The pre-requisites for the revolution

[Black Sheep]

I m a bit confused on this matter.

I know there are two factors, the objective and the subjective.
The subjective being the level of class awareness of the proletarians and of their willingness to fight and overthrow the capitalist system.

But the meaning of the objective,( or "material" i ve been told) conditions escapes me.

[Bilan]

This might help with Materialism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm)

[Hit The North]

Material conditions include the level of productive forces and the ability of the system to maintain satisfactory levels of capital accumulation.

This means that socialism cannot be realised unless capitalism has developed the productive forces to a certain level and that capitalism is vulnerable to overthrow when it is in crisis, i.e. economic slump (an inevitable built-in feature of the system).

Both the objective factors and the subjective factors are interlinked in that crisis stimulates workers to critically question the system, brings them into conflict with the class enemy as it attempts to force the working class to pay for the crisis. A high level of proletarian class consciousness and organization therefore becomes a material force which prevents capitalism from righting itself.

[Black Sheep]

So the objective factors only determine vulnerability and enhancing of proletarian class awareness and mistrust of the capitalist system?

If that is so, then they are somewhat 'secondary'?

[Niccolò Rossi]

So the objective factors only determine vulnerability and enhancing of proletarian class awareness and mistrust of the capitalist system?

If that is so, then they are somewhat 'secondary'?

I don't believe so. Matter of fact I believe them to be the primary force and the subjective, secondary.

BTB noted that the objective and subjective conditions of revolution condition one another and can not be considered independant factors.


Both the objective factors and the subjective factors are interlinked in that crisis stimulates workers to critically question the system, brings them into conflict with the class enemy as it attempts to force the working class to pay for the crisis. A high level of proletarian class consciousness and organization therefore becomes a material force which prevents capitalism from righting itself.

Here, BTB emphasises the latter relationship (the subjective conditioning the objective), but not the former (in my opinion the more essential).

The fact of the matter is that the subjective conditions for revolution do not arise either on their own basis or as the conscious product of revolutionaries. Rather, they emerge spontaneously from the objective material conditions of society themselves.

Thus for example when Trotsky (and subsequent Trotskyists) have reduced the "crisis of mankind" to a "crisis of leadership", they are mistakenly ignoring the objective conditions in favour of the subjective which they see not as a product of the objective, but as an independant problem with a solution to be made consiously.

[butterfly]

So if the objective factors are primary, does this mean that the inevitability of climate change is, in a sense, a positive occurance for the revolutionary left?

[Hit The North]

So if the objective factors are primary, does this mean that the inevitability of climate change is, in a sense, a positive occurance for the revolutionary left?

No, because a wrecked ecology will make everyone suffer, increase desertification, droughts, floods, jeopardise food production, etc. and curtail the forces of production.

By the way, just because we might argue that the objective factors are primary (in an analytical sense) it does not mean that they are the decisive factor: only conscious individuals acting as a class can conduct revolution.

As Zeitgeist confirms "objective and subjective conditions of revolution condition one another and can not be considered independent factors." We can examine them in isolation only analytically. In order to properly understand them we need to show how they interact with each other. For instance, economic crisis can be triggered by years of successful working class pressure to increase wages, therefore reducing a particular national capitals competitiveness. Meanwhile the subjective responses to a crisis - both by workers and by the capitalist state (government policy responses, existent political cultures, for example) will determine the character of that crisis.


Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
Thus for example when Trotsky (and subsequent Trotskyists) have reduced the "crisis of mankind" to a "crisis of leadership", they are mistakenly ignoring the objective conditions in favour of the subjective which they see not as a product of the objective, but as an independant problem with a solution to be made consiously.

I think it is less that Trotsky ignored the objective conditions, more that he misjudged them.

[butterfly]

It could spur an increased consciousness due to anger over inaction.

[Led Zeppelin]

The fact of the matter is that the subjective conditions for revolution do not arise either on their own basis or as the conscious product of revolutionaries. Rather, they emerge spontaneously from the objective material conditions of society themselves.

Of course they don't "emerge spontaneously out of the material conditions of society" without any conscious effort by actual living people, organizations or ideologies. Did trade-unions just pop out of nowhere because the material conditions for them arose, without any activity on the part of trade-union activists? Of course not.


Thus for example when Trotsky (and subsequent Trotskyists) have reduced the "crisis of mankind" to a "crisis of leadership", they are mistakenly ignoring the objective conditions in favour of the subjective which they see not as a product of the objective, but as an independant problem with a solution to be made consiously.

Yes, it was all the fault of Trotsky, the eternal sinner against Marxism.

Let's just ignore that Lenin said the same thing:


All worship of the spontaneity of the working class movement, all belittling of the role of “the conscious element”, of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.

All those who talk about “overrating the importance of ideology”,[12] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#fwV05P383F01) about exaggerating the role of the conscious element,[13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#fwV05P383F02) etc., imagine that the labour movement pure and simple can elaborate, and will elaborate, an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers “wrest their fate from the hands of the leaders”. But this is a profound mistake.

[...]

Let us recall the example of Germany. What was the historic service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism towards which it had been spontaneously moving (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and his like). To fulfil such a task it was necessary to do something quite different from talking of underrating the spontaneous element, of tactics-as-process, of the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible, for instance, to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy.

That specific quote by Trotsky has been called out many times here, and it has been given so much attention that it has become much more important than it actually was meant to be when Trotsky said it. It's like when he said that he chiseled it in stone; "The crisis of mankind is the crisis of leadership!"

Let's be serious here and look at that quote in historical context. Trotsky was saying that at a time when the self-proclaimed "communist vanguards" who had considerable support amongst the working-class were tailing the Moscow line, and diverting the movement from its revolutionary path.

When that is happening, you must speak out against it, just as Lenin spoke out against it a few decades before. And if that means bending the stick the other way, then we should be able to understand that given the historical context.

[trivas7]

Here, BTB emphasises the latter relationship (the subjective conditioning the objective), but not the former (in my opinion the more essential).

The fact of the matter is that the subjective conditions for revolution do not arise either on their own basis or as the conscious product of revolutionaries. Rather, they emerge spontaneously from the objective material conditions of society themselves.

Thus for example when Trotsky (and subsequent Trotskyists) have reduced the "crisis of mankind" to a "crisis of leadership", they are mistakenly ignoring the objective conditions in favour of the subjective which they see not as a product of the objective, but as an independant problem with a solution to be made consiously.
Why are the objective factors more important? Isn't it the fact that there is a mutually interacting relationship between the subjective and the objective and at some times now the subjective, now the objective factors, play a greater hand in social change? IMO this was Mao's point. Even Lenin did not believe that socialism needed to be brought about by way of a capitalist phase, no?

While I agree that the objective conditions are more important, IMO this is because of the primacy of matter (and objectivity before the subjective) in a philosophical sense. And how this accords with Marx's understanding of science which IMO is shot through with subjectivity I couldn't say.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it is less that Trotsky ignored the objective conditions, more that he misjudged them.

I would agree with your here on this. Although I don't think this kind of defence can be made for all the subsequent Trotskyists who have taken the Transitional Programme to be divinely inspired and eternally correct.


Of course they don't "emerge spontaneously out of the material conditions of society" without any conscious effort by actual living people, organizations or ideologies.

I'm not 100% about what you are saying here. The "conscious effort" you speak of is the subjective factor. You seem to thus be suggesting that class consciousness is spawned consciously, when in fact it is the product of certain material conditions. Mass proletarian class consciousness can not be arise on the basis of feudal relations because of the conscious effort of revolutionaries. Thus whilst the subjective element may be decisive, it is the objective conditions which precede them.


Did trade-unions just pop out of nowhere because the material conditions for them arose, without any activity on the part of trade-union activists? Of course not.

Of course the trade union as an organisational form did not spring from the ground, however the subjective and conscious element of their creation did.

Now let us briefly look at your quotation from WITBD:


All worship of the spontaneity of the working class movement, all belittling of the role of “the conscious element”, of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.

LZ, I am in no way "belittling of the role of "the conscious element". What I am doing is making it clear that "the conscious element" has a material basis. Unlike Lenin would like to believe this "conscious element" is in fact a spontaneous product of the material conditions experienced by the class and not the external product of bourgeois intellectuals.


Let us recall the example of Germany. What was the historic service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism towards which it had been spontaneously moving (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and his like). To fulfil such a task it was necessary to do something quite different from talking of underrating the spontaneous element, of tactics-as-process, of the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible, for instance, to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy.

Again, what Lenin does not note here is the "historic service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement", is preceded by the objective material conditions and is not some perfect dogma brought fully formed from the heavens (or as Lenin will suggest, the bourgeois intelligentsia)


That specific quote by Trotsky has been called out many times here, and it has been given so much attention that it has become much more important than it actually was meant to be when Trotsky said it. It's like when he said that he chiseled it in stone; "The crisis of mankind is the crisis of leadership!"

I only brought it up as an example because it proved my point that without taking into account that the objective conditions for revolution, precede the subjective you can run into completely non-nonsensical conclusions (as subsequent Trotskyist groups who do take Trotsky's word as "chiselled in stone").


Why are the objective factors more important?

They aren't. Maybe I haven't used the best working for this point. What I am trying to say is that the objective conditions are the more fundamental and precede the subjective.


Isn't it the fact that there is a mutually interacting relationship between the subjective and the objective and at some times now the subjective, now the objective factors, play a greater hand in social change?

Correct, but none the less, the objective will remain the more fundamental.

[Led Zeppelin]

Zeitgeist, I did not just quote Lenin to say that he was right, I quoted him to say that "bending the stick" writings were common.

What you attribute to Lenin, namely the belief that only intellectuals can "bring socialism to the working-class from the outside" is actually something Lenin did not believe. I could quote him on this if you want but I'll just link to a writing concerning that subject: Section 2 of What They Did To What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section2)

On the issue of the conscious versus the spontaneous element, I believe that there is a mutual interaction between the two. At times the latter is most important, while at other times the former is, like for example in times of revolution when the conscious element has the most important role to play.

To say that one of the elements is "more important" than the other at all times just denies a Marxist analysis, because every nation, every locality even, has its own peculiar development, in terms of economics, balance of class-forces, level of class-consciousness, etc. etc. and all of those factors must be taken into account when assessing a certain political situation. When you start analyzing it with the a priori belief that the spontaneous element is more important, or that the conscious element is more important, you'll most likely end up with a wrong conclusion.

When you start analyzing it with the a priori understanding that it could be either the conscious or the spontaneous element which has the upper hand in that particular time and place, then you'll end up with a more correct conclusion.

So I don't disagree with you, I just believe that it depends on the totality of the situation.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Zeitgeist, I did not just quote Lenin to say that he was right, I quoted him to say that "bending the stick" writings were common.

My apologises, I did indeed think you were merely quoting Lenin for authority (not that I see how you were quoting him to note the "bending of the stick").


What you attribute to Lenin, namely the belief that only intellectuals can "bring socialism to the working-class from the outside" is actually something Lenin did not believe. I could quote him on this if you want but I'll just link to a writing concerning that subject: Section 2 of What They Did To What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section2)

Well I'm sure you will argue that this was merely Lenin "bending the stick" and his subsequent views do not correspond to those in WITBD, but I was merely using it as an example of the alternative we have on offer if we choose to shun the fact that the class consciousness of revolutionaries is itself a spontaneous outgrowth of the material conditions.

On a side note however, if it's not too much hassle, if could you find me a quote from Lenin disputing his earlier views, just out of interests sake, I would greatly appreciate it.


To say that one of the elements is "more important" than the other at all times just denies a Marxist analysis, because every nation, every locality even, has its own peculiar development, in terms of economics, balance of class-forces, level of class-consciousness, etc. etc. and all of those factors must be taken into account when assessing a certain political situation. When you start analyzing it with the a priori belief that the spontaneous element is more important, or that the conscious element is more important, you'll most likely end up with a wrong conclusion.

If this is addressed to me I would have to say I am in agreement with you. Me thinks you misunderstand my objection.


So I don't disagree with you, I just believe that it depends on the totality of the situation.

Of course you don't disagree with me, we're talking about different things. My point is that even the conscious element, as a component of the subjective conditions for revolution is founded on and conditioned by the objective material conditions. Consciousness does not arrive fully formed in the minds of great men independent of material circumstance, but rather as a result of them. As such, even consciousness can be said to arise spontaneously.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course they don't "emerge spontaneously out of the material conditions of society" without any conscious effort by actual living people, organizations or ideologies. Did trade-unions just pop out of nowhere because the material conditions for them arose, without any activity on the part of trade-union activists? Of course not.

What Led Economist fails to note is that organization is much more than just "leadership." A lot of business management talk revolves around the difference between a manager-as-manager and a "leader."


Yes, it was all the fault of Trotsky, the eternal sinner against Marxism.

Let's just ignore that Lenin said the same thing

Lenin here was referring to stikhiinost, not the mistranslated "spontaneity." :rolleyes:

WITBD was and is a very time-specific work. The more "outstanding" works from that period are Our Immediate Task and The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement.


I would agree with your here on this. Although I don't think this kind of defence can be made for all the subsequent Trotskyists who have taken the Transitional Programme to be divinely inspired and eternally correct.

Dare I say "Amen," comrade? :D

I would like to add that Trotsky had a very vulgar, revisionist interpretation of minimum demands (understandably inherited from the opportunism of the Second International, but an interpretation to be rejected today), reducing them to an economistic relationship with "the daily struggle."

[Led Zeppelin]

On a side note however, if it's not too much hassle, if could you find me a quote from Lenin disputing his earlier views, just out of interests sake, I would greatly appreciate it.

Sure, it's not too much hassle at all, at the second congress, a few months after WITD? was published Lenin was criticized for exactly the above, and he replied:


It is claimed that Lenin says nothing about any conflicting trends, but categorically affirms that the working-class movement invariably “tends” to succumb to bourgeois ideology. Is that so? Have I not said that the working-class movement is drawn towards the bourgeois outlook with the benevolent assistance of the Schulze-Delitzsches and others like them? And who is meant here by “others like them”? None other than the “Economists” ...

[...]

Lenin takes no account whatever of the fact that the workers, too, have a share in the formation of an ideology. Is that so? Have I not said time and again that the shortage of fully class-conscious workers, worker-leaders, and worker-revolutionaries is, in fact, the greatest deficiency in our movement? Have I not said there that the training of such worker-revolutionaries must be our immediate task? Is there no mention there of the importance of developing a trade-union movement and creating a special trade-union literature? ...
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section2)


Of course you don't disagree with me, we're talking about different things. My point is that even the conscious element, as a component of the subjective conditions for revolution is founded on and conditioned by the objective material conditions. Consciousness does not arrive fully formed in the minds of great men independent of material circumstance, but rather as a result of them. As such, even consciousness can be said to arise spontaneously.

No, consciousness does not arrive fully formed in the minds of great mind, nor did I ever say that it did. You're the one who said that it did because it "arises spontaneously based on the objective material conditions", which is just not true, see the Lenin quote below for more on that, specifically regarding the "elevating" of that spontaneity to the level of consciousness.


What Led Economist fails to note is that organization is much more than just "leadership." A lot of business management talk revolves around the difference between a manager-as-manager and a "leader."

You took that from my example of trade-unions not developing spontaneously?

Then I guess Lenin is guilty of the same thing:


In order truly to give “consideration to the material elements of the movement”, one must view them critically, one must be able to point out the dangers and defects of spontaneity and [I]to elevate it to the level of consciousness, To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth that the conscious element participates in this interaction and in the determination of the path. Catholic and monarchist labour unions in Europe are also an inevitable result of the interaction of environment and elements, but it was the consciousness of priests and Zubatovs and not that of socialists that participated in this interaction.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/06.htm)

[Plagueround]

It could spur an increased consciousness due to anger over inaction.

It could and I would even say it has to an extent, but that doesn't mean we would view it as positive because as Bob said, the damage to our ecosystem is certainly not a positive thing. So while the conditions are perhaps responsible for some people's turn to far left politics and ideas, I wouldn't recommend going out and buying a hummer and revving the engine all day in hopes it will spur revolution. Instead, use is as one of several talking points to demonstrate how current government systems place their own monetary interests ahead of what's good for the people and the planet they live on. ;)

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, consciousness does not arrive fully formed in the minds of great mind, nor did I ever say that it did. You're the one who said that it did because it "arises spontaneously based on the objective material conditions", which is just not true

Ok, I'm a little confused about what you are trying to say here.

I'm not claiming that your argument is that "consciousness arrives fully formed in the minds of great men". My point is that that is your alternative if you choose to shun the reality that consciousness has an unconscious origin.

What I am trying to make clear when I say that "the conscious element [...] is founded on and conditioned by the objective material conditions. [...] As such, even consciousness can be said to arise spontaneously." is that consciousness arises spontaneously from existing material conditions (as well as a myriad of other factors which need to be taken into account), that is it arises from the natural dynamic of the class war and class society, independent of external agencies.


see the Lenin quote below for more on that, specifically regarding the "elevating" of that spontaneity to the level of consciousness.

I don't understand what I am meant to get out of it. I am not elevating spontaneity to the level of consciousness. I am pointing out the basis of that consciousness, the spontaneous and natural product of the class struggle in capitalist society. Matter of fact, the more this conversation carries on the more I realise how trivial this point really is.

[Led Zeppelin]

My point is that that is your alternative if you choose to shun the reality that consciousness has an unconscious origin.

What I am trying to make clear when I say that "the conscious element [...] is founded on and conditioned by the objective material conditions. [...] As such, even consciousness can be said to arise spontaneously." is that consciousness arises spontaneously from existing material conditions (as well as a myriad of other factors which need to be taken into account), that is it arises from the natural internal forces, independent of external agencies.

But that is a contradiction. You say that "consciousness arises spontaneously from existing material conditions (as well as a myriad of other factors which need to be taken into account)" and then go on to say "that is it arises from the natural internal forces, independent of external agencies."

How can consciousness be affected by and arise out of a myriad of other things, by which you probably mean economics, culture, social-relations etc., which are all external factors, and then also arise independent of them?

It doesn't arise independent of them, it arises in accordance and in mutual relation with them.


I don't understand what I am meant to get out of it. I am not elevating spontaneity to the level of consciousness. I am pointing out the basis of that consciousness, the spontaneous and natural product of the class struggle in capitalist society.

Well the point is that spontaneously consciousness is formed, but it is formed with certain limitations, because it is conditioned by material conditions and a myriad of other factors. Since we live in a capitalist society, and since the ruling ideas reflect the ideas of the ruling class, that consciousness is out of necessity limited.

That consciousness is referred to as spontaneity, and if you want to raise it to the level of class-consciousness, that is, real consciousness, you have to do it by raising it to that level, and that is not done spontaneously, that actually requires conscious activity on the part of people and organizations that are already class-conscious, just as it required the conscious activity of the Jacobins to stabilize the bourgeois system after the Revolution, just as it required the conscious activity of the Bolsheviks to advance the bourgeois revolution of February to the socialist revolution of October.

That is not to say that only conscious activity on the part of the class-conscious only plays a part in that process, the effectiveness of that is of course limited to the material conditions and the myriad of other factors, such as economics, social relations etc. but conscious activity certainly does play a part, and in times of revolutions the must crucial one.


Matter of fact, the more this conversation carries on the more I realise how trivial this point really is.

Well, yeah, it is pretty trivial because we pretty much agree that consciousness is based on objective material conditions and a myriad of other things, I just believe that conscious activity to affect the consciousness of others is also a factor to be taken into account, because it is necessary if we are ever to get anywhere with our movement.

I don't believe that class-consciousness will spontaneously come into existence "when the time is right", nor that we can force class-consciousness to come into existence by "fighting for it", it's an interaction between the objective material conditions and the subjective conscious activity, and at times the former plays a bigger role and at other times the latter, but the latter class-consciousness, of the subjective, was also created out of objective material conditions and the "myriad of other things", so we don't disagree here, except if you believe that external factors have no influence at all on consciousness, and that it all develops internally "out of itself".

Hmm, the term "consciousness" has been used a lot here. :p

[Niccolò Rossi]

But that is a contradiction. You say that "consciousness arises spontaneously from existing material conditions (as well as a myriad of other factors which need to be taken into account)" and then go on to say "that is it arises from the natural internal forces, independent of external agencies."

How can consciousness be affected by and arise out of a myriad of other things, by which you probably mean economics, culture, social-relations etc., which are all external factors, and then also arise independent of them?

Re-reading it, it most certainly does seem at first contradictory.

Where I said "that is it arises from the natural internal forces", what I meant was that consciousness is the product of the interaction between the "natural internal forces" of society, that is material conditions, social relations (particularly the division of labour), ideology etc.

When on the other hand I said "that is it arises [...] independent of external agencies", I meant not the objective material conditions, social relations, ideology etc. do not serve as the basis of class consciousness but rather that subjective human agency does not produce class consciousness in it's first instance. To use your own words: "I don't believe [...] that we can force class-consciousness to come into existence" - class consciousness has an origin, and that lies in the objective material conditions of society, not in the minds of men.

But yeah, It's good to see we argree on everything else. Sorry for the ambiguity.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think it's pointless to argue about whether the objective conditions are more important than the subjective ones or vice versa. You can't have a revolution without a significant part of the workers becoming class conscious, and you certainly can't have it when the ruling class is strong and certain of its rule, and can firmly hold on to its base in the petty bourgeoisie. What you might say is that the objective weakness of the bourgeoisie strengthens the consciousness of the workers, but its not a prerequisite.