Why should communists engage in economic struggles?

[Anti-Traditional]

Why should communists engage in economic struggles such as strikes etc which centre around definite demands such as wages and working conditions?

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

To improve both the class-consciousness and the living standards of the working class.

I know one liners aren't welcome in the learning forum, but I just thought the answer was concise.

[Anti-Traditional]

To improve both the class-consciousness and the living standards of the working class.

As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

But isn't the role of the communist the revolution? As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.

In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution. Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?

Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?

[MarxArchist]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas through a TV or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital. What I'm against is centralized "leadership" when it comes to guiding workers to see the entire system. I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do. I also have a problem, as I said, with Lenin's conception of a vanguard. Occypy Wall St was a good example of what I'm talking about. People saw that there was a conflict between labor and capital but what were the "natural" solutions they came up with? Without Marxists (not intellectuals or College professors or centralized leadership) out in the crowd explaining certain basics reformism, as was so popular at Occupy Wall St, will be the conclusion they come up with. Struggle as a means to fix this or that problem within capitalism not to end capitalism itself.

[Anti-Traditional]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital.

Most workers are already aware of the conflict. They see it every day and yet they are not communists. To support their struggles not with your motive being solely improving their conditions, but to change their ''consciousness'', is this not somewhat manipulative?

And yes everyone, I have been reading the nihilist communist text.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

And I most certainly agree with them on that matter.

But isn't the role of the communist the revolution?

Not merely the revolution, human emancipation. Revolution is just a mean to an end.

As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.

I'm not following you here. Aren't communists individuals too?

In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution.

Agree.

Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?

Yes and no. If the proletariat and its vanguard (the communists, roughly speaking, don't kill me people) focus only on the economic struggle, they just might become reformists. A good quote:

N.B. as to political movement: The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for the working class, and for this it is naturally necessary that a previous organization of the working class, itself arising from their economic struggles, should have been developed up to a certain point.
On the other hand, however, every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt in a particular factory or even a particular industry to force a shorter working day out of the capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force an eight-hour day, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. If these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of the development of this organisation.
Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands, as the September revolution in France showed, and as is also proved up to a certain point by the game Messrs. Gladstone & Co. are bringing off in England even up to the present time.

Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?

The level consciousness of the proletariat itself about its position in the mode of production. Let me try to be more clear. A 'class in itself' (economic-corporate level), eg the proletariat, will fight only for economic and immediate improvement; a 'class for itself', the proletariat again, will fight not only for their corporate interests, it transcends this barrier; it is a qualitative change. The communist ideas become material force.

[MarxArchist]

Most workers are already aware of the conflict. They see it every day and yet they are not communists. To support their struggles not with your motive being solely improving their conditions, but to change their ''consciousness'', is this not somewhat manipulative?

And yes everyone, I have been reading the nihilist communist text.

Well, some would argue the role of the vanguard is to guide the struggle from potential revolt into revolution. To show that simply fighting for reforms will get nowhere in the end and to use historical materialism as a guide to illuminate the need for a totally new system. I don't think this should be done in a preachy, centralized or authoritarian fashion. Those who are conscious of the need to end capitalism need to be amongst workers during struggle. Sure many people understand the boss has separate interests but in thoroughly exposing the conflict between labor and capital eyes will be open to the necessary path to replacing the system witch is attacking the economic base not chopping away at this or that side effect of the system.

Do you think workers would come to that conclusion on their own? Will workers, on their own, come to see that their interests are as one and the system can only be ended with total unity?

More 'sophisticated' socialist views of class-consciousness often refer to a process of more or less spontaneous political maturing through a series of economic struggles which take on greater and greater magnitude, finally posing demands which the system cannot meet. Here again the same basic error, from the Marxist standpoint, is made. In all such approaches, the class and its consciousness are seen in terms of a pre-Marxist theory of knowledge and of history. Those who put forward these ideas are unable to escape from a conception in which the separate individuals in the class move from their own working and other everyday experience to a higher level of consciousness, in this case political consciousness.
In point of fast an individual worker does not arrive through his own experience at a scientific consciousness of the actual relationships at work, let alone the political relationships. It u only when a worker comes into contact with the products, in political programme and action, of Marxist theory in politics - i.e., with the outcome of theoretical works produced in the first place by non-proletarian - that he can conceive of even his own working experience in terms which go beyond those of the prevailing bourgeois ideology. These works take the essence of the experience of the proletariat as well as all developments in economy, politics, science, the arts, etc.
Only a historical view of the working class and of the theory of Marxism, in their mutual interrelations, can produce a theory of class consciousness. In the middle of the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels, working on various fields of learning, as well as analysing the experience of the struggle of the working class to that date, elaborated their theory of socialism. The theory is henceforth the essential component of the process by which the working class becomes a class 'for itself'. As a theory, it had first to penetrate beneath the day-to-day phenomenal form of capitalist society to the social relations of production. It demonstrated that production under capitalism continues, and society develops, not through any conscious plan, but through the drive to produce surplus value, consequent upon the reduction of labour-power to a commodity, to units of 'abstract labour'. This is the essence of the worker's exploitation, rather than the fact, say, that he does not own the cars he produces. What he produces is essentially surplus value, the augmentation of that same capital which oppresses him.
From these basic relationships, Marx demonstrated the reality of the history of capitalism, the way in which private ownership came to a revolutionary clash with the further development of the forces of production. For a political or socialist consciousness of the struggle against the capitalist class, there is necessary the understanding of this historical tendency of the capitalist system. This means not just an abstract knowledge of the theory of historical materialism, but the concrete analysis of, and active engagement in, the development of the class struggle in all its forms and at all levels, in the period of capitalism's historical decline.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Let's look at this in practical terms - at your workplace, on what basis are you likely to successfully organize to a) create spaces in which theory can be tested against practice, b) create a material basis for workers' power, c) establish genuine relationships in struggle as a communist worker with other workers?

While I'd love to go to work and say to everyone, "Tomorrow, we takeover!" odds are that nobody would take me seriously - and why would they? What have I done to demonstrate meaningful political leadership? What has happened to make fighting spirit, tactical know-how, and strategic vision realities at [place I work]?

The reality is, in order to accomplish any of the aforementioned we need to participate in immediate economic struggles. We need to do so critically - highlighting their limits, honestly expressing our reservations, and thereby ultimately demonstrating our political maturity (or learning we're mistaken, as the case may be!), but we need to be there!

So, theory-shmeory Marx-shmarx - if we want to theorize the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, we need to be in the thick of the real movement that creates the present state of things (ie the activity of the workers that materially reproduces capitalism), and constantly evaluating and challenging it with regards to the goal of communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why should communists engage in economic struggles such as strikes etc which centre around definite demands such as wages and working conditions?

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?

As an individual I'd love to see an improvement of the condition of the working class. So would many Labour MP's etc...

But isn't the role of the communist the revolution? As an individual we might choose to try and improve the condition of the working class, but is it the individual doing this or the communist? Perhaps it is actually the individual.

In any case the best way to improve conditions is the communist revolution. Do these economic struggles actually bring the revolution any closer?

Also, what do you mean by class consciousness?

You might wish to read the works of Ferdinand Lassalle on this subject. Ignore his mistake on the Iron Law of Wages, but understand that his anti-unionism had the purpose of telling workers that only political organization counts, even in the immediate horizon.

The role of the communist worker isn't "the revolution," but class-based public policymaking struggle. Cactus quoted Marx's distinction here. Take, for example, a very recent comparison: mere labour disputes in minimum-wage workplaces in San Jose vs. successful activism to increase the minimum wage there.

An example of "voluntarist" left activism doing perhaps the right thing would be to show up at these mere labour disputes, but specifically to promote related referendum initiatives and other forms of grassroots public pressure.

[dēmistĕfī]

The focus isn't so much on the ends in themselves. Rather, the focus is on — despite my personal distaste for the phrase — building the Party (i.e. strengthening and developing — through solidarity — the organic community of proletarians, which is immanent to communism: "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things").

[Rurkel]

A potential negative side of social-democratic reforms are paternalistic attitudes. Many social-democrats try to present themselves as "fathers of the working class" or some blah-blah-blah like that, trying to limit independent working class organization. I guess communist militants should always point out that reforms are won by workers' militancy, that without our pressure on the system, even "genuine" social-democrats would be able to do nothing.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Not having to worry about day to day concerns like rent means being able to read the news and getting oneself politically informed and all that shit. It's pretty simple: working less means doing more.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Citizenism!

No!

[Geiseric]

Although a person sent me a group invite to the "impossiblists" group and I accepted it's paramount that the working class comes to see the conflict between labor and capital and this happens via struggle for better conditions. It's the best way of learning through experience rather than having some intellectual preach abstract ideas through a TV or expecting masses of people to sit down and read Capital. What I'm against is centralized "leadership" when it comes to guiding workers to see the entire system. I think Marx (the intellectual) showed us the path to capitalism's destruction but in our modern era those of us working class who are familiar with Marx need to be amongst our fellow working class explaining the system not having some Zizek charterer showing up at strikes going on about what workers need to do. I also have a problem, as I said, with Lenin's conception of a vanguard. Occypy Wall St was a good example of what I'm talking about. People saw that there was a conflict between labor and capital but what were the "natural" solutions they came up with? Without Marxists (not intellectuals or College professors or centralized leadership) out in the crowd explaining certain basics reformism, as was so popular at Occupy Wall St, will be the conclusion they come up with. Struggle as a means to fix this or that problem within capitalism not to end capitalism itself.

Well the sole solution to capitalism is socialism. Revolution is a process that takes decades. The vanguard a la lenin as he put it is exactly what you're looking for, revolutionary working class people leading by example, being the most dedicated to struggle. You have to understand though that politics and economic based organizing are more or less indistinguisable. People will struggle for revolutionary things (I.e. public ownership of production) as soon as they see that they are capible of winning minimum things such as immigration reform or free healthcare. The only way they can "win" these demands is by mass mobilization as well, which is where communists are necessary to glue the distanced activist nucleii togather, whom NEED TO ABANDON SECTARIANISM. NOW. Left communists need to get a reality check in other words, their substitutionism has been a failure fo years.

Want a great example of classic ultraleftism? Look at The spartacist league. They basically go to events which they wont have any part in organizing, try to sell newspapers, and proclaim themselves as the revolutionary vanguard! That's left communism. Newspapers and denouncing who they think are "reformist."

[subcp]

If the communist revolution implies the negation of wage labour, is it really useful to engage in struggles which do not seek to abolish wage labour?

If you accept decadence theory, capital is unable to provide durable reforms and ameliorate living conditions for the working-class any longer. That means that every industrial action has the same base potential to turn into a wider and larger generalization of struggle. This has become especially acute since the 1970's and even more so since 2007/2008.

That said, examples like the Honda strikes, the bossnappings in France, the factory riots and mass demonstrations in Bangladesh, the Hyundai strikes in South Korea, etc. show 'regular labor disputes' turn into something more. Sometimes that 'something more' is contingent on the influence of leftist parties and trade unions who do all they can to isolate workers and mediate. This was seen during the Lockheed strike not too long ago; or the Hostess workers (who didn't even link up with their fellow BCTGM union members locked out at American Crystal Sugar).

So communists can engage or intervene in strikes and other industrial actions to try and agitate against trade union manipulation, and propose direct action aimed at unifying and generalizing the struggle. This also can result in the more militant and class conscious minority of workers seeking communist positions rather than being swallowed up in leftist groups (many were present during the Walmart Black Friday events) or trade unions/union projects (minority unions like OURWalmart).

[Anti-Traditional]

I'm not following you here. Aren't communists individuals too?

What I mean is, does participation in these struggles inherently serve the communist cause?

I'm unconvinced by the formula: We go from struggle to struggle- Workers realise economic struggles are pointless- become socialists- revolution.

When I say is participation in economic struggles an individual act, what I mean is, are their motivations purely good will to the workers or the feeling that they need to do something or even just to recruit more members to their group.

Regarding your definition of class consciousness, wouldn't ''socialist consciousness'' be a more realistic term? Given your definition would it not be more accurate to identify 'class in itself' with 'class consciousness' and 'class for itself' with socialist consciousness?

[Comrade #138672]

What I mean is, does participation in these struggles inherently serve the communist cause?

I'm unconvinced by the formula: We go from struggle to struggle- Workers realise economic struggles are pointless- become socialists- revolution.

When I say is participation in economic struggles an individual act, what I mean is, are their motivations purely good will to the workers or the feeling that they need to do something or even just to recruit more members to their group.

Regarding your definition of class consciousness, wouldn't ''socialist consciousness'' be a more realistic term? Given your definition would it not be more accurate to identify 'class in itself' with 'class consciousness' and 'class for itself' with socialist consciousness?

Well, when workers are struggling for immediate gains, they will become more aware of their power to change things. This can lead to a more intensified struggle, when properly guided - not dictated - by Communists.

A class in itself is not class conscious.

[The Idler]

Not to propose economic struggle
Not to steer economic struggle
Not to guide economic struggle
Not to argue for immediate gains unrelated to socialism
Not to call for unity with ever more groups uninterested in socialism
But to propose political struggle for socialism

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Not to propose economic struggle
Not to steer economic struggle
Not to guide economic struggle
Not to argue for immediate gains unrelated to socialism
Not to call for unity with ever more groups uninterested in socialism
But to propose political struggle for socialism

Yeah, and if you've demonstrated your leadership among your fellow workers by not doing, I'm pretty sure there'll be nothing doing when you propose political struggle for socialism. Win a battle that puts groceries in the fridge, place that battle in context of the class war, and the odds of having an audience for your political proposals is significantly higher.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you accept decadence theory, capital is unable to provide durable reforms and ameliorate living conditions for the working-class any longer.

I certainly don't accept its rather apolitical conclusions.

That said, examples like the Honda strikes, the bossnappings in France, the factory riots and mass demonstrations in Bangladesh, the Hyundai strikes in South Korea, etc. show 'regular labor disputes' turn into something more.

Please kindly elaborate on how they turned into something more.