consciousness' part? In every other aspect I'd assume that I'm on the level of the average worker already, given that I am a worker?

Also, did you read any of the rest of this thread, before making your 'witty' oneliner?

Back off, I did no try to be witty or anything.
I was just reminding that and agreeing with the op about workerists.