The theory of "workers' revolution" is a historical failure?

[JimmyJazz]

I might get dismissed by some people for this thread. I’m questioning something central to most socialists’ worldview without suggesting any credible alternative. For the record, I voted “not sure”.



Historically speaking, I can only think of a few examples of grassroots working class revolution of the type that I understand Marx to have been talking about. They have all been no bigger in scale than a single city—which makes some sense, since a concentrated urban proletariat is itself no larger than a single city.

Successful workers’ revolutions:


Paris, 1871 – Workers set up political institutions to rival those of the French state. They were crushed by national military forces after several months.
Petrograd, February 1917 – At the very least, the walkouts on and just before International Women’s Day contributed to the toppling of the Czarist monarchy, which is an impressive achievement. I don’t know whether these determined the end of Czarism by themselves, or if they just contributed to it; my historical knowledge is not enough on this point, and if someone wishes to enlighten me, that would be fine. Had the Bolsheviks not done their thing in October, it seems likely to me that the provisional government, or whatever liberal democry/military dictatorship may have replaced it, would have edged out the influence of the soviets in government over time. Probably they wouldn’t have even had to: just as in America and every other country that once had a highly militant working class, over time their anger would have been defused by simple economic concessions, and they would have willingly relinquished political power out of apathy.

Unsuccessful workers’ revolutions:


Seattle, 1919 – A general strike, yet it did not present even a mild challenge to the national government or rule of the U.S. constitution and liberal democracy.

Paris, 1968 – Once again, no amount of radicalism in the movement of a single city was really enough to challenge the power of a nation-state.

All other socialistic revolutions, including all those that happened on a national scale, were done by a vanguard party with variable levels of working class support. Most of them seem to have been carried out more in the name of nationalism, anti-imperialism, and land reform than that of proletarian liberation. Russia seems to come much closer to a working class-led revolution than any other examples of socialist revolutions which come to mind (China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Korea, Vietnam). And yet, how big was the role of the working class even in the Russian Revolution? In my books I can’t find stats for 1917, but according to Sheila Fitapatrick there were about 3 million industrial workers in Russia in 1914. According to her also, there were seven million men in the military (including navy) and another two million in the reserve in 1917. Even if soldiers are classified as proletarian, most of them came from the peasantry, so it was only a brief temporary proletariat, not a permanent one created by long term changes in the mode of production. And even both groups put together—3 million workers plus 9 million soldiers—is only 12 million proletarians, in a country of 184 million (http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm). We know that these 12 million people could not have carried out a revolution without the support of the massive peasantry, which constituted 80 percent of the population in 1917 (again according to Fitzpatrick). That is why the Bolsheviks adopted the SR land reform program wholly and completely unaltered. Remember, through all this, that Russia is probably the best example of a proletarian-led revolution on a national scale. If so, hasn't the idea of working class revolution on a national scale more or less failed up to the present?

I can think of just two possibilities for what I see as the poor record of working class revolution in advancing the cause of international socialism.

One, already mentioned before, is that a concentrated urban proletariat is only as big as the city in which it is concentrated, and that despite national similarities in language and culture, geographical separation is a big enough obstacle to coordination of the working class in different cities that it prevents national proletariats from spontaneously seizing power in unison. And despite all the post-Lenin arguments that a vanguard party is consistent with Marxism, I think Marx's original idea was of a much more spontaneous revolution. (I am open to being proved wrong on this point, whether here or in a separate thread on the topic).

Two is that the world economy has fundamentally changed. At the beginning of the current era of economic globalization/imperialism, the bourgeoisies of the industrialized nations successfully exported the class struggle just as it had started to reach the breaking point in their own countries. This allowed them to retain political power, since the people they are now exploiting the most harshly are citizens of other nations and have no real legal/political means of defending themselves.

If the first one is the case, I have no real solution.

If the second one is the case, I suppose the logical route would be to build political opposition to free trade. However, easier said than done, and I don’t have any theory of why material factors will drive Western workers to inevitably oppose free trade. They seem to have rather happily adopted their new role as consumers first, and producers second.

I appreciate the sheer beauty of the idea of working class revolution. How better to change the world along internationalist, socialist lines than to identify an international class of people which is materially oppressed, more each day, by capitalism? It’s a brilliant theory and certainly the greatest single contribution to tactical thought by socialists. It certainly blows out of the water such earlier tactics as “we’ll convince everybody on rational principles that socialism is superior” or “we’ll talk the economic ruling class into being more sympathetic to the workers’ plight” or “we’ll establish socialist colonies in unpopulated areas”. But the fact that it was a much better theory than any previous ones doesn’t make it 100% gospel truth.

I also don’t have anything better to suggest. I’m just noticing some facts and pointing them out.

Maybe I am interpreting the Marxist idea of class struggle too narrowly and mechanically. However, given what I know and have read, I'd have to say that I believe a lasting social revolution is only possible through a perfect storm of radicalism on the parts of women, racial minorities, students, workers, and those in solidarity with the third world. However, many Marxists don't seem to believe that anyone but workers need to be involved. Historically speaking, I just don't see that this idea pans out.

[JimmyJazz]

BTW, I should say that I personally believe the "imperialist era" explanation accounts for most of capitalism's resilience in the industrial nations. However, I don't see a practical way of turning back the clock on this era. So what is the sense in insisting that workers must lead a revolution for it to be progressive?

The only anti-capitalist movement I can envision being successful today would be an anti-imperialist one, which would of course take place in the less-developed nations, and would involve many peasants and other non-proletarians. Social revolution in the industrial nations, insofar as it is even still possible, will have to involve a broad coalition of radical groups (gender, racial, student and worker groups, etc.), who can somehow be convinced that capitalism contradicts their aims. But honestly, I don't think social revolution in the industrialized world is possible until the less-developed world starts to reject imperialist demands for new markets, cheap labor and raw materials.


What this thread really needs is some examples of what I am reacting against:

Devrim saying that anti-imperialist struggles must be fought by workers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1227673&postcount=44). Why??

"Red Dave" saying on another forum that part of the definition of socialism is that it comes about through a workers' revolution (http://www.rantsnraves.org/showpost.php?p=354663&postcount=129). OK, this post at least makes a distinction between class struggle within a nation and the international fight against imperialism. Still, this poster regularly holds up Russia 1917 as the ultimate example of what he defines as a socialist revolution: one led by workers. But Russia was not an advanced industrial country, it too was largely rural just like Cuba, and the Bolsheviks forged a crucial alliance with the peasantry who were 80% of the Russian population. So is the difference between Russia and Cuba as great as this poster makes it out to be?

I will post more examples if I remember/can find them.

[black magick hustla]

If it is a historical failure, then I am afraid we are all doomed.

History has proved that the bourgeosie in their struggle, have been willing to throw humanity to the abyss to the point of murdering hundreds of millions. The fact that the USSR and the US had that horrible policy of mutually assured destruction means both factions of the bourgeosie were willing to make out of the world a huge pile of ashes if threatened by the prospect of either faction being thrown out of the historical scene.

Your whole nonsense of "red nationalism" is worthless, in as much that even the left faction of the bourgeosie is willing to carbonize the world in their quest for self-preservation.

[JimmyJazz]

If it is a historical failure, then I am afraid we are all doomed.

History has proved that the bourgeosie in their struggle, have been willing to throw humanity to the abyss to the point of murdering hundreds of millions.

OK, I agree. Also willing to do this have been dictators of agrarian nations, and other leaders who were not bourgeois and did not represent a bourgeoisie. As well as dictators of imperialist-oppressed countries who represented foreign bourgeoisies.


Your whole nonsense of "red nationalism" is worthless, in as much that even the left faction of the bourgeosie is willing to carbonize the world in their quest for self-preservation.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I have only been a socialist for a year, and in that time I've had very little conversation with other radicals before I started posting here last month. I'm sure you make an interesting point but the jargon flies straight over my head.

Speaking of which, mods should feel free to move this to Learning, in fact I think I'd prefer that.

[JimmyJazz]

To clarify yet more what I meant with this strange little thread (:lol:), I suppose I'm saying that I now consider myself mostly Leninist, but that I see Leninism as only partially built on Marxism. So this thread was just a poorly-stated rant against certain left communist positions and against Leninists who treat Lenin as a super-orthodox Marxist.

[Rawthentic]

I dont even know what "workers revolution" even means.

What I do know is that "workers revolution" is not synonymous with communist revolution.

Communist revolution is about the emancipation of all humanity from oppression, and the proletariat is the only class in human history that can lead these radical changes. '

There are people, many who dress their theories under a cloak of "marxism" that fetishize class composition in its relation to the class ideology of the proletariat. In other words, they play with identity politics; the correctness of communist theory is now measured by how many workers there are in a party, rather than if that theory actually corresponds to the class interests of the proletariat.

I mean, the Democratic and Republican parties have huge working-class bases. But, their politics are bourgeois and imperialist. I think y'all get my drift.

The Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution because factory workers were following the party, but because the politics and line of the bolsheviks represented the highest interests of that class. There needs to be that worker-peasant unity (in semi colonial/semi feudal nations) but it needs to be based on communism, not a desire to proletarianize the world.

After all, the ideology of the proletariat is its ideology as a class, not individuals. Thats why its called the idictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of proletarians. The working class is only special because it is the class in human society that can lead humanity to its final liberation.

[Random Precision]

Emphasis mine:


There are people, many who dress their theories under a cloak of "marxism" that fetishize class composition in its relation to the class ideology of the proletariat. In other words, they play with identity politics; the correctness of communist theory is now measured by how many workers there are in a party, rather than if that theory actually corresponds to the class interests of the proletariat.


After all, the ideology of the proletariat is its ideology as a class, not individuals. Thats why its called the idictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of proletarians. The working class is only special because it is the class in human society that can lead humanity to its final liberation.

Rawthentic here is making the dangerous error of substituting proletarian ideology for proletarian consciousness. While during a revolutionary period a member of the peasantry, for example, may adopt the ideology of socialism, which is quite correctly associated with the proletarian class, he has not been exploited in the same way as the proletariat, he has not taken part in workers' struggles, and therefore he does not have revolutionary consciousness, the primary element necessary to make a socialist revolution. And therefore he does not, until he becomes a member of the proletariat, have the same goal as the proletariat, which, as Rawthentic correctly stated, is the "emancipation of all humanity" from oppression and class domination. Nor does he or his class have the ability to do so.


I mean, the Democratic and Republican parties have huge working-class bases. But, their politics are bourgeois and imperialist. I think y'all get my drift.

True, there are workers in each of those parties. But you will not find many class-conscious workers in either.


The Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution because factory workers were following the party, but because the politics and line of the bolsheviks represented the highest interests of that class.

No, the revolution in Russia was proletarian because the deposition of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and the seizure of power was carried out by the Petrograd Soviet, and so on. I don't think you need to be reminded what soviets are?

You seem to have forgotten what the purpose of a centralized Leninist party is: it serves as an amplification device for working-class consciousness and struggle. Without the arm of the working class behind it, it serves about as much use as a lever that's been left to rust.

[gla22]

In most cases it is not the workers themselves that seize their means of production. There isn't class consciousness to the extent necessary for this change.

[Yehuda Stern]

The Russian revolution was not a proletarian revolution because factory workers were following the party, but because the politics and line of the bolsheviks represented the highest interests of that class.

There's dichotomy here. The revolution would've been impossible had it not won the allegiance of the mass of workers, and first and foremost, the vanguard of the proletariat. They, of course, could not have done this had they not been able to prove to these workers that they represent their interests, in opposition to the vacillations of the Mensheviks and SRs.


In most cases it is not the workers themselves that seize their means of production. There isn't class consciousness to the extent necessary for this change.

So, what are you saying? That the workers revolution is not made by the workers? That they cannot develop a revolutionary consciousness?

[Revolutiondownunder]

Its far too narrow as a theory of social progress. The idea that progress can be in diverse forms not closely modeled on this theory needs to be analysed and expanded upon in more detail.

[Annie K.]

On a specific point :


Once again, no amount of radicalism in the movement of a single city was really enough to challenge the power of a nation-stateHm... It depends of the country. All revolutions in france has been led by the people of paris. The failures of 1871 and 1968 can't be explained only by the geographic isolation of the movement.

[trivas7]

Maybe I am interpreting the Marxist idea of class struggle too narrowly and mechanically. However, given what I know and have read, I'd have to say that I believe a lasting social revolution is only possible through a perfect storm of radicalism on the parts of women, racial minorities, students, workers, and those in solidarity with the third world. However, many Marxists don't seem to believe that anyone but workers need to be involved. Historically speaking, I just don't see that this idea pans out.

I agree with everything you say here; I'd point out that as I read Capital there is no cookie-cutter blueprint whereby social change comes about. And yes, while the emancipation of the working class according to Marx can only be accomplished by the working class IMO this isn't a prediction of how communism will come about. Excellent post.

[Rawthentic]

Rawthentic here is making the dangerous error of substituting proletarian ideology for proletarian consciousness. While during a revolutionary period a member of the peasantry, for example, may adopt the ideology of socialism, which is quite correctly associated with the proletarian class, he has not been exploited in the same way as the proletariat, he has not taken part in workers' struggles, and therefore he does not have revolutionary consciousness, the primary element necessary to make a socialist revolution. And therefore he does not, until he becomes a member of the proletariat, have the same goal as the proletariat, which, as Rawthentic correctly stated, is the "emancipation of all humanity" from oppression and class domination. Nor does he or his class have the ability to do so.In the chinese revolution, the mass of the peasantry was the main force, while the proletariat was the leading force. What does this mean? Does this mean that there were a certain number of factory workers inside the CCP and this gave the party its proletarian consciousness? Or does it have to do with the fact that the chinese revolution had the proletariat at its fore because that class' line was leading (ie its highest interests were at the fore, as opposed to that of the peasantry).

The consciousness of the peasant is definitely that of a petty-producer, selfish, and even prone to extremism. This, the communists during the chinese revolution understood very well, and the consciousness of the peasants was transformed into a huge organized mass that defeated the japanese and the kuomintang. I don't think this would have been possible at all had they not had a revolutionary consciousness (or understanding of their class situation as peasants or imperialism in china, etc.).

Now, as had been done before (and resulted in the 1927 massacre) Mao could have gone into the cities and organized workers. But, is this how revolution could have been made in 1940s china? Should mao have followed the standard comintern line (ie organize urban workers) w/o regard for the ACTUAL conditions china faced? This strategy would have led to the reactionary forces amassing in the countryside and slaughtering them. And, it would NOT make it "more" of a communist revolution had they pursued this strategy ( because it ignored china's concrete conditions and therefore not in the interests of the proletariat).


True, there are workers in each of those parties. But you will not find many class-conscious workers in either.Yeah, thats what I am saying. The key matter is line.


You seem to have forgotten what the purpose of a centralized Leninist party is: it serves as an amplification device for working-class consciousness and struggle. Without the arm of the working class behind it, it serves about as much use as a lever that's been left to rust.It has no other purpose than to make revolution and serve the masses of people.

[Random Precision]

Yeah, thats what I am saying. The key matter is line.

The key matter is not the revolutionary line. The key matter is the revolutionary consciousness that determines the line. And the CCP without the working class had neither the consciousness nor the line.

Essentially the issue here is the conflict between Marxist materialism and idealism. Maoists and many others believe that revolutionary socialist ideas can survive and even flourish without the presence of their historical artificer, the class-conscious proletariat. Marxists, however, recognize that their ideas cannot flourish in a vacuum, and thus see their primary task as introducing the working class to revolutionary ideas, and generalizing the struggles of the working class against their exploiters to aid in this process.

[Rawthentic]

The key matter is not the revolutionary line. The key matter is the revolutionary consciousness that determines the line. And the CCP without the working class had neither the consciousness nor the line.
Wait, so the line of the CCP did not conform to the interests of the proletariat? Why dont we get into it? Explain where the CCP held theories or lines contrary to marxism and the proletariat.


Essentially the issue here is the conflict between Marxist materialism and idealism. Maoists and many others believe that revolutionary socialist ideas can survive and even flourish without the presence of their historical artificer, the class-conscious proletariat. Marxists, however, recognize that their ideas cannot flourish in a vacuum, and thus see their primary task as introducing the working class to revolutionary ideas, and generalizing the struggles of the working class against their exploiters to aid in this process.
No. The CCP help a proletarian line (communist ideology) even though there were few workers inside the party and that it was leading.

It would be wrong to say that communism could not exist w/o the proletariat. Of course it could not. No one debated this. BUT, what you are doing is equating individual (or groups of) proletarians (ie "without the presence of..") with their class ideology. And this is incorrect, and un-marxist.

Of course a peasant cannot have the consciousness of a worker. A peasant is a peasant and a worker a worker. But, a worker himself (or herself) without the raising of their consciousness, can also only hold a selfish, trade unionist point of view (ie 'my wages' or 'me and my co-workers against the boss'). Many times (or all the time today) workers are swept into bourgeois politics by parties whose politics have nothing to do with their class ideology or interests. On the flip side, it is possible for a member of the bourgeois class to become a communist in both theory and practice (this is rare but i am proving a point).

The french revolution's main force were the peasants AND workers. But what was the class nature of that revolution?

[JimmyJazz]

I agree with everything you say here; I'd point out that as I read Capital there is no cookie-cutter blueprint whereby social change comes about. And yes, while the emancipation of the working class according to Marx can only be accomplished by the working class IMO this isn't a prediction of how communism will come about.

Re: your last sentence, can you cite something? Because I've long thought that a flaw of Marxism is that it predicts a solution (communism) which goes beyond what is required to solve the problem (working class immiseration) supposed to bring it about. Even if there were a class conscious revolution in which the working class seized the MoP, I can't see any reason why they would be compelled to establish any system more radical than one of competitive, profit-seeking workers' cooperatives. Such a system would seem to serve their class interests at least as well as communism, in fact better (since it wouldn't require providing social welfare for groups like the lumpenproletariat).

[Random Precision]

Wait, so the line of the CCP did not conform to the interests of the proletariat? Why dont we get into it? Explain where the CCP held theories or lines contrary to marxism and the proletariat.

Of course. In the first place, after the revolution it encouraged the development of private business. Mao said in On the Peoples' Democratic Dictatorship that


To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it.

During economic reconstruction in the early fifties, draconian labor laws such as requiring workers to pay for equipment damaged through their "irresponsibility" regardless of whether they were also punished or not.

Basic forms of working-class resistance like slow-downs and idle strikes were punished severely.

The All-China Federation of Trade Unions was subordinated to the state and required to assist implementation of such rules. Also, it set up committees to intensify discipline and punish offending workers.

Rate-busting, a notorious method of pressuring workers to increase output while rewarding those who did to divide the working class, was employed by the government under the guise of "Stakhanovism".

There were huge wage-gaps between different industries, with workers in the mining or petroleum industries getting many "special bonuses". Also, the government did its best to increase inequality through the use of piece-rate systems, which at their maximum extension were said to cover 42% of workers.

During the Great Leap Forward, the CCP set disastrously high quotas for production, and the state managers often abolished meal breaks, and forced workers to complete 18-hour shifts in the factories in an attempt to meet them.

I can go on if you'd like, but I think that provides many clues as to the position of the working class in Mao's China.


No. The CCP help a proletarian line (communist ideology) even though there were few workers inside the party and that it was leading.

It would be wrong to say that communism could not exist w/o the proletariat. Of course it could not. No one debated this. BUT, what you are doing is equating individual (or groups of) proletarians (ie "without the presence of..") with their class ideology. And this is incorrect, and un-marxist.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the class-conscious proletariat must be present in an organization for it to be able to emerge victorious over capitalism and put communist ideology (the ideology of the class-conscious proletariat) into practice.


The french revolution's main force were the peasants AND workers. But what was the class nature of that revolution?

The French Revolution was bourgeois in character- and that makes sense, for it took place in the era of bourgeois revolutions and the French bourgeoisie was able to get the masses of workers and peasants to adopt its ideology. However, it's now the era of proletarian revolutions, and those require proletarian consciousness, which in turn requires proletarians. As I've said elsewhere (and you have agreed) peasants just don't got it. Now, the working class can ally with the peasantry or elements of the petty-bourgeoisie to overthrow capitalism, like it happened in Russia. But the proletariat was not present as a force in the Chinese revolution, however much you try to dodge that fundamental question.

[Rawthentic]

Of course it encouraged the development of private business. There was need in china, as a part of overcoming semi-feudalism, of developing the national infrastructure through (mostly) small capitalist enterprises. But this was not at all the defining element of chinese socialism, and the way you put it obscures the reality of socialist relations.

Yeah, the GLF was the cause of several mistakes, but there were many other factors that played in.

I'd also like some references to the "position the working class was in". Not that I dont believe that, I just dont think that changes one bit the class nature of the chinese revolution or chinese socialism. It also obscures the fact that workers in industries shared power along with party cadre and managers (called 3 in 1 committees). The achievements workers made and the overall revolution far overcome what you posted (if it turns out true in the context it was done).


The French Revolution was bourgeois in character- and that makes sense, for it took place in the era of bourgeois revolutions and the French bourgeoisie was able to get the masses of workers and peasants to adopt its ideology. However, it's now the era of proletarian revolutions, and those require proletarian consciousness, which in turn requires proletarians. As I've said elsewhere (and you have agreed) peasants just don't got it. Now, the working class can ally with the peasantry or elements of the petty-bourgeoisie to overthrow capitalism, like it happened in Russia. But the proletariat was not present as a force in the Chinese revolution, however much you try to dodge that fundamental question.So, once again you admit that in order for a revolution to be proletarian in nature, physical workers have to be actually leading the struggle (they have to?)? Once again, you are equating the ideology and class consciousness of the proletariat with individuals or groups of proletarians.

The CCP help a proletarian line, its politics were communist, they represented the highest interests of the class that emancipates humanity- the proletariat. That must be the principal feature. If its politics are not communist but it has workers under its wing (as the dems and repubs do) then what the hell is the point? That is why maoists (ie marxists in general) hold that line is key matter, it always has been, it always will be.

LIke the french revolution was had vast numbers in peasants and workers yet was bourgeois in nature (there it is again, line is the dividing question), the peasantry was the main force in china, but the class nature of that revolution was proletarian. The revolution could have been led with a peasant consciousness, and it would have failed (earlier peasant rebellions being a testament to this). The question is one of line.

Up until 1927, the CCP (before mao was chairman) went along with the standard comintern line (ie organize factory workers into unions and shit). This of course, was a deep disregard for the actual conditions facing china, as if factory workers could physically lead the proletarian revolution in china. It was not possible when 80% of the population was peasantry and the reactionaries would easily smash the communists (as the kuomintang had done before!). So mao correctly formulated the strategy of ammassing forces in the countryside and encircling the cities, using the peasantry as the main force. The peasants were trained in revolutionary ideology and consciousness, and understood, even though they were peasants and bore the brunt of the war, that the proletarian ideology was the one they followed. Why? Well, the class interests of the peasantry cannot lead humanity to liberation.

Think about it like this: view the course of human history as a march marching down the street, and, at a certain juncture, a group (ie the proletariat) emerges in society that carries the key to the "4 alls" (as marx and mao said). Here and around this holds true. In the united states, a communist vanguard must of course strive to win over the proletariat, because they are the majority (there are no peasants). But, the proletariat in the united states needs to be conscious and aware of its class interests and its historic role; it has to have its consciousness raised to that of communism.

There is a world of difference between the proletariat being the leading class in a revolution because of the class nature of that revolution, and a movement of a majority of workers. Once again, dont make a fetish out of how many workers there are in an attempt to see if their class ideology is present. That is called identity politics.

[Black Dagger]

So this thread was just a poorly-stated rant against certain left communist positions and against Leninists who treat Lenin as a super-orthodox Marxist.

I didn't get that impression at all? How so?

[JimmyJazz]

I didn't get that impression at all? How so?

It seems to be mostly left communists who dogmatically insist that any revolution not led by workers is not progressive, even if it's purpose is anti-imperialism or something else. And Leninists who make Leninism out to be orthodox Marxism are the ones that try to draw a sharp distinction between the Russian Revolution (supposed archetype of a worker-led Marxist revolution) and other revolutions like Cuba, even though the Russian working class itself was tiny.

The stuff about cities was just a sort-of related rant that was supposed to show how, even though the proletariat might be a majority in a city, it will almost never constitute the majority of a national population. So, even their class interests are totally opposed to capitalism, it seems a bit strange to expect that in most countries they will become big and powerful enough as a class to lead a revolution.

I don't have a problem with an anti-capitalist revolution that strongly appeals to the interests of the working class, as the Bolshevik revolution did. But my understanding of classical Marxism is that it foresees a division of nearly the whole world into proletariat and bourgeoisie, making a workers' revolution practically synonymous with a popular revolution, but this just isn't going to happen. Not for centuries, if ever. There have to be farmers to grow crops, and continual advancements in technology make labor more efficient which cuts down the need for labor, and so on. Industrial production can never become the sum total of the world economy, and the working class can only get as big as industrial production.

I would love to see something written by Marx that shows his views on working class revolution were not this simplistic, and that he did not really expect worldwide proletarianization as many passages in the Manifesto seem to imply. Or if he didn't expect worldwide proletarianization, then I want to know why he thought the WC was uniquely suited to lead the rest of each national population on the path toward socialism. If anyone has something like that by him, please post/link.

[Random Precision]

Of course it encouraged the development of private business. There was need in china, as a part of overcoming semi-feudalism, of developing the national infrastructure through (mostly) small capitalist enterprises. But this was not at all the defining element of chinese socialism, and the way you put it obscures the reality of socialist relations.

See, I keep hearing this talk about "socialist relations" in China and the Soviet Union. Yet I've never heard a good explanation of just what the hell "socialist relations" meant in either of those countries. And in the former's case, I've never heard a good explanation of how non-proletarian forces can establish "socialist relations" when the socialist revolution is the historical task of the proletariat- or at least, no explanation that doesn't involve abandoning the very base of Marxism for idealism.


I'd also like some references to the "position the working class was in". Not that I dont believe that, I just dont think that changes one bit the class nature of the chinese revolution or chinese socialism.

My mistake. I'll edit in the references tomorrow (class at 8:00 tomorrow, ugh). But even so I find it odd that a self-identified Marxist finds it so easy to brush aside those facts. Aren't you guys big on self-criticism?


It also obscures the fact that workers in industries shared power along with party cadre and managers (called 3 in 1 committees). The achievements workers made and the overall revolution far overcome what you posted (if it turns out true in the context it was done).

I would like to hear a good explanation of how these "3 in 1 committees" worked, how workers were picked to be part of them, which workers ended up serving on them, etc. etc. And also what authorities those committees were responsible to and so on.


So, once again you admit that in order for a revolution to be proletarian in nature, physical workers have to be actually leading the struggle (they have to?)? Once again, you are equating the ideology and class consciousness of the proletariat with individuals or groups of proletarians.

Call it what you like. The fact is that only proletarians can have proletarian consciousness, and no amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.


The CCP help a proletarian line, its politics were communist, they represented the highest interests of the class that emancipates humanity- the proletariat. That must be the principal feature. If its politics are not communist but it has workers under its wing (as the dems and repubs do) then what the hell is the point? That is why maoists (ie marxists in general) hold that line is key matter, it always has been, it always will be.

See, once again you're dividing communist ideology from proletarian consciousness. The first does not exist without the second- and consciousness does not exist without the "individuals or groups of proletarians" that you riff on so much.


LIke the french revolution was had vast numbers in peasants and workers yet was bourgeois in nature (there it is again, line is the dividing question), the peasantry was the main force in china, but the class nature of that revolution was proletarian. The revolution could have been led with a peasant consciousness, and it would have failed (earlier peasant rebellions being a testament to this). The question is one of line.

I'll probably rip someone's arm off if I have to repeat this one more time: the question is not one of line, but the consciousness that produces the line. Tattoo that on your forehead or something.

As for the "concrete conditions" in China... frankly I couldn't care less right now. Talk to me tomorrow and I'll think of something more intelligent to say.


Think about it like this: view the course of human history as a march marching down the street, and, at a certain juncture, a group (ie the proletariat) emerges in society that carries the key to the "4 alls" (as marx and mao said).

Well, I doubt that either Marx or Mao used the number "4" in place of the word it sounds like. I'm gonna guess, based on a google search, that that was Bob Avakian.


Here and around this holds true. In the united states, a communist vanguard must of course strive to win over the proletariat, because they are the majority (there are no peasants). But, the proletariat in the united states needs to be conscious and aware of its class interests and its historic role; it has to have its consciousness raised to that of communism.

There is a world of difference between the proletariat being the leading class in a revolution because of the class nature of that revolution, and a movement of a majority of workers. Once again, dont make a fetish out of how many workers there are in an attempt to see if their class ideology is present. That is called identity politics.

Once again, call it what you like. I prefer the term "Marxism".

[trivas7]

Re: your last sentence, can you cite something? Because I've long thought that a flaw of Marxism is that it predicts a solution (communism) which goes beyond what is required to solve the problem (working class immiseration) supposed to bring it about. Even if there were a class conscious revolution in which the working class seized the MoP, I can't see any reason why they would be compelled to establish any system more radical than one of competitive, profit-seeking workers' cooperatives. Such a system would seem to serve their class interests at least as well as communism, in fact better (since it wouldn't require providing social welfare for groups like the lumpenproletariat).
By the end of Capital Vol.3 Marx is pretty clear he's not making any predictions: the choice is either socialism or barbarism. At least, that's my reading of it. It's also pretty clear that profit-seeking leads to capital accumulation, and the whole business starts again, which is why the working class must abolish wages entirely in order to free itself from the subjugation of capital.

[JimmyJazz]

profit-seeking leads to capital accumulation, and the whole business starts again

That's true, and if you started from workers' cooperatives then you'd just have an easier transition to the corporate form than than you did when you started with individual capitalists.

But I'm not sure how their daily struggle against the bosses could ever make workers conscious of a point this abstract. At most, I can see them all becoming convinced that they're being exploited for surplus-value. But switching over to a workers' cooperative, where surplus-value goes back to the workers themselves, would be sufficient to end that exploitation. I don't see how labor struggles are going to make anybody conscious of the need for full-blown socialism/communism, and I've never seen Marx address this specific point (which seems central to his whole theory).

Since Marx's main contribution to human thought is not socialism (it preceded him) but the theory of a WC revolution, then the question is not why he thought it was "socialism or barbarism", but why he thought workers, out of all the kinds of people in a society, would be compelled by their material circumstances to see that it's "socialism or barbarism". I can see why they might be compelled to replace capitalism, but I can't see why they would be compelled to replace it with full-blown socialism. For instance: I can't see why they would have any interest in creating an economy which employs or provides welfare for the currently unemployed.

It's obvious that workers make an important ally for those who want to establish socialism. But the dogmatic, mechanical application of this idea by some people (a few IMTers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1222729&postcount=24) come to mind) doesn't hold water with reality.

[trivas7]

But I'm not sure how their daily struggle against the bosses could ever make workers conscious of a point this abstract. At most, I can see them all becoming convinced that they're being exploited for surplus-value. But switching over to a workers' cooperative, where surplus-value goes back to the workers themselves, would be sufficient to end that exploitation. I don't see how labor struggles are going to make anybody conscious of the need for full-blown socialism/communism, and I've never seen Marx address this specific point (which seems central to his whole theory).

This is the point of the vanguard party -- to show the working class that it's real interest lies in abolishing wage labor altogether.


Since Marx's main contribution to human thought is not socialism (it preceded him) but the theory of a WC revolution, then the question is not why he thought it was "socialism or barbarism", but why he thought workers, out of all the kinds of people in a society, would be compelled by their material circumstances to see that it's "socialism or barbarism". I can see why they might be compelled to replace capitalism, but I can't see why they would be compelled to replace it with full-blown socialism. For instance: I can't see why they would have any interest in creating an economy which employs or provides welfare for the currently unemployed.
IMO Marx's main contribution to human thought was historical materialism, the materialist view of society and social change. Out of this he understood that socially necessary labour is the one human activity that is central to everything else we do as human beings, without which we could not reproduce ourselves as a species. As some others have pointed out, Marx wasn't the greatest organizer in the world.

No one is compelled to replace capitalism with socialism, but it's only just that the class which provides all the wealth of society should reap its benefits. The unemployed reap the surplus benefits of labor because they too have needs, not because they've provided a social surplus.

[La Comédie Noire]

There's dichotomy here. The revolution would've been impossible had it not won the allegiance of the mass of workers, and first and foremost, the vanguard of the proletariat. They, of course, could not have done this had they not been able to prove to these workers that they represent their interests, in opposition to the vacillations of the Mensheviks and SRs.


So? It can be argued the Bourgeoisie revolution in France could not have been accomplished without the support of the wage workers and peasants. Just because an organization supports some interests of the working class doesn’t mean it will empower the working class.



The french revolution's main force were the peasants AND workers. But what was the class nature of that revolution?


Ohh you beat me to it! :o


In the Chinese revolution, the mass of the peasantry was the main force, while the proletariat was the leading force.

Actually, the Proletariat played an indifferent role in the Chinese Revolution.



I can think of just two possibilities for what I see as the poor record of working class revolution in advancing the cause of international socialism.

One, already mentioned before, is that a concentrated urban proletariat is only as big as the city in which it is concentrated, and that despite national similarities in language and culture, geographical separation is a big enough obstacle to coordination of the working class in different cities that it prevents national proletariats from spontaneously seizing power in unison. And despite all the post-Lenin arguments that a vanguard party is consistent with Marxism, I think Marx's original idea was of a much more spontaneous revolution. (I am open to being proved wrong on this point, whether here or in a separate thread on the topic).

Two is that the world economy has fundamentally changed. At the beginning of the current era of economic globalization/imperialism, the bourgeoisies of the industrialized nations successfully exported the class struggle just as it had started to reach the breaking point in their own countries. This allowed them to retain political power, since the people they are now exploiting the most harshly are citizens of other nations and have no real legal/political means of defending themselves.

If the first one is the case, I have no real solution.

If the second one is the case, I suppose the logical route would be to build political opposition to free trade. However, easier said than done, and I don’t have any theory of why material factors will drive Western workers to inevitably oppose free trade. They seem to have rather happily adopted their new role as consumers first, and producers second.

You are correct, Marx never spoke of a centralized state that would advance historical conditions and allow the proletariat to lead. He thought workers would revolt en masse in the first world capitalist nations thus not needing to advance historical conditions.

He thought the revolution would be a spontaneous reaction to the falling standards of living in the first world nations, caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time. Private property would become a fetter on the mode of production and would be burst asunder by the working class. But this did not happen.

There are many theories as to why this did not happen, but that’s a whole other story.


But as to your proposal, I don’t think you could get first world workers to oppose free trade, it goes against their rational class interests. However, I don’t think that’s a problem. The people of the oppressed nations are waging successful struggles against imperialism all on their own, like in Russia and China.



BTW, I should say that I personally believe the "imperialist era" explanation accounts for most of capitalism's resilience in the industrial nations. However, I don't see a practical way of turning back the clock on this era. So what is the sense in insisting that workers must lead a revolution for it to be progressive?


I don’t think you need to turn back the clocks. As nations free themselves from Imperialism they begin developing industrial capital and become competitors on the world market, undermining the current Imperialist nations. The emergence of these new powers will upset the current order of things and cause conflict between rival nations.


These conflicts will have many working class folk being sent to die and the ones who stay at home living in worse and worse conditions. In the face of these miserable conditions workers will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.


It’s very important to understand where Marx was coming from when he observed the workers were the “most revolutionary class”. Workers run the show, if they were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, society as we know it would collapse. Yet they are the living negation of capitalism receiving only a fraction of the product they produce or the service they perform. So, not only do they have leverage against the current ruling class they also have the incentive to use it.


How much of a “push” they actually need to use it remains unseen. So my vote would be there is still potential.



Maybe I am interpreting the Marxist idea of class struggle too narrowly and mechanically. However, given what I know and have read, I'd have to say that I believe a lasting social revolution is only possible through a perfect storm of radicalism on the parts of women, racial minorities, students, workers, and those in solidarity with the third world. However, many Marxists don't seem to believe that anyone but workers need to be involved. Historically speaking, I just don't see that this idea pans out.


How are racial minorities and women not workers? If anything they are the most oppressed sections of the working class.

[Yehuda Stern]

So? It can be argued the Bourgeoisie revolution in France could not have been accomplished without the support of the wage workers and peasants. Just because an organization supports some interests of the working class doesn’t mean it will empower the working class.

An organization doesn't serve *some* interests of a class - it either represents that class or it doesn't. The Bolshevik party was an expression of the class interests of the proletariat and gave it state power.



How are racial minorities and women not workers? If anything they are the most oppressed sections of the working class.

Women and minorities are not a 'class.' Some of them belong to the working class - others belong to other classes, including the bourgeoisie.

[La Comédie Noire]

An organization doesn't serve *some* interests of a class - it either represents that class or it doesn't. The Bolshevik party was an expression of the class interests of the proletariat and gave it state power.



That was my point, just because a party serves some interests of the working class doesn't make it a working class party or organization, as was the case with the bourgeoise political clubs that were sympathetic of the sansculottes during the french revolution.



Women and minorities are not a 'class.' Some of them belong to the working class - others belong to other classes, including the bourgeoisie.


I never said they were. He said it as though they were a class, I was just pointing out racial minorities and women had class interests.

[Rawthentic]

See, once again you're dividing communist ideology from proletarian consciousness. The first does not exist without the second- and consciousness does not exist without the "individuals or groups of proletarians" that you riff on so much.We live in a class society, in particular capitalist class society. In any given revolutionary communist party, or revolutionary movement, different lines and politics come to the fore that represent those interests. This is called the law of politics. During socialist china, there emerged leaders within the CCP that upheld lines that meant a return to the old society and its horrors. Why? Socialism is a class society as well, and the feuding class interests between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie manifest themselves within the ruling party.

So, let me ask you: what is the "consciousness of the proletariat" and why are you reducing it to individual workers? Isnt it obvious that today, most workers hold a bourgeois consciousness as opposed to a proletarian one? Of, but of course, how could that be possible if they themselves are not bourgeois right?

Your view of consciousness is extremely mechanical and has nothing to do with reality or how revolutionary movements take up an ideology.

The question comes down to line. It always will. Rip your arm off, I dont care. I already explained, the existence of capitalist society, and the emergence of the proletariat in human history is what gives way to this consciousness and its line (and policies and theories, etc.).

In The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm), Marx wrote that the socialist state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the necessary transit to the abolition of all class distinctions (or class distinctions generally); the abolition of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest; the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to those production relations; and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that correspond to those relations. These four things named above are what have been termed the "four alls" and represent the historic interests of the proletariat. This is the only reason why and how the proletariat is special, because of its historic role, not because it is more "oppressed" or whatever, or because workers understand communism more than others, etc.

Also: have you investigated how the political consciousness of the peasantry worked during the chinese revolution? Have you read Fanshen by William Hinton, or studied the Kiangsi Soviet?

Let me give an example: peasant consciousness is selfish, petty, and extremist, IF it is not elevated to a revolutionary consciousness. This is what the CCP did during the entire revolution. The peasants that before were extremely and unnecessarily violent became an organized revolutionary mass that understood its role in the revolution, and the need to take up the class outlook of the proletariat (ie communism). And this they did! During the revolution and after, the workers and peasants took up proletarian ideology and made revolution (how else could it be?).

Peasant rebellions were often crushed in China. As Mao pointed out, each time they failed to make any difference, due to the small peasant mentality -they simply could not see beyond the Fenjian system. The best they could ever hope for was a "benevolent Emperor". So, what was needed was not a peasant outlook in the revolution, but one of the proletariat, a broad, sweeping view of history and society - the only one that could have made the chinese revolution.

But then you will say "they are peasants! how can they have the class outlook of the proletariat?" Well, as Ive mentioned before, most workers today do not maintain their class outlook, but, actually a bourgeois one. Its about class outlook, not class composition, class outlook manifested in political lines that further the cause of that class.

Most leaders that run the US government are not capitalist themselves. Not Bush, Mcain, Obama, Kennedy, whatever. But, whose class interests are their policies promoting? Line is key.

[Random Precision]

We live in a class society, in particular capitalist class society. In any given revolutionary communist party, or revolutionary movement, different lines and politics come to the fore that represent those interests. This is called the law of politics. During socialist china, there emerged leaders within the CCP that upheld lines that meant a return to the old society and its horrors. Why? Socialism is a class society as well, and the feuding class interests between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie manifest themselves within the ruling party.

This is nothing else but Stalinist mumbo-jumbo. Socialism is not a class society- it only emerges after the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a class society with the purpose of crushing the resistance of the old exploiters. Nevertheless I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.


So, let me ask you: what is the "consciousness of the proletariat"

The awareness of the working class of its unique role in history that allows it to overthrow capitalism and bring about a classless society.


and why are you reducing it to individual workers?

I'm not. I'm talking about the working class- and you're trying to divide the working class into individual workers to obfuscate the issue.


Isnt it obvious that today, most workers hold a bourgeois consciousness as opposed to a proletarian one? Of, but of course, how could that be possible if they themselves are not bourgeois right?

Most workers hold a bourgeois ideology. The bourgeoisie does not have consciousness of its place in history. Neither does the peasantry nor the petty bourgeoisie. Only the proletariat can be aware of its place in history- only they have class consciousness. That is why they are the class that must overthrow capitalism and build a classless society.


Your view of consciousness is extremely mechanical and has nothing to do with reality or how revolutionary movements take up an ideology.

No, mine is the materialist view- the one that expects a movement to adopt an ideology based on its class composition. Yours is the idealist view, that expects revolutionary ideas to emerge, flourish and be put into practice without their natural base in the working class.


Most leaders that run the US government are not capitalist themselves. Not Bush, Mcain, Obama, Kennedy, whatever. But, whose class interests are their policies promoting? Line is key.

This is of course true- the government of the US is a bourgeois state. Since capitalism tends to separate economics and politics (a unique feature of capitalism) the bourgeoisie is able to rely on the petty-bourgeoisie to run much of its state administration. But this is beside the point.


The question comes down to line. It always will. Rip your arm off, I dont care. I already explained, the existence of capitalist society, and the emergence of the proletariat in human history is what gives way to this consciousness and its line (and policies and theories, etc.).

I think I'll say a few things to wrap this up, as it's quite clear that you'll stick with your idealist viewpoint and me with my materialist one:

- There is ideology, and there is consciousness. Throughout this exchange Rawthentic has been trying to equate the two. But to do this he has to ignore that only the proletariat is class-conscious- which is what enables it to produce a revolutionary ideology and put it into practice. His argument abandons Marxism, for he must logically take the position that the bourgeoisie is class-conscious (which it isn't) and also that non-workers can have a working-class consciousness (which they can't).

- He has tried to dodge the issue of class composition in a revolutionary movement with talk of "individual proletarians not being the proletariat". This ignores what I have been saying all along. The Bolshevik Party, for instance, acted in the interest of the working class not because it "had the line that expressed the highest interests of the working class", but because it contained the working class vanguard, which through the party was able to put into practice the line that expressed its own highest interests. This is what is meant by saying that the party is the tool of the workers- and Rawthentic is being what we call "substitutionist".

- His constant fallback for this position is the historical example of Mao's China. But to uphold the PRC as an example of socialism, he has wantonly ignored the many actions it took against the working class, masking his side-step with talk about the "gains of the revolution" and "socialist relations" the details of which he avoids explaining, or why they took precedence over the very real oppression and exploitation of workers that was going on. Any researcher into the history of the CCP will find that when it lost its proletarian base it abandoned proletarian politics- and when it ended up in charge of a country, its line did not "conform to the interests of the proletariat" and it enforced, as it does now, anti-working class politics.

And that's all I will say on the subject for now.

[La Comédie Noire]

for he must logically take the position that the bourgeoisie is class-conscious (which it isn't)


The Bourgeoisie doesn't act in rational class interest??? How else could they have made organs for their own class domination and then rose to power without it? Did they just happen to do this by mistake?


The Bolshevik Party, for instance, acted in the interest of the working class not because it "had the line that expressed the highest interests of the working class", but because it contained the working class vanguard, which through the party was able to put into practice the line that expressed its own highest interests.


Actually the core of the party were middle class professionals. For instance, Lenin was a lawyer.

[Random Precision]

The Bourgeoisie doesn't act in rational class interest??? How else could they have made organs for their own class domination and then rose to power without it? Did they just happen to do this by mistake?

That's class interest, not class consciousness. Class consciousness involves knowledge of one's place in history based on the social class one comes from- and the bourgeoisie as a class certainly is not aware of its future expropriation and disappearance. If they were we wouldn't need a revolution.


Actually the core of the party were middle class professionals. For instance, Lenin was a lawyer.

This is certainly true, however it's important to keep in mind that many of the leaders were proletarians as well. Shliapnikov was a metal-worker, Tomsky worked in engineering factories, etc. etc. But that's really beside the point, because the Bolshevik Party contained the vanguard of the working class (many details on that here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap20.htm)), who were responsible for electing the leaders and so forth.

I feel like I may have bent the stick too far in the direction of workerism, however. I believe that individual non-proletarians may come over to the proletarian cause and may even become leaders of that cause (see Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky...) but the outlook of the classes they come from remains unchanged. Therefore this does not negate the need for the proletariat to be the main force of revolutionary change.

[La Comédie Noire]

If they were we wouldn't need a revolution.

what makes you say that?

[trivas7]

Well, this was an interesting discussion. IMO on materialist grounds there is no clear cut distinction between ideology and consciousness, class interest, whatever. So it make Rawthentic's emphasis on line important. It's also clear to me that socialism as a transitional period is beset with the class antagonisms that precede it.

[Random Precision]

what makes you say that?

If they had full knowledge of their historical role, then they would expropriate themselves and hand over power to the proletariat without a fight.

[La Comédie Noire]

If they had full knowledge and acceptance of their historical role, then they would expropriate themselves and hand over power to the proletariat without a fight.


Would they? Wouldn't that be against their rational class interests?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by class conciousness. Is it merely being aware that you are part of a group of people with certain relations to production and interests or does it extend further to that group's "historical role"?

When the Bourgeoisie began seizing power were they aware of their historical role in building the capitalist system and their eventual overthrow?

That also brings into question the concept of historical roles. Are historical roles the same for all time or do they depend on material conditions? Do the Bourgeoise revolutionaries of france have the same role as the imperialist bourgeoise of the United States?

Look at it this way, the Bourgeoise are well aware they have the ability to be overthrown therefore they build states to protect themselves and perpetuate their rule.

If there is one failing that all ruling classes through out history have in common it is the belief their rule and their laws are universal and eternal. But can it actually be true?

"Man's consciousness not only reflects the world, but creates it."- Lenin

Hmmmmm, so many questions.