Led by the working class

[Pogue]

Most form of socialism, or Marxism, ultimately argue (and I have seen this emphasised by marx-Leninists all the way to Anarchists and obvously Autonomists) that the revolution will not be led by communists but the working class. So if we accept this to be true (I beleive its based on Marx's writings but it can be seen globally) then surely our individual ideologies of Leninsm and Anarchism are irrelevant beyond the point of developing class consciousness? Which effectively means, the role of the vanguard or syndicate is only neccesary up until the revolution, at which point anyone who is a socialist of the revolutionary kind will just join the workers revolution in an individual capacity and help it organise itself a the working class sees fit (as we cannot control insurrection, only influence and participate in it).

I'm not saying this is 100% correct just something I've thought of. You could of course argue individual tactics are still relevant in the context of what form the revolution will take and how it develops, but this is almost an autonomist position that if a revolution has happened, ideologies become irrelevant and the next 'stages' set out in theory are pointless. As such I remain an Anarcho-Syndicalist but this influences me also somewhat to an autonomism position.

[Tower of Bebel]

My friend, how do you think workers will or can break with capitalism and fight for communism? True, it is the proletariat that has a world historic role to play, but how can it play such a role and what will make it conscious of that role?

[Wanted Man]

More accurately, it's the proletariat that makes the revolution. They are not just "imbued" with the right class consciousness at one particular point in time (that's where "making the working class suffer" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-working-class-t97475/index.html) goes wrong). Historical process isn't made by "man" who makes a revolution with "the right ideas" (in this case: becoming a socialist and "joining the revolution in an individual capacity"), but by the masses. A previous example: the French Revolution didn't sprout from the heads of the liberal philosophers, it's not that all these French people suddenly started thinking the same way as them. It's the other way around, being determines consciousness.

However, none of this makes ideological struggle unnecessary or irrelevant. An ideology isn't just one monolith of pure ideas, it also encompasses feelings, fears, etc. Our ideology includes class struggle, but also solidarity, rebellion, etc. With bourgeois ideology, it's the same, as well as with other opposing ideologies. As the crisis deepens, a worker could start to hold fascist ideas: he sees the wrongs of capitalism (after all, his ideology mirrors his own conditions), but his answer to the problem is something that would make things much worse in practice. The idea that not a revolution is needed, but a reactionary move to the corporative system, of national solidarism, hard work and morality, in fact leading to a fascist dictatorship. So that's where the need for ideological struggle presents itself.

By the way, what's funny is that more currents on the left than just "leninism" support the idea that the most developed sections are the ones at the forefront. There are also people who believe in the "propaganda of the deed", for example. If we do so-and-so, then "the people will revolt". It's a sentiment I disagree with, but it's funny from people who claim to oppose "vanguards".

[Vanguard1917]

They are not just "imbued" with the right class consciousness at one particular point in time (that's where "making the working class suffer" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-working-class-t97475/index.html) goes wrong). Historical process isn't made by "man" who makes a revolution with "the right ideas" (in this case: becoming a socialist and "joining the revolution in an individual capacity"), but by the masses. A previous example: the French Revolution didn't sprout from the heads of the liberal philosophers, it's not that all these French people suddenly started thinking the same way as them. It's the other way around, being determines consciousness.

From the perspective of Marxist theory, a qualitative difference between bourgeois revolution and communist revolution is that the bourgeoisie makes history without being conscious of its historical role, whereas communist revolution presupposes that the working class, at least its advanced section, its 'vanguard', is class-conscious. The working class requires correct ideas. That's why a key role is assigned to the 'revolutionary party' -- that of developing and winning the working class to communist ideas.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The key point missed in the original post is that communists are workers. Communists aren't some separate group that comes out of the clouds and rides a top the proletariat revolution. Even in past revolutions in which some leaders came from other classes (even though many broke from them) it was the proletariat that carried out the revolution, dealt the death blow to capitalism, etc.

"Communists are those workers conscious of the historic task of their class. They do not operate independently of the working class, but rather work to raise the consciousness of their class brothers and sisters in order to facilitate the organization of the proletariat as a class and the overthrow of capitalism." - PoWR (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

[Vanguard1917]

The key point missed in the original post is that communists are workers.

Certainly the vast majority of communists have been workers, but history also shows people from bourgeois and middle-class backgrounds leading communist movements. Indeed, we could argue that socialist ideology is itself an invention of the bourgeois intelligentsia (although its development received its impetus from the rise of the working class movement).

'This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings.' (Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm))

[Le People]

I've been reading "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" by Lenin, and I've found something interesting that pertains to the extent of the working class's participation in revolution. Lenin claimed that the Party in Russia was the vanguard of the revolution, and that it was the vacilliator of Soviet power. In Germany, Rosa Luxemborg and co thought that the Soviet organizations themselves were the center of power. It would be through the worker's councils that the revolution would be conducted. I see this as the medium between expecting a sponatous revolt that would be crushed, and the setting up of a failed buearcracy. To have a Party take overthrow capitalism is utterly ludecrious, but to the future government ie: worker's councils overthrow capitlaism, that would lead to an establishment of a living, breathing socialism closer to the working class.

[Module]

To have a Party take overthrow capitalism is utterly ludecrious, but to the future government ie: worker's councils overthrow capitlaism, that would lead to an establishment of a living, breathing socialism closer to the working class.I, in essence, agree with you 100%, and you will find most people here also agree. However, a party to overthrow capitalism is seen, in ideal form, as an organised party of the proletariat, one that is organised around the interests and desires of the proletariat and subject to it's own democratic rule. The 'party' is supposed to be the worker's party, a mass party organised in a way to effectively direct the interests of the working class, rather than one ruled by an elite group of communists - in your OP you distinguish them from the working class - on behalf of the working class.
Our modern understanding of a 'party' may make such a concept hard to seriously imagine.
As others in this thread have said, in reference to the original post, communists are workers - and, actually, Vanguard1917 and NHIA, could you give me some example of a bourgeois leader of a socialist movement, one which didn't, in your words 'break' from their class?


'This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings.' (Lenin (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm))Could you explain to me how you, personally, see the 'creation' of working class ideology as something to be carried out by a 'socialist theoretician' as opposed to a worker, which is what the quote implies?

[Vanguard1917]

Could you explain to me how you, personally, see the 'creation' of working class ideology as something to be carried out by a 'socialist theoretician' as opposed to a worker, which is what the quote implies?


The quote suggests that workers can indeed develop socialist theory, but that when they do, they do so not in their capacity as workers, but as theoreticians. From a materialist perspective, scientific theories are developed and formulated by those in society who, first and foremost, have the means to do so (access to time, materials, knowledge, etc.), and socialist theory is no exception. As a result, those from outside of the working class were historically responsible for the development of socialist theory (Fourier, Owen, Saint-Simon, Marx, Engels, Kautsky, W. Liebnecht, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and so on and so forth).

Karl Kautsky's explanation, which Lenin endorsed in What is to be Done, is as follows:



Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships just as the class struggle of the proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwüchsig].


The objective reality that socialist theory has its intellectual roots in the minds of the bourgeois intellengtsia does not change the fact that workers need to be permitted to engage and help develop it, at the theory's highest and most advanced levels. This is as opposed to the patronising and elitist strategy, historically employed by many in the workers' movement, of limiting the exposure of workers to basic propaganda only, seeing them as incapable of understanding complex concepts, as Lenin briliantly explained:


This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm

[Hiero]

I think the difference between Proleteriat and Communist are objective and subjective forces. The proleteriat are the objective or mechanical force which will push forward a new society by their demans to socialise relations of production. Commuinst are groups of people who have an ideological purpose based on thoose objective factors, they are subjective forces in this movement in history.

A revolution is not possible without the two merged together without distinction. I still think though that since Communist are the subjective force it can come from any class. A bourgeisie man can be a communist however techinically he will never lead or really participate in a revolution as he is not the objective force. But at an individual level with enough study he could be a very good theoritical communist, but not someone you would put at the front line. And secondly coming from the materialist philosophy ideas can not create revolution alone, there needs to be a social base, an objective factor which is the proleteriat in his epoch.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If a member of the bourgeoisie leads a revolution, what does he overthrow? His own system and his own privilege? It's like that commercial where the CEO tells his assistant, "I'm sticking it to the man," and the assistant says, "uhh... sir... you are the man."

* * *


Certainly the vast majority of communists have been workers, but history also shows people from bourgeois and middle-class backgrounds leading communist movements. Indeed, we could argue that socialist ideology is itself an invention of the bourgeois intelligentsia (although its development received its impetus from the rise of the working class movement).“It is an unavoidable phenomenon, well established in the course of development, that people from the ruling class also join the proletariat and supply it with educated elements. This we have already clearly stated in the Manifesto. Here, however, two remarks are to be made:

“First, such people, in order to be useful to the proletarian movement, must bring with them really educated elements… [At the time most working people were excluded from even basic education, thus requiring them to rely on elements from the possessing classes to some extent.]

“Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.

“In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Frederick Engels, 1879

[Led Zeppelin]

A previous example: the French Revolution didn't sprout from the heads of the liberal philosophers, it's not that all these French people suddenly started thinking the same way as them. It's the other way around, being determines consciousness.

What do you mean by it was the other way around? Are you saying that the liberal or enlightenment philosophers thought the same way as most French people did?

I think the essence of ideologies is that they are always created by "vanguards" of social classes, and each social class has not one vanguard, that is, not just one interest to serve, but a great many. The enlightment philosophy, that is, liberalism, utopian socialism, etc. were created by the vanguards, that is, the most advanced sections, of the emerging working and (petty)-bourgeois classes.

They were created by a minority, that is, by "philosophers", by "theoreticians", but those individuals did not make those ideologies and theories out of thin air, they made it out of objective reality, and for the class they were representing, that is, for the class that they were in the vanguard of at the time.

Objective material conditions then pushed the class as a mass to accept those views, which is how a class becomes "conscious" of them, and that is how social revolutions are born and those ideologies become realized.

To use existentialist terms; the ideologies-in-themselves become ideologies-for-themselves.

So, revolutionary socialism, Marxism, communism or whatever you want call it and whatever the variation is, will become "for-itself" as an ideology when the working-class, that is, the class for which that ideology is based on and is created for, becomes conscious of it and accepts it, and this will only happen when objective material conditions cause it to happen, though of course conscious activity plays a part in determining objective conditions.

I think it's wrong though to think that the majority of people will accept the ideology as a whole. That is, I think it is idealistic to believe that the majority of people will suddenly start reading The German Ideology, What Is To Be Done? etc. and will become "theoretically advanced communists". If the aim is to achieve that you might as well give up right now. Of course this isn't really that important. Class-consciousness is not based on being a "theoretically advanced communist who has read Marx, Engels, Lenin etc.", it is based on being aware of your class-position in society, and acting in the interests of that class-position.

To use a historical example; the bourgeoisie as a class did not, and does not, have to read into bourgeois philosophy, bourgeois economics etc. to act in its class interests. As you said; being determines consciousness. They will act in their class-interest whether they know their ideology or not. Their class-interest is in turn based on the mode of production of society, their entire existence is.

To bring that analogy back to the working-class; when the mode of production of society is changed, that is, when a socialist mode of production and then a communist mode of production is reached, then that will automatically reflect the level of consciousness reached by society. One cannot happen or exist without the other.

So the vanguard of the class, that is, the most advanced and organized section of the class, leads it and plays a part as the conscious/subjective factor in the objective material conditions. Objective material conditions together with the subjective factor determine the start and outcome of social revolutions, and if all goes "according to plan" it would result in the smashing of the bourgeois state-machinery and its replacement by a proletarian state-machinery. Then, due to the change in the mode of production, the consciousness of the class as a whole is "unleashed", that is, it becomes aware of itself, and when it does so fully, it nullifies its own existence. By that point, the higher phase of communism would be reached, when classes no longer exist. The working-class starts out as a class-in-itself, and on its journey to a class-for-itself it changes the mode of production of society and becomes aware of itself, and when that journey is complete its existence as a class is nullified.

The entire thing described above is of course based on historical materialism, that is, scientific fact, but backing up each point with it would take too long.

[Vanguard1917]

If a member of the bourgeoisie leads a revolution, what does he overthrow? His own system and his own privilege?

Yes. For complex social and historical reasons, certain individuals from bourgeois and middle-class backgrounds, despite the material privileges afforded to them by the capitalist system, and in a sense because of these material privileges, help devise theories to overthrow it.