Workers' movements

Spread throughout various threads in this user group forum is talk about "workers' movements." The initial talk inspired me to take a more systematic approach to this topic, among others, so I have created an outline for discussion that follows the Article Submission on class relations:

1) The Labour Movement: Professional Workers
2) The Labour Movement: One Big Union
3) Beyond the Labour Movement
4) "Vanguardism" Revisited

The outline above is my approach to Chapter 3 of The Class Struggle Revisited.



The Labour Movement: Professional Workers

Here, I'm following up on my concluding remarks to Chapter 2 regarding "sectoral chauvinism in favour of manual workers" - the notion that the word "proletarian" applies to only manual workers or even a subset of them (those who produce physical commodities).

The whole section, which starts with a quote from Chapter 5 of Karl Kautsky's The Class Struggle, is about one particular union: the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers.

The Labour Movement: One Big Union

Here, I'm reiterating a recent phenomenon: the globalization of unions. This isn't about "union federations" that currently exist, but about actual multinational trade unions, and how this phenomenon has the potential to break down nationalist BS regarding labour relations. I'm not sure if I'll cover syndicalism and "red unions" in this section or if I'll cover them in the next, because the "one big union" phrase was inspired by James Connolly's remarks on such.

Beyond the Labour Movement

[This may be the longest section in Chapter 3.]

Any help here with regards to the history of the SPD and its mass membership before WWI would be greatly appreciated. From what I've read in scattered places, the SPD had cultural organizations, sports clubs, etc. Also, this section will cover the unsung factory committees and their role before, during, and after the Russian Revolution (with the implicit message that "workplace committees" can repeat their experience in the modern era).

"Vanguardism" Revisited

Essentially this boils down to two quotes, one from Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, and the other once more from Kautsky's The Class Struggle:

"Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed."

"If the socialist movement and the labor movement were ever to become one it was necessary for socialism to be raised beyond the utopian point of view. To accomplish this was the illustrious work of Marx and Engels. In their Communist Manifesto, published in 1847, they laid the scientific foundation of modern socialism. They transformed the beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into the goal of a great and earnest struggle, they proved it to be the natural result of economic development. To the militant proletariat they gave a clear conception of their historical function, and placed them in a position to proceed toward their great goal with as much speed and as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists are no longer expected to discover a new and free social order; all they have to do is discover the elements of such an order in existing society. They need no longer attempt to bring to the proletariat salvation from above. On the other hand, it becomes their duty to support the working-class in its constant struggle by encouraging its political and economic institutions. It must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party."

[Intro]

In spite of the good sign indicated at the end of Chapter 2, workers everywhere have a long way to go before overcoming the historic divisions amongst themselves. Two divisions come to mind: national divisions and, since the further development of the “service economy,” both sectoral divisions (which has drastically changed the class makeup of the “far right” and thus rendering Trotsky’s reductionist remarks on fascism obsolete) and the related sectoral chauvinism.

The Labour Movement: Professional Workers

“But sooner or later the aristocratic tendency of even the most highly skilled class of laborers will be broken. As mechanical production advances, one craft after another is tumbled into the abyss of common labor. This fact is constantly teaching even the most effectively organized divisions that in the long run their position is dependent upon the strength of the working-class as a whole. They come to the conclusion that it is a mistaken policy to attempt to rise on the shoulders of those who are sinking in a quicksand. They come to see that the struggles of other divisions of the proletariat are by no means foreign to them.” (Karl Kautsky)

Imperative to the demise of sectoral chauvinism and the realization of class consciousness amongst professional workers is unionization. Indeed, as early as 1998, some contract employees at the corporate headquarters of Microsoft formed the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (or WashTech) for permanent and contract info-tech workers. On their web page Unions: Myths and Realities, they have even – albeit unconsciously – repeated the words of Kautsky above from Chapter 5 of The Class Struggle:

The problems facing IT workers aren't so different from other parts of the work force - long hours, poor benefits, limited job security and career mobility. The number of white collar professionals in unions has been increasing steadily over the last several decades. Engineers at Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, researchers with advanced degrees at the University of California, and professional airline pilots are some examples. Even medical doctors have started their own union, to act collectively in negotiations with HMO's. As the high-tech economy slumps and megamergers are on the rise, high-tech workers need the collective power of a union to make sure their interests are represented. IT unions find common cause with other trade unions across the country, and work together to fight for the rights of all employees.

At present, the organization’s primary concerns is the outsourcing of info-tech jobs, both the typical outsourcing to other countries and the more newsworthy outsourcing to foreign workers in the United States (“newsworthy” because of all the talk on “illegal immigration”). In fact, earlier this year Ben Worthen of The Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Homeland Security discretely made it easier for info-tech companies to hire foreign workers by extending the non-visa (H-1B) employment period from 12 months to 29, bypassing the unfavourable Congressional discussion beforehand.

Nevertheless, the current cries for labour protectionism, both from info-tech workers and from all other workers (including the very newsworthy manual workers, with their outsourcing issues), obscure a more fundamental point: as the mobility of capital has extended itself to a global level, so has the mobility of labour.



REFERENCES:

The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/...furt/index.htm]

Unions: Myths and Realities by the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers [http://www.washtech.org/about/mythsandrealities.php]

Government Quietly Changes Rules on Foreign Tech Workers by Ben Worthen [http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/04...s/?mod=WSJBlog]

There is no question that a global labor movement is desperately needed. As for the nuts and bolts of organizing it, I think the first step is to federate trade-unions across the global north. Field organizing in much of the third world is too perilous at present, but throughout the global north most unionizers are basically protected. The possibility for such federation is especially true in well-unionized industries like the public sectors and airlines. Once this succeeds (and there is a high chance it will), I think it would be possible to extend these organizations to relatively "friendly" developing countries like Venezuela, S. Korea, Israel and S. Africa.

How to begin? I think (1) the rank and file within unions in the global north need to make internationalization a top demand for their leadership, (2) union members, when traveling should hook up with other union members in the same industry, (3) there should be concrete demands common to all unions, and (4) strike funds should be global.

One reason that I am hopeful about the plausibility of a global labour movement is that telecommunications technology (especially the internet) have made the exchange of information a breeze. Of course, there is still what has been dubbed the “information gap”, a considerable disparity of access to the internet and other means of communication between the first and third worlds. Nevertheless, this gap is becoming smaller with the global spread of capital. This provides more opportunity for communication and cooperation between workers around the world.

One reason that I am hopeful about the plausibility of a global labour movement is that telecommunications technology (especially the internet) have made the exchange of information a breeze. Of course, there is still what has been dubbed the “information gap”, a considerable disparity of access to the internet and other means of communication between the first and third worlds. Nevertheless, this gap is becoming smaller with the global spread of capital. This provides more opportunity for communication and cooperation between workers around the world.

Let's hope this keeps up. With internet filtering in places like China being pretty effective, one wonders how long this window of opportunity will stay open indeed.

Let's hope this keeps up. With internet filtering in places like China being pretty effective, one wonders how long this window of opportunity will stay open indeed.

Indeed. Given the usefulness of the internet for spreading our message and organizing workers (not to mention the right that everyone should have to information) we should be very concerned with upholding net neutrality, as well as with the fracturing of the internet. China only censors the internet, countries like Myanmar essential have their own separate internet. The latter course of action makes it much easier to control the flow of and access to information.

Indeed. Given the usefulness of the internet for spreading our message and organizing workers (not to mention the right that everyone should have to information) we should be very concerned with upholding net neutrality, as well as with the fracturing of the internet. China only censors the internet, countries like Myanmar essential have their own separate internet. The latter course of action makes it much easier to control the flow of and access to information.

Scary indeed, but this already exists in that the U$ and other capitalist powers already control some absurd percentage of net traffic.

Net neutrality is a step in the right direction, but I fear it will not be enough. It takes power away from the hardware companies but gives it to the internet-based companies. Thus, google and yahoo would get away with their bullshit in China under such a scheme.

How to alleviate this? Well, the net should be more like Antarctica than Switzerland - subject to global consensus. First, no traffic should go through a sovereign state, subject to the whims of their politicians. I think we can do this by converting everything to satellite, and have a satellite in orbit outside main jurisdiction. Or have a server in international waters. Sealand comes close to this ideal, but there needs to be a truly hard-core collective dedicated to the anti-corporatization of the internet.
Second, we need to be willing to create grass-roots, open-source hardware as well as software. This is far more difficult, and my require collaborations with established companies (like Fedora has with RedHat). But I think if we have a truly de-corporatized net and the material means for millions to access it, then its potential could finally be realized.

In the mean time, I'm afraid, comrade, we should view the net as a yet another option in our toolkit. Unfortunately, the way things are going, I fear the Chinese (or the Burmese, on a global scale) model is where things are headed. I still feel nothing short of a serious reorganization of the physical and social infrastructure will prevent this latest version of the enclosure laws.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your...066/index.html

general strike, which I used to believe whole heartedly in but I'm now starting to have doubts about, because even if the strike is successful the bourgeosie is going to use violence to suppress it.

Aren't the bourgeoisie's security forces of the working class as well? In a true general strike:

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we’ll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They’ll break ranks and fight no more

Don't you all think the general strike has historically included those who enforce the bourgeois order?

Are you all cynical about the potential for the security forces to desert their masters as well?

Comrade, there's a difference between soldiers and cops. Per Chapter 2 (class relations), cops, judges, lawyers, etc. all belong to "Class[es] #2" - those who exist within the wage-labour system but do not advance the productive forces. They also serve to protect the state apparatus.

Soldiers, on the other hand, can advance the productive forces, albeit through imperialist activity.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your...066/index.html



Comrade, there's a difference between soldiers and cops. Per Chapter 2 (class relations), cops, judges, lawyers, etc. all belong to "Class[es] #2" - those who exist within the wage-labour system but do not advance the productive forces. They also serve to protect the state apparatus.

Soldiers, on the other hand, can advance the productive forces, albeit through imperialist activity.

Speaking of soldiers and police, a police officer protects property but thinks he is protecting people. A soldier kills people for his government and its causes, but tells himself he's doing it "for his buddies". That difference is a major factor. Once the soldier really thinks deeply about the reason he's fighting he can become very distressed, because that real reason is in the back of the minds of many, if not most, soldiers. The cops on the other hand, honestly believes he is helping people in whatever he does, and when faced with the truth will justify identifying property with people.

^^^ Comrade Victus talked to me about this just now. Amazing that two comrades asked this question on the same day. Thankfully, Social-Labour Democracy will NOT accept cop-scum (soldiers are indeed OK, though).

well i got some reading to do myself, I can't add much except that if capitalism has globalized, then the workers movement must too.

I don't know why this trans-Atlantic union took so long since the 2007 Washington Post article that I cited, but here it is:

UK's largest union to join United Steelworkers

Britain's largest union said Sunday it is merging with United Steelworkers, creating the first trans-Atlantic labor organization.

UNITE, which represents more than 2 million workers in Britain's transportation, energy and public sectors, among others, is set to join United Steelworkers, which has some 850,000 members in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean.

UNITE spokesman Andrew Murray said "the finishing touches" were worked out at a meeting between UNITE and Steelworkers representatives last week.

The unions have joined forces because both have been left behind by globalization, Murray said.

"We're dealing with global companies that can move capital — and employment — around the world, at will in many cases," he said. "While big business is global, and labor is national, we're going to be at a disadvantage."

Murray said the new super-union's structure was still being worked on. He said its two component parts would maintain their separate identities, at least at first. He added that the new grouping hoped to enlist other foreign unions.

"There's a number of legal complexities," he said. "This is only very much a first step."

Murray said an official announcement would be made at the Steelworkers' Constitutional Convention in Las Vegas, beginning in June.

A phone call to United Steelworkers headquarters in Pittsburgh rang unanswered Sunday afternoon, and an e-mail message to a union spokesman was not immediately returned.

The Labour Movement: One Big Union

“Under certain circumstances this sort of competition, like that of the capitalists, may lead to a new emphasis on national lines, a new hatred of foreign workers on the part of the native born. But the conflict of nationalities, which is perpetual among the capitalists, can be only temporary among the proletarians. For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system […]” (Karl Kautsky)

The past two or three years have seen tremendous developments in regards to the mobility of labour. Granted, it was only years earlier that mobility of labour came about with the “globalization” phenomenon, resulting in increased emigration and immigration between countries, as well as mergers amongst national unions in reaction to declines in union membership, but now it has entered into a stage of maturity, in the form of union globalization. Indeed, said Kautsky:

German workers have every reason to co-operate with the Slavs and Italians in order that these may secure higher wages and a shorter working-day; the English workers have the same interest in relation to the Germans, and the Americans in relation to Europeans in general.

Before union globalization, there was already the transnational coordination amongst national unions, involving the Communications Workers of America, the Service Employees International Union (covering the United States and Canada), and the United Steelworkers, among other national unions in Europe and even South America. This transnational coordination was made possible due to consolidations amongst employers, thus resulting in more common employers, from Alcoa to Bridgestone to Georgia-Pacific.

In April 2007, the United Steelworkers entered into merger negotiations with what was then the United Kingdom’s second-largest trade union, Amicus. Shortly afterwards, Amicus merged with the Transport and General Workers’ Union to form UNITE. This new union then agreed to merge with the United Steelworkers and thus form the world’s first multinational trade union (not to be confused with mere multinational trade union federations such as the International Trade Union Confederation).

"While big business is global and labour is national, we are going to be at a disadvantage," said UNITE spokesman Andrew Murray. Said fellow UNITE trade unionist Derek Simpson, “We have a view that we need a global trade union in order to be able to deal effectively and on a par with the many global companies that we now have members working for.” The benefits of this union globalization are obvious: outsourcing to cheaper locations abroad may be more difficult (notwithstanding increases in oil forcing outsourcing to head closer to home and not further abroad), criticisms of labour protectionism by the corporate champions of “globalization” can be muted, and some market analysts have already warned about the prospects of global strikes. Overall, global working-class solidarity is increased. Said Kautsky:

Such a bridging of the chasm between the nations, such an international amalgamation of great sections of the people of different lands, the history of the world has never seen before.



REFERENCES:

Unions for a Global Economy by Harold Meyerson [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042502409.html]

UK and US unions to “join forces” by BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7419256.stm]

Forming a transatlantic labor union by Marketplace [http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...uniting_unions]

Globalization being undone by high oil costs: CIBC by The Canadian Press [http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/27/cibc.html]

Thankfully, Social-Labour Democracy will NOT accept cop-scum (soldiers are indeed OK, though).

Why? Why don't you distinguish between a professional army based on volunteers (mainly the unemployed, nationalists, youngsters) and an army based on conscription? Many Western armies are based on volunteers who mostly kill to protect both their brothers-in-arms and their country. While armies based on conscription (mostly during difficult war periods or constant threat) have many soldiers, of which many were workers in the past, and which - after being cured from nationalism by the brutal reality of war - kill to protect only themselves and their brothers-in-arms.

Why don't you distinguish between a professional army based on volunteers (mainly the unemployed, nationalists, youngsters) and an army based on conscription? Many Western armies are based on volunteers who mostly kill to protect both their brothers-in-arms and their country. While armies based on conscription (mostly during difficult war periods or constant threat) have many soldiers, of which many were workers in the past, and which - after being cured from nationalism by the brutal reality of war - kill to protect only themselves and their brothers-in-arms.

Good point, comrade. I think there should be more discussion on this (because I don't know why there is or isn't a distinction).

In the USA at least, the professional volunteer army is not what those words bring to mind: lifer hardcore nationalist-minded killers. Given the day-to-day reality of moribund late capitalism, the majority of "volunteers" are indistinguishable from inductees; indeed, they are victims of the economic draft.

I have made the intro to Chapter 3 slightly longer to take another "cheap shot" at Trotsky's "analysis" of the class makeup of the far-right.

Beyond the Labour Movement

Nevertheless, it would be naïve and reductionist to think that workers need only be organized into non-combative “yellow” trade unions (the word “yellow” refers to the difference between non-combative trade unions and so-called “red unions”). This yellow-trade-union reductionism is the ideological paradise of the bourgeois-friendly yellow-trade-union bureaucrats, for it allows them to offer neo-liberal consumerist “deals” to the rank-and-file, completely devoid of a political character (either “orange” or “red”). Indeed, why did UNITE not unite with more combative workers in French and Italian trade unions?

That being said, historically influential workers’ movements have always gone beyond mere “labour movements” (“yellow” trade unions) in their organization. At their disposal were humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Aid, cultural organizations and sport clubs, workplace committees, and so on – all of which penetrated into as many facets of life as possible in order to provide both an alternative social network and, in Vernon Lidtke’s words, an “alternative culture” – both of which culminated in a state within the state.

Take, for example, the historical organization of the then-Marxist Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (German Social-Democratic Party) as noted by both Lars Lih and historian Raffael Scheck (of the Colby College in Maine). It organized: cultural organizations that covered chess, poetry, theater, youth, and other aspects of culture; sport clubs that covered cycling, gymnastics, rowing, swimming, and other sports; and even child care centers and funeral homes.

In today’s world, the most notorious example of this kind of social development, supported at one point by Massachusetts ex-governor Mitt Romney, is promoted by Hezbollah, which has taken this a step further! To illustrate the broader scope of Hezbollah’s social development organization, in 2006 it operated at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools, and two agricultural assistance and training centers (as reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) – not to mention garbage collections!

Another example of going beyond mere “labour movement” organization is the history of “red unions.” In 1905, the “red union” Industrial Workers of the World was formed, and among the first organizers were Daniel De Leon and Eugene Debs, though later notable members included James Connolly, Paul Mattick, and even Noam Chomsky. The syndicalist purpose of the IWW was to create “one big union” for workers the world over. In 2004, it established the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, which is notable considering the current popularity of the “Starbucks” brand of coffee.

The most famous example of going beyond mere “labour movement” organization is the history of workers’ councils, most notably the soviets. In January of 1905, over 100,000 St. Petersburg workers went on strike. Shortly thereafter, unarmed and peaceful demonstrators marched to the Winter Palace, petitioning an end to the Russo-Japanese war, universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, better pay, and improved working conditions. That Sunday turned out to be “Bloody Sunday,” as the czar’s soldiers fired upon the demonstrators.

Months of civil unrest continued, with mass strikes, demonstrations, and public meetings occurring in spite of the ongoing repression. In October, workers throughout St. Petersburg sent delegates to what would become one of the world’s first workers’ councils: the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Delegates. Shortly thereafter, there were 226 delegates representing thousands of workers in 96 factories and workshops. The initial purpose of organizing and coordinating strike action gave way to the broader purpose of workers’ power in general, combining “parliamentarianism” with trade unionism. Although this soviet was short-lived, the lessons taken from this experience would be applied once more, only twelve years later.

In 1917, shortly after the deposal of the czar, the Petrograd Soviet came into prominence as part of the unstable era of having “dual power” with the Provisional Government. This time, however, it was formed by the Mensheviks, who were inspired by the preceding experience of their Central Workers’ Group. All over Russia, soviets sprung up only to be dominated by moderate elements amongst the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries (SRs). Notwithstanding this initial domination by moderates, changes in conditions would propel the revolutionary forces to the forefront: the Bolsheviks, the Mezhraiontsy (including Trotsky, Joffe, Lunacharsky, the future Petrograd Cheka head Uritsky, and even the infamous Yezhov of NKVD infamy during Stalin’s purges), the leftist elements amongst the SRs that would form their own separate party, and to a lesser extent the Menshevik – Internationalists faction led by the Menshevik founder Martov himself.

Closely linked to the history of the soviets is the history of factory committees, also workers’ councils in their own right. Said historian Peter Rachleff (of the Macalester College in Minnesota):

Whereas the Soviets were primarily concerned with political issues, e.g., the structure of the government, the continuation of the war, the factory committees dealt solely with the problems of continuing production within their factories. Many sprang up in the face of lock-outs or attempted sabotage by the factory owners. It was through these committees that workers hoped to solve their initial problems--how to get production going again, how to provide for themselves and their families in the midst of economic chaos. Many workers were faced with the choice of taking over production themselves or starving. Other workers who were relatively assured of employment were influenced both by the burst of activity which characterised the revolution and the worsening economic situation. If they were to remain secure, they had to have a greater say in the management of their factories. They realised that they needed organisations on the shop level to protect their interests and improve their situations.

But why not the trade unions? After all, this is exactly their function! Unfortunately, trade unionism in Russia was very deficient. Up until the turn of the century, it was illegal to form even a “yellow” trade union. Even after legalization, trade unions played no role in the 1905 upheaval, and those that existed in 1917 were dominated by Mensheviks and other trade-union bureaucrats who distrusted any worker influence over factory operations.

The proliferation of factory committees was such that they federated in order to facilitate improved cooperation and coordination over raw materials procurement and finished goods distribution. Over time, the Bolsheviks obtained a majority in the newly formed Central Soviet of Factory Committees. According to Sergo Ordzhonikidze (as quoted by the libertarian-socialist Maurice Brinton), Lenin even considered altering the slogan “All Power to the Soviets” to “All Power to the Factory Committees,” even after the Bolsheviks recently obtained a majority in the Petrograd Soviet (following the confusing Kornilov Affair)!

In the modern era, the best example of workplace-committee power in general exists in Inveval, a valve manufacturing company in Venezuela that has operated under workers’ control since 2005. As reported by Kiraz Janicke of Venezuelanalysis.com:

Francisco Pinero, Inveval’s treasurer, explained that although Inveval is legally constituted as a cooperative with 51% owned by the state and 49% owned by the workers, “real power lies with the workers assembly.” Rather than supervisors, the workers at Inveval elect, through a workers assembly, recallable ‘coordinators of production,’ for a period of one year.

“Everyone here gets paid exactly the same, whether they work in administration, political formation, security or keeping the grounds clean,” another worker, Marino Mora added.

“We want the state to own 100%, but for the factory to be under workers control, for workers to control all production and administration. This is how we see the new productive model; we don't want to create new capitalists here,” Pinero made clear.

This contrasts sharply with the experience of Invepal, (a Venezuelan paper company) where a workers’ cooperative became private owners of 49% of the company, and began to contract out the work to casual workers, becoming bosses themselves in the process and reproducing capitalist relations within the factory.

“Initially we never had in mind workers control, we were just struggling for our jobs,” Pinero added.

However, he said, the formation of the workers' assembly in the factory developed organically, “We were members of the union [Sintrametal – formerly aligned to the old corrupt CTV], however, when we wanted to take over the factory we asked the union for legal help, but they didn’t help us. Because the union didn't help us we began to form assemblies, and through that process began to negotiate with the Minister [of Labor, then Maria Christina Iglesias], who helped us a lot.”

There is one more example of going beyond mere “labour movement” organization, and a specific incarnation of this example and its basic positions form the central theme of this thesis: organized vanguardism.



REFERENCES:

The most pressing tasks for revolutionary Marxists? [http://www.revleft.com/vb/most-press...752/index.html]

The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany by Vernon Lidtke [http://www.amazon.ca/Alternative-Cul.../dp/0195035070]

Socialists, Jews, and Women in the Prewar Years by Raffael Scheck [http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyB4.html]

Romney: U.S. Can Learn from Hezbollah by Teddy Davis and Matt Stuart, ABC News [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-us-can-l.html]

Lebanon: The many hands and faces of Hezbollah by the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26242]

M17: Commemorate the 4th Anniversary of the Starbucks Union and Honor Dr. King by the IWW Starbucks Union [http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/2011]

The Russian Revolution, 1917 by Rex Wade [http://books.google.ca/books?id=uBfn...=gbs_summary_s]

Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution by Peter Rachleff [http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm]

The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control: The State and Counter-Revolution by Maurice Brinton [http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks...olidarity-1917]

Venezuela’s Co-Managed Inveval: Surviving in a Sea of Capitalism by Kiraz Janicke, Venezuelanalysis.com [http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520]

“Vanguardism” Revisited

“We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.” (Karl Marx)

All over the Marxist spectrum, there is a crisis over the word “vanguard.” Historical events have tainted that word, such that it is now synonymous with Blanquist elitism: the notion that a secret group of conspirators enacts violent revolution and imposes its rule over everyone else. To a lesser extent, various modern “vanguard” circles have emphasized “leadership” over “the masses” at every step of the process. On the other hand, spontaneism is back in vogue, and honest defenders of the original “vanguard” concept have found themselves ill-educated to properly counter this old reductionism of worshipping spontaneity. Only recently has someone – a politically inactive historian – “rediscovered” the long-ignored history of the original “vanguard” concept. Said Lars Lih:

Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed.

How “profoundly true,” as Lenin would say, but what is this “process” which Lars Lih referred to? In writing What Is To Be Done?, Lenin quoted Kautsky, and actually reiterated Marx (as quoted at the beginning of this chapter section):

Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without […] and not something that arose within it spontaneously […] Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task.

If that is the case, then why is “socialist consciousness […] something introduced […] from without” – and from where is it introduced? Immediately before the quote above, Lenin tried to provide an answer, again quoting Kautsky:

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 [...]: 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.

Unfortunately, both Kautsky and Lenin have ignored the former’s remarks regarding “educated proletarians” (as quoted in Chapter 2), and both Marx and Engels were petit-bourgeois intellectuals, not bourgeois intellectuals. What then, is the role of individual proletarians in the development of “scientific knowledge”? Said Lenin in a footnote:

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.

What, then, is the modern significance of all the quotes above? The profound answer is three-fold:

1) Only those who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of class struggle), support revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” developing proletarian class consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”), according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless” through having little free time or through being unemployed.
2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of proletarian class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.”
3) When the revolutionary process of introducing class consciousness to the proletarian masses begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians.”

This third point is “profoundly true and important,” because modern “vanguard” circles today act as "ordinary workers" in trying to spread class consciousness. This is the main reason why they have been ineffective!

However, because of the third point, the genuine class separation that existed between the non-proletarian intellectuals and the proletarian masses has been replaced by an artificial “theory gulf” between different groups of proletarians, so to speak. Socialist theoreticians, especially those without direct experience in the class struggle, can overcome this gulf by connecting their dynamic-materialist knowledge with the material conditions of the proletarian masses as a whole, thereby finding real expression of the newfound knowledge.

One more question arises: what form should this organized vanguardism take? The lengthy quote that ends this chapter best reiterates the original “vanguard” concept, as well as its organized form. It describes how to overcome the gap between Marxist theory and the proletarian masses, thereby solving the crises of theory. Following is the central theme of this thesis, the most important paragraph ever written by the real founder of “Marxism,” as well as the most important paragraph ever memorized by his most well-known disciple: one that is found in Chapter 5 of The Class Struggle (as translated, without “bowdlerized abridgement,” by Lars Lih, due to its central importance):

In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of 1847 they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy [as a party] is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.



REFERENCES:

Letter to Arnold Ruge from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, September 1843 by Karl Marx [http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/m...ters/43_09.htm]

The “Vanguard” [http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-t79650/index.html]

Spontaneity, class consciousness, and “vanguardism” [http://www.revleft.com/vb/spontaneit...12/index.html]

Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context by Lars Lih [http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVU...ummary_r&cad=0]

What Is To Be Done?: Burning Questions of Our Movement by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/]

The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...rfurt/ch05.htm]

So basically what you’re saying is that the working class needs to have explained to it the fact that their everyday struggle is a consequence of the capitalist system, and that the only way to overcome all of their problems is by the abolition of capitalism? And that the role of the vanguard is to do this?

Comrade JR,

1) Only those who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of class struggle), support revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” developing proletarian class consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”),
according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless.”

Do you endorse this view? Why or why not?

2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of proletarian class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.”

You're latter point is well taken, but I'm not entirely convinced by the attempt to reconcile the discussions on "spontaneity" and vanguardism in the predicate. One man's spontaneous is another's precondition. I suspect an opportunistic fusion of the spirit of the two schools (e.g., valuing both DIY ethics and historical materialism) will provide a more promising foundation than a grand attempt to unify their broader "gemeinschaft"

Socialist theoreticians can overcome this gulf by connecting their dynamic-materialist knowledge with the material conditions of the proletarian masses as a whole, thereby finding real expression of the newfound knowledge.

Why do you think this is so much easier said than done? I am sure most socialist theoreticians of the ivory tower bent are serious about improving people's lives. So why don't they try "to come down to earth" more?

Comrade JR,

Do you endorse this view? Why or why not?

Comrade, yes there is uneven development of consciousness. Otherwise, we would have had successful revolution long ago, with everyone in sync.

In regards to Kautsky's seemingly condescending remark, here is the context (again, unless otherwise noted, it's from The Class Struggle):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...rfurt/ch05.htm

Thus there has gradually formed from skilled and unskilled workers a body of proletarians who are in the movement of labor, or the labor movement. It is the part of the proletariat which is fighting for the interests of the whole class, its church militant, as it were. This division grows at the expense both of the “aristocrats of labor” and of the common mob which still vegetates, helpless and hopeless. We have already seen that the laboring proletariat is constantly increasing; we know, further, that it tends more and more to set the pace in thought and feeling for the other working classes. We now see that in this growing mass of workers the militant division increases not only absolutely, but relatively. No matter how fast the proletariat may grow, this militant division of it grows still faster.

But it is precisely this militant proletariat which is the most fruitful recruiting ground for socialism. The socialist movement is nothing more than the part of this militant proletariat which has become conscious of its goal. In fact, these two, socialism and the militant proletariat, tend constantly to become identical.

You're latter point is well taken, but I'm not entirely convinced by the attempt to reconcile the discussions on "spontaneity" and vanguardism in the predicate. One man's spontaneous is another's precondition. I suspect an opportunistic fusion of the spirit of the two schools (e.g., valuing both DIY ethics and historical materialism) will provide a more promising foundation than a grand attempt to unify their broader "gemeinschaft"

If you've already noted the difference between spontaneity and spontaneism, then you lost me there, comrade. Please clarify.

Why do you think this is so much easier said than done? I am sure most socialist theoreticians of the ivory tower bent are serious about improving people's lives. So why don't they try "to come down to earth" more?

I'm not referring to those types. "Socialist theoreticians of the ivory tower bent" are at the most extreme end of "socialist theoreticians" as a whole.

Right now there simply is a huge deficit "in the middle": run-of-the-mill socialist theoreticians, with "ordinary workers" on one side and ivory tower folks on the other.

I tried to post this last night, but for some strange reasons could not.

Class consciousness need not be confined to intellectuals. Whether or not in the past such class consciousness was imported from intellectuals, it need not be the case today.

Comrade, I'm not an "intellectual." Within the context of Chapter 2, not every professional worker is an "intellectual":

"including teachers, professors, engineers, nurses, and most accountants (who neither have ownership stakes in accounting firms nor exercise “factual control” through management"

Consider the IT workers example in the beginning of Chapter 3. They're getting the long end in terms of longer hours.

Rather the workers are in an equal (if not better) position in terms of their ability to acquire such a class consciousness due to (more) extreme material conditions of their existence (eg. economic hardship) which are not necessarily felt by proletarian intellectuals.

Again, professional workers like myself and IT workers aren't "intellectuals."

Perhaps I should edit to make this clearer.

What a bizarre conclusion! I would have thought the opposite, that being, it is the inability of the existing "vanguard" circles to act as and connect with the workers is the primary source of their failure.

This inability, comrade, is because they repeat the same old slogans and bring themselves down to the level of amateurs ("ordinary workers"). You keep quoting Lenin's "raise to the status of revolutionaries" remark, remember?

[In other words, there has been no major theoretical development on their part for decades.]

Your point here becomes even more confusing considering your following comment on the "theory gulf" and the inability of the circles to connect with real workers and their struggle. I thought this aught to imply that these "vanguard" circles are acting only as socialist theoreticians and have lost their status as members of the working class.

If these circles were acting as socialist theoreticians, we'd see a bunch of whole new contributions like that of Cockshott and Cottrell. True, that means those two have become "separated" (though I think the former is a member of the Scottish Socialist Party).

I would agree with this statement whole-heartedly. This is why time and time again I have advocated the role of the vanguard is not a "leading" role but rather one of education, agitation and (lending to the proletariat, the means of) organisation.

Perhaps the clarification should be one of "vanguardism and circumstantial leadership" in my Chapter 6 section on "the road to power."

[Even if you'll disagree, of course ]

Comrade, yes there is uneven development of consciousness. Otherwise, we would have had successful revolution long ago, with everyone in sync.

In regards to Kautsky's seemingly condescending remark, here is the context (again, unless otherwise noted, it's from The Class Struggle):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...rfurt/ch05.htm

The question should have been more precise. What I was getting at was: do you feel the vanguard should and/or is made up of basically of people who arrived at socialist politics in the absence of the class struggle. What do you gain by decoupling the agents of class transformation from individual members of a particular ethnic group.

Ethnic group???

To answer your first question, comrade: yes and no. Having just a bunch of "imaginative" talkers like the World Socialist Movement (thread link, and please note Comrade-Z's remarks) is a disservice. On the other hand, there are people who have arrived in the absence of PERSONAL class struggle. Take this "theory nut" (Led Zeppelin's cheap-shot words in the Theory forum) for instance, who at present doesn't belong to any organization. Maybe you to an equal or lesser extent.

The best example, par excellence, is none other than Karl Kautsky himself, who was "just an editor" (LOL)!

You're latter point is well taken, but I'm not entirely convinced by the attempt to reconcile the discussions on "spontaneity" and vanguardism in the predicate. One man's spontaneous is another's precondition. I suspect an opportunistic fusion of the spirit of the two schools (e.g., valuing both DIY ethics and historical materialism) will provide a more promising foundation than a grand attempt to unify their broader "gemeinschaft"

If you've already noted the difference between spontaneity and spontaneism, then you lost me there, comrade. Please clarify.

I didn't think about this difference until you pointed it out. I guesss what I was thinking of was the belief that "spontaneous" actions by individuals or a class will lead to social change. This, I am guessing, it was is traditionally understood as "spontaneism". Such a view strikes me as inherently anti-vanguardian. Therefore, it seemed the perspective that a "vanguard" will force social change is diametrically opposed to the idea that social change will occurr through unplanned, uncoordinated that-which-we-know-not-what.

Ethnic group???

Haha, shoot yeah I meant class group.

To answer your first question: yes and no. Having just a bunch of "imaginative" talkers like the World Socialist Movement (thread link, and please note Comrade-Z's remarks) is a disservice. On the other hand, there are people who have arrived in the absence of PERSONAL class struggle. Take this "theory nut" (Led Zeppelin's cheap-shot words in the Theory forum) for instance, who at present doesn't belong to any organization. Maybe you to an equal or lesser extent.

The best example, par excellence, is none other than Karl Kautsky himself, who was "just an editor" (LOL)!

Hmm... wouldn't you agree the question isn't so much do individuals without personal experience participate in the class struggle, but whether or not those individuals should be expected to form the vanguard.

I tend to think a level of personal investment is a pre-requisite for long term participation. This personal investment can take the (mild) form of fear of joining the lumpen proletariat (e.g. permanent unemployment) but at least it seems to me that to sustain a level of emotional commitment one must be aware of one's status as a worker who can't live without their labor.

It seems we are basically in agreement on this point.

And I tend to be appreciative of the contributions of theory nuts. I think to ignite class consciousness, both personal struggle and serious theory must be appreciated, at least at an intellectual and emotional level.

I didn't think about this difference until you pointed it out. I guess what I was thinking of was the belief that "spontaneous" actions by individuals or a class will lead to social change. This, I am guessing, it was is traditionally understood as "spontaneism". Such a view strikes me as inherently anti-vanguardian. Therefore, it seemed the perspective that a "vanguard" will force social change is diametrically opposed to the idea that social change will occur through unplanned, uncoordinated that-which-we-know-not-what.

Well, comrade, if the "vanguard" happens to be numerically massive enough (on a global scale, say one billion fully conscious proles), it CAN initiate revolution on its own.

The howlings of "Substitutionism! Substitutionism!" can only go so far.

Hmm... wouldn't you agree the question isn't so much do individuals without personal experience participate in the class struggle, but whether or not those individuals should be expected to form the vanguard.

I tend to think a level of personal investment is a pre-requisite for long term participation.

And that's the key: long-term participation (say, 10 years in the party). I have no problem with "theory nuts" without personal experience, so long as said "nuts" contribute something worthwhile on the theoretical end.

This personal investment can take the (mild) form of fear of joining the lumpen proletariat (e.g. permanent unemployment) but at least it seems to me that to sustain a level of emotional commitment one must be aware of one's status as a worker who can't live without their labor.

It seems we are basically in agreement on this point.

That's what MASS organization is all about. If you haven't yet received my WIP update (containing the "circles of consciousness" at the end of Chapter 5), please let me know.

And I tend to be appreciative of the contributions of theory nuts. I think to ignite class consciousness, both personal struggle and serious theory must be appreciated, at least at an intellectual and emotional level.

That is exactly why I've just edited a bolded part of my post above to include quotation marks around "ordinary workers":

This third point is “profoundly true and important,” because modern “vanguard” circles today act as “ordinary workers” in trying to spread class consciousness. This is the main reason why they have been ineffective!