Why the Proletariat must lead.

In the "State and Revolution" Lenin writes...

"The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class whose economic conditions of existence prepare it for this task and provide it with the possibility and the power to perform it. While bourgeoisie breaks up and disintegrates the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois strata, it welds togehter, unites and organizes the proletariat. Only the proletariat - by virtue of the economic role it plays in large - scale production - is capable of being the leader of all the toiling exploited masses, whom the bourgeoisie exploits, oppresses and crushes not less, but more, that it does the proletarians, but who are incapable of wagins an independent struggle for their emancipation."

This is a very elementary Marxist question, and I'm not ashamed to ask, for asking questions helps one learn. Why can the proletariat be the only class to overthrow bourgeois rule? Why is it easier for peasant and petty-bourgois revolutions to get broken up?

Is it because the proletariat knows how to run industrial work? And a socialist society requires one to continue working with the machines to use the means of production for the community?

Thanks.

^^^ The proletariat encompasses more than just factory workers these days (myself being an office worker): there are other manual workers, plus clerical and professional workers. Things are more complicated than when Lenin wrote the above. I know that this is a poor answer, but I am learning A LOT, too (or rather, taking part in the re-learning process that all those claiming to be revolutionary Marxists must undergo before becoming improved revolutionary Marxists).

It is necessary for me to point out that:

(1) The revolutionary organization of proletarians can only occur through class-consciousness.

(2) For class-consciousness to be attained the proletariat needs to become far enough enraged so to understand the exploitation existent in bourgeois society / the conditions cannot be overcome through any other means than through violent revolution and seizure of the bourgeois state apparatus to ensure state power is transfered to the proletariat (i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat).

(3) The lumpenproletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, etc CANNOT lead the revolution because:
(1) Lumpenproletarian culture is regressive, counterrevolutionary and has no revolutionary means (i.e. the lumpenproletariat has no potential for class-consciousness without proletarian leadership- lumpenproles see themselves apart from the proletarian struggle and the only way to unite them with the proles is through central organization (i.e. the vanguard)

(2) Petit-bourgeois (small business owners, shopkeepers, etc) do not see their connection to the struggle because they are able to maintain a certain position in society as long as they satisfy the bourgeoisie. While they are exploited, as are the workers, they don't see this relation. Also, through petit-bourgeois revolution, they would alter class relations but not seek to abolish them / i.e. third way politics RATHER than reversing the subordination in order to construct socialism and progress into communist society.

Nevertheless, the REVOLUTIONARY proletariat must lead, i.e. the organization of CLASS CONSCIOUS revolutionaries to ORGANIZE all proletarians for the purpose of strengthening the revolutionary movement and uniting the entire working class on the given basis. Much of the construction post-revolution is necessary to eliminate lumpenproletarian culture, integrate them so that they unite with the proletariat and don't pose a threat to the proletarian state on the basis of the exist regressive culture. The same goes for the petit-bourgeoisie, though NOT all of the petit-bourgeoisie can be transformed. When threats emerge something has to be done about it the easiest way to do this is during post-revolution when property is seized by the proletarian state -- i.e. their ownership and consumption can be reduced and equal to the entire proletariat- however when they attempt to sabotage this effort and they become a danger it is necessary to eliminate their existence.

Thanks for that clarification Comrade! I figured it had something to do with class consciousness and the proletariat being the primary victims of bourgeois capitalism.

For those who are interested, while I attacked the historical premise of "permanent revolution" in the "Revisionist Trotskyism..." thread, I posited this "conciliatory" material in light of the complexity of modern class relations:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trots-and-...296/index.html

I argued against Trotsky's specific theory of permanent revolution [...] mainly because Russia barely begun the "bourgeois-democratic" tasks. However, since what I'm talking about above relates to the dying days of the capitalist mode of production, can the new proletocratic order combine "managerial" tasks (which cannot be completed under bourgeois rule) with the socialist and proletocratic tasks, with the proletariat leaning on the coordinators/managers/specialists?

The argument of the proletariat as a revolutionary class is not some sort of moral cry. The silly argument of "the more opressed, the more revolutionary" has more to do with clerical vermin than with revolutionary marxism. the proletariat is the revolutionary class due to its place in the productive forces, due to the fact that the whole foundations of society lie in its back.

The argument of the proletariat as a revolutionary class is not some sort of moral cry. The silly argument of "the more opressed, the more revolutionary" has more to do with clerical vermin than with revolutionary marxism. the proletariat is the revolutionary class due to its place in the productive forces, due to the fact that the whole foundations of society lie in its back.

The proletariat is exploited. Until it attains the realization of this exploitation, no revolutionary progress is possible. While, yes, that statement is correct in regards to no other class can eliminate the class relations of society- such progress cannot occur before this realization. Without class-consciousness it is impossible for any proletarian to see this as necessary to eliminate, because in bourgeois society they are told that what benefits the bourgeoisie benefits them. Until they break from this distortion, they will not support revolutionary organization, which is why it is necessary to use all means to enrage them into central organization, to unite the entire working class against the oppressors.

I think history has disproved the assertion that only the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Red Army did so in those areas that were incorporated into the USSR. The Chinese peasantry, and the peasantry in other countries has also done so. What history has also shown us, is that there is a limit as to how far their revolution can go. They are necessarily degenerated revolutions, because that class lacks the concentration and organization, not to mention the material class interest, to create socialism. It can nationalize property and abolish commodity production, but then what?

I think history has disproved the assertion that only the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Red Army did so in those areas that were incorporated into the USSR. The Chinese peasantry, and the peasantry in other countries has also done so. What history has also shown us, is that there is a limit as to how far their revolution can go. They are necessarily degenerated revolutions, because that class lacks the concentration and organization, not to mention the material class interest, to create socialism. It can nationalize property and abolish commodity production, but then what?

For the peasantry to attain class-consciousness requires a centralized organization (vanguard), which is the reason that it worked and the basis which the Red Army existed in the first place. Keep in mind that proletarian revolution occurs through the role of central organization. The vanguard (the organization of class conscious revolutionaries) must enrage the proletariat, as they remain unaware of the exploitation, class division, repression in bourgeois society. Communists have attained class consciousness, which is why the role of the vanguard is very significant. The means of revolutionizing the peasantry can be done in the same way, only the movement would likely be much larger. The only way to revolutionize the peasants is to unite them with the proletariat, otherwise they will participate in counterrevolution.

It is also important for me to bring up the lumpenproletariat, because this is a much more significant issue than the peasantry, especially today. The lumpenproletariat is not exclusively urban, either. It can be rural, too. The regressive character of the lumpenproletariat leads to counterrevolution. Lumpenproletarian culture, which is dominated by regressive elements such as religion, alcohol/drug use and sale, violence, gangs, prostitution, theft, along with countless other problems. As monopolies develop in capitalist society and the competition no longer exists, unemployment becomes a serious issue. It becomes difficult for proletarians to find work, they eventually become subject to this regressive culture.

While urban lumpenproles cause regression in the innercity, the rural lumpenproletariat is no different. The only difference is the conflict with the police primarily exists within city boundaries, as in rural areas the means of enforcing law is is quite minimal. i.e. outside of the city there are laws but not many people are arrested for most things they would be in the city. Religion is a major issue though, leads to counterrevolution and prevents progression. It is important that the proletarian does not become blinded by this regressive culture, otherwise its revolutionary character will deteriorate. Religion causes proles to accept exploitation with the promise they will "eat pie in the sky when they die"- which WON'T happen but the idea keeps them satisfied despite the conditions they live under.

The existence of the lumpenproletariat brings necessity for harsh measures to eliminate regression during the time post-revolution. This period is extremely critical in eliminating all regressive cultural elements existent in bourgeois society. Only with the elimination of these regressive elements can progression be secured, otherwise it is impossible to construct anew when there is sabotage all around. Lumpenproletarians often participate in theft from proletarians. Where I live, especially, this is a problem because things get stolen from proles that we do not have money to replace. However, the chinese and korean immigrants in the area seem to have enough money to throw out beds, cabinets, sofas, good quality furniture every weekend, which is strange because back when I was young the only things you could find were useless or broken, though unemployed workers have always taken things from trash and fixed them for sale ,now you find whole items.

However, still MOST proles get their cars broken into, their radio stolen from it. You don't want to leave your bike outside. A man shot two guys who broke into his car once. It's a common life here and after seeing that for so many years it is tiring, I know it. Anyway, it is very important to eliminate that post-revolution, so that the lumpenproles don't become a tool for counterrevolutionary movement.

^^^ CN, I'm not sure if the peasantry is really relevant in today's world, considering that more and more food production is made by farm workers (ie, proper rural proletarians in the farms) - hence my old History thread on Kautsky and land re-distribution.

What about mid-level managers, whom I addressed in my Theory thread on "permanent revolution"?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trots-and-...296/index.html

[Keep in mind that I consider them to be a separate class from the petit-bourgeoisie, for reasons explained in that thread.]

Jacob Richter, I was merely responding to chegitz guevara. I don't deny the significant of the peasantry, though the are not, in terms of character, revolutionary. For such, revolutionization is necessary. While the role of the peasantry might seem gone in history, it is important not to forget the means of dealing with counterrevolution, because a lot of measures taken would be successful when implemented in regards to the lumpenproles.

^^^ Conscripted labour from lumpenproles (I know this was first proposed by Trotsky, but Stalin adopted it too)? [How ironic that the "work brings freedom" slogan used by the Nazis... ]

For the peasantry to attain class-consciousness requires a centralized organization (vanguard), which is the reason that it worked and the basis which the Red Army existed in the first place.

I think the peasantry have considerably more class consciousness than you seem to credit them with. Peasants historically know who they hell they are, their relationship to the rest of society, etc. They tend to look at the rest of society as parasites upon them. They see the cities as dens of corruption, crime, and immorality. We even see this in industrialized countries. Think of how rural America views urban America. Believe me, comrade, peasants are pretty fucking class conscious.

This is why the vast majority of peasant revolts are so bloody, because they pretty much hate everyone who isn't a peasant. The Cambodian revolution of 1975-1979 is archetypal, but we can see it in the Tambov revolt, in peasant revolts throughout Europe When that revolt and rage can be channeled into support for a proletarian revolution, as occurred in Russia, then the natural tendency of the peasant to slaughter everyone else can be blunted. This is why the peasant revolts in Vietnam and China didn't engage in wide spread slaughter.

Keep in mind that proletarian revolution occurs through the role of central organization.

This is also untrue. Proletarian revolution can occur without a central organization. It may not succeed, but the same can be said of revolts with central organizations. The Bolivian workers revolution of 1952 had no such organization, and managed to establish a bourgeois democracy for about 13 years before it was overthrown by a coup d'etat. The February Revolution in Russia occurred outside the agency of a centralized organization, as did the various revolutions in Central Europe that ended WWI.

I think having an organization makes the odds of success better for us, and I think it's necessary in order to move beyond a simple democratic revolt to the establishment of a proletarian state, but it certainly is not necssary to make the revolution.

The vanguard (the organization of class conscious revolutionaries) must enrage the proletariat, as they remain unaware of the exploitation, class division, repression in bourgeois society.

How many working class people do you know? This strikes me as an extremely ignorant comment. A large section of the proletariat is well aware "of the exploitation, class division, repression in bourgeois society," and even more are already enraged. They also, however, feel that they are trapped, that there is no way out of the situation. It isn't that working people don't understand their situation, it's that they don't trust communists any more than they trust their bosses.

Communists have attained class consciousness, which is why the role of the vanguard is very significant. The means of revolutionizing the peasantry can be done in the same way, only the movement would likely be much larger.

Most communists I know started out as white college students. Class consciousness for them would be to understand their middle class origins and role in society. Most of them become class traitors, which I heartily encourage.

The only way to revolutionize the peasants is to unite them with the proletariat, otherwise they will participate in counterrevolution.

I agree, with the caveats I expressed above.

This is also untrue. Proletarian revolution can occur without a central organization. It may not succeed, but the same can be said of revolts with central organizations. The Bolivian workers revolution of 1952 had no such organization, and managed to establish a bourgeois democracy for about 13 years before it was overthrown by a coup d'etat. The February Revolution in Russia occurred outside the agency of a centralized organization, as did the various revolutions in Central Europe that ended WWI.

I think having an organization makes the odds of success better for us, and I think it's necessary in order to move beyond a simple democratic revolt to the establishment of a proletarian state, but it certainly is not necessary to make the revolution.

Comrade, there is one small problem with your argument: if the social-proletocratic party isn't necessary, and a "spontaneous" social-proletocratic revolution takes place, won't the workers see the takeover of the new proletocracy by the social-proletocratic party as being mere opportunism?

The existence of the lumpenproletariat brings necessity for harsh measures to eliminate regression during the time post-revolution. This period is extremely critical in eliminating all regressive cultural elements existent in bourgeois society. Only with the elimination of these regressive elements can progression be secured, otherwise it is impossible to construct anew when there is sabotage all around. Lumpenproletarians often participate in theft from proletarians. Where I live, especially, this is a problem because things get stolen from proles that we do not have money to replace. However, the chinese and korean immigrants in the area seem to have enough money to throw out beds, cabinets, sofas, good quality furniture every weekend, which is strange because back when I was young the only things you could find were useless or broken, though unemployed workers have always taken things from trash and fixed them for sale ,now you find whole items.

Wow, and the paranoid police state is born .

Nice bit of 'immigrant scapegoating' there as well. Are you claiming that just because they're from China and Korea they're not a part of the proletariat?

It's not the "lumpen proletariate" that steal from the proles. It's proles stealing from other proles. That's what the capitalist system does. It divides our class and pits us against each other. You're just sanctifying this process by offering a distorted and doctrinaire parody of a Marxist theory of class structure.

Comrade, there is one small problem with your argument: if the social-proletocratic party isn't necessary, and a "spontaneous" social-proletocratic revolution takes place, won't the workers see the takeover of the new proletocracy by the social-proletocratic party as being mere opportunism?

First, I don't know what you mean by social-proletocratic. So my response to you may be confused.

I'm not making an argument for for not having a party. All I'm saying is that a party isn't necessary for the workers to revolt and win. I'm also suggesting that in such a situation, the workers will not try and establish a workers state, but lacking proletarian leadership, will fall under the leadership of bourgeois elements, and create a bourgeois state.

If the workers spontaneously revolt and attempt to overthrow the state and a socialist party attempts to insert itself as the leadership, it's success will depend on whether it has built a following in the working class previously. If it has, that leadership may be seen as what the party ought to be doing. If not, it very well may be rejected by the workers. But even then, we can't know. With social phenomenon all you have are odds, not guarantees. We don't know what the dice will turn up until they've stopped rolling.

This is what I argue against, making a priori declarations of what will or won't happened based on what we think happened in the past under particular conditions. A priorism is one of the worst problems of our movement. This is the fault of human laziness and a lack of understanding of dialectics, which tells us that everything must be understood in its own context in order to be truly understood. You can't simply lay a formula over something and expect it to be right.

^^^ Please read my blog on "social proletocracy," or the Theory thread "Is the term 'communist' beyond saving (at the moment)?"

"Proletocracy" is a neologism like "corporatocracy" and "Islamofascism" - rule by the working class - without the "dictatorship of the proletariat" turnoff.

"Social Proletocracy" goes back to Kautsky's merger of Marxism and the workers' movement, without with stumbling on cross-class populism ("social democracy").



P.S. - Sorry for my mistake there. I should have said "would it not be within the realm of possibility that the workers will see the takeover..."

Wow, and the paranoid police state is born .

Nice bit of 'immigrant scapegoating' there as well. Are you claiming that just because they're from China and Korea they're not a part of the proletariat?

It's not the "lumpen proletariate" that steal from the proles. It's proles stealing from other proles. That's what the capitalist system does. It divides our class and pits us against each other. You're just sanctifying this process by offering a distorted and doctrinaire parody of a Marxist theory of class structure.

Where do you live? The suburbs? Have you ever stood on the corner of an innercity street? Have you ever lived there? Are there gunshots outside your apartment? Cars broken into late in the night? Drug sales on the corner? Don't speak without the knowledge. I live among it.

The proles populate the majority of my city, most every proletarian here deals with this. The factories began to shut down over 15 years ago. From that time until around 5 years ago more and more proles were without money, without employment, forcing them to live on the same streets that lumpenproletarian culture dominates. Over time they become less and less class-conscious, more dominated by religion , drug/alcohol dependency, racism- which previously dominated the innercity. the proles began moving from place to place, ending up in the worst parts of the city. They become involved with lumpenproletarian culture as they lose hope of overcoming the situation.

It is a horrible situation- being unemployed, being forced to give up your home, being denied health care, etc- this is common here. There are vacant buildings, many, MANY homes that have been seized by the bourgeois state that homeless people and drug dealers occupy. The homeless use them for shelter while the drug dealers use them as a means of setting up a larger drug-sale operation. the lumpenproles take advantage of the proles, the proles purchase their drugs, get involved in selling them, which PREVENTS progress.

You're just another hippie from the suburbs. Quit *****ing, you have no idea. Ignorance is counterrevolutionary and you seem to throw around way too much of it. I'm not here to appeal to bourgeois idealism. I won't. What needs to be done NEEDS to be done, you can sit and argue about that all you want but your ignorance and bourgeois idealism won't bring revolution.

Proles don't steal from each other. They get their cars stolen. They work hard for $6.75 a fucking hour to come home to their house broken into. Others are unemployed and have literally nothing to live on, they deal with conflict after conflict.

If you lived here 1 day I'd be surprised. You couldn't. You'd probably do something really dumb, like go up to the lumpenproles standing in the street. They have guns. A man was in his fucking car at an intersection on Racine Street (not far from where I live) the light was red and they went up to his car, threatened him with a gun and robbed him. there and then. Drug dealers, gangs, theft for the purpose of sale- these people aren't working class. Their parents weren't proles. Their grandparents weren't proles. They make a living selling drugs and stealing valuables from proletarians. their parents did it. their grandparents did it. their children do it. the proletarians, like me, have to put up with it. we shouldn't have to.

i wouldnt say that all of the underclass, or even most of it is just generational, proletariat are often just a paycheck or two away from homelessness and falling through the ever growing cracks.

Where do you live? The suburbs?

And if I did would that mean that you and your Stalinist buddies would have to implement "harsh measures" against me?

But actually I live in an inner-city area (although not the worst area in my city) and yes I've been burgled, had my car broken into and vandalised three times in the past two years.

Are there gunshots outside your apartment?

No, I live in England. Gunshots are very rare.

Nevertheless, crime is a problem - especially for workers. And the causes you mention are the cause here: deindustrialization, whole communities of workers condemned to minimum wage or long-term unemployment. It's not surprising that a minority will then turn to crime as a response to their condition. But what should our response as socialists be to this problem? Who should we blame? Maybe we should throw our weight behind the right-wing and blame immigrants and a degenerate mass of underclass, composed of benefit scroungers and drug dealers. But then how would we distinguish our analysis from that of the fascists? We couldn't. We'd end up sounding like you.

It is a horrible situation- being unemployed, being forced to give up your home, being denied health care, etc- this is common here. There are vacant buildings, many, MANY homes that have been seized by the bourgeois state that homeless people and drug dealers occupy. The homeless use them for shelter while the drug dealers use them as a means of setting up a larger drug-sale operation. the lumpenproles take advantage of the proles, the proles purchase their drugs, get involved in selling them, which PREVENTS progress.

So it's no wonder that some people turn to crime and that the local community is dislocated and atomised and unable to respond. But, again, this is caused by the material relations of capital, not those who are worst effected by it. It's not the drug dealers who prevent progress, it's the capitalist state and the disgusting society it defends.

You're just another hippie from the suburbs. Quit *****ing, you have no idea.

You know fuck all about me so stop speculating.

I'm not here to appeal to bourgeois idealism.

Then stop doing it:

Proles don't steal from each other... Drug dealers, gangs, theft for the purpose of sale- these people aren't working class.

Get real! According to you, workers are all saints and victims of the nasty lumpens. You need to apply a Marxist analysis of class and work hard to understand the Marxist theory of alienation. As Asoka89 points out many of us are a paycheck or two away from going under. If the worst happens, does that mean I'm no longer a member of the working class?

Their parents weren't proles. Their grandparents weren't proles. They make a living selling drugs and stealing valuables from proletarians. their parents did it. their grandparents did it.

My, my, you're just drenched in petite bourgeois prejudice, aren't you? I also notice that you don't defend your previous comments regarding immigrants.

But I'd be keen for you to explain what the difference is between your rhetoric and the rhetoric of the fascists.

Comrade Nadezhda would do well to remember that the vast majority of proletarians do not live in the city, let alone the inner city, in the United States. Most of us live in the suburbs. Most of us work in the suburbs. There are also poor and crime ridden sections of the suburbs.

I would also remind her that shit is hard all over. I've lived in some of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. My roommate was mugged on our front doorstep. People were murdered in the ally behind us and the street in front. But I have never seen poverty like I've seen in rural Georgia.