Why is the proletariat passive?
Submitted by stevein7 on Sat, 2011-10-29 15:18
In recent correspondence, amongst other points this was raised
_"I think that perhaps the subjective factors are overestimated
by your assessment of the causes leading to the passivity of the
proletariat in front of the bourgeois attacks. Of course, I’m not
implying by this that the bourgeois pseudo-socialist forces and the
trade unions shouldn’t be combated."
_
We do report on the many instances of proletarian resistance, but I think that some may be wondering why the proletariat has not hit back with much greater force than it has. I would tend to accept that the objective factors are much more important than ideological factors etc and the simple fact is that the crisis has yet to intensify before the class responds on the scale that makes revolution the likely outcome, rather than the barbarism that is on the ascendency today. Despite capitalism's difficulties, its resort to debt/speculation/super exploitation in certain areas (China etc) have deferred the day of reckoning.
Of course the deadening hand of reformism/unionism etc can delay the inevitable avalanche, and the interventionof revolutionaries can accelerate it, but that is not to say that the inevitability of a massive class response is questioned.
One aspect of this is the question of time limits. I think this may be of great importance vis a vis the environmental question, because there is a possibility of a tipping point beyond which catastrophe is inevitable.
A different question is the nature and outcome of such massive class struggle. Here the subjective factor, the rise of revolutionary consciousness is very important, but it is not in any way separate from the objective, the material reality and the two are bound together and condition each other.
Forum:
ICT sections
User login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The Maoist website LLCO.org
The Maoist website LLCO.org its explanations as to lack of resistance in what it terms 'the First World'. They seem worth noting, whatever the opinions of them.
It’s unquestionable that the
It's unquestionable that the response from the working class in Britain and elsewhere has not matched the attacks from the bourgeoisie. As Stevein points out the reason for this is complex and includes the interaction of both objective as well as subjective circumstances. One reason for the lack of a generalised fightback is in many ways due to the success of the bourgeoisie in applying a media blackout regarding any strikes. It's without doubt that strikes are taking place today but we simply do not hear of them. The reason for this is that the bourgeoise learnt the lessons from the 1970's when there was much more of a tendency to report strikes in the media. This reporting helped to create a feeling that other workers are fighting back and encouraged a fighting spirit after all there is nothing like publicity to break down that sense of isolation and individualism that is endemic in capitalist society. Today nothing which leads many workers into believing that no one is fighting back and discourages a fightback. Of course this isn't to deny the objective circumstances such as crisis of profitabilty in relation to competitors, restructuring of the labour market, structural unemployment etc. What I am saying is that the strikes that do occur tend to be localised and remain largely unknown. When they do occur they also tend to remain on the terrain of the bourgeoisie i.e. led by the trade unions with an input from various Trotskyists. It's against this scenario that we as left communists operate to try to intervene as effectively as possible given our small size and limited resources. The task is to try to shift workers perspectives away from a capitalist perspective to a communist one and in the process change the subjective into an objective force of revolution.
I’m sure Dave is right in
I'm sure Dave is right in saying that the bourgeoisie's media blackout on strikes and any working class activity works quite well for them. There's also the point that the slow realization by workers of what lies in front of them and what they are required to do i.e. combat the whole system internationally, must be very daunting. Then there's Stevein's point: "One aspect of this is the question of time limits. I think this may be of great importance vis a vis the environmental question, because there is a possibility of a tipping point beyond which catastrophe is inevitable." It is unpleasant to have to admit it, but the decomposition of both the environment and society pose a real threat to the chances of revolution. Time is not on our side.
One thing in our platform I
One thing in our platform I think is not so certain,
The tragic identification of state ownership with socialism has been brought to an end now that so-called soviet society [has returned] to the organisational and legal set-up of classical (i.e. Western) capitalism
Is it so clear?
Can”>cbg.110mb.com I submit
Can I submit this 20 year-old open letter written by someone in what was the CBG, not in any way to open old wounds, but because it seems to me to raise questions that the milieu has still to address.
Re Shugs letter, I recall at
Re Shugs letter,
I recall at a recent CWO meeting something on the lines that it is not possible that the class struggle could escalate to the point of construction of councils without there being at the same time a huge growth in the advanced revolutionary vanguard, i.e. the party, as if that was an obvious and automatic relationship. Forgive me if memory does not present it well.
That letter made me reconsider the preposition. the crisis is here and deepening. The class is responding however wrongly and in a limited way, but we expect that to increases as the crisis intensifies, as our theory says it must.
Now that seems relatively secure. Intensifying crisis, greater level of social unrest including indiustrial unrest. Not 100% absolutely watertight, but a fair prediction.
The problem is that of revolutionary class consciousness which is a far leap from fighting on the terrain of demands, defense etc.
I don't think there is any automatic correlation between a huge wave of class struggle and the generalisation of revolutionary class consciousness, though the former seems to be an indispensible element in that latter possibility.
I think it possible that the revolutionary minority will be much smaller than the Bolshevik example cited in the letter, and that as such its chances of victory are reduced but still remain.
As long as the revolutionary perspective can penetrate the councils and dominate at the highest level, it is not relevant that those who accept it are initially party members.
I am suggesting that a small determined force of revolutionaries could still have a decisive influence, though I doubt it and I hope this is not the case. Nonetheless, one man can move a mountain if willing.
Again, the probabilities are mounting up against successful outcome if the revolutionary organisation pre - councils cannot muster some strength beyond what could fit on a bus or two, but in all situations the possibilities remain open.
This perhaps contradicts the general lesson of the failed German revolution which says that the attempt to build a revolutionary organisation in the midst of the most intense upheaval is too little too late. I think it is not absolutely true, although very likely to be true.
....and Rosa did not have internet.