File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1996/96-10-18.130, message 69


Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 15:32:11 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: A Revolutionary Class



Rob writes:
> 
> G'day all,
> I'm brand new to the list and, judging by the erudition and passion on
> display, relatively unschooled in the style and substance of left-wing
> discourse. 

Bollocks to the "style and substance of left-wing discourse".

> (a) is the Proletariat satisfactorily defined as all people without access to
> the means of production other than through the sale of their labour?

I'd answer yes to your question as you have phrased it, but I'm not
quite sure what YOU mean by your question. Do you mean, "Is everyone
who works for a wage working class ?" , because if that's what you
mean, I'd answer, "No, only those people who can only support themselves
through the sale of THEIR OWN Labour are part of the Proletariat : people
who recieve a wage for supervising other peoples' work are part of the
new middle class or sometimes the ruling class".

> (b) Whatever the case, does the Marxist view of history actually require that
> the proletariat recognise a shared grievance?

No. The Marxist view of history sees class consciousness as a living
historical thing, a part of and an expression of the class struggle
and the various organisations and traditions of any particular group
of workers, and as in influence on these things.

But, as revolution can only happen in any particular nation state if the
all the workers of that country achieve a high degree of class consciousness
ie an understanding of the interests of the whole of the working class
( whatever  race / sex / religion / sexuality / nationality etc ) on a
national and an international scale, it is true to say that a socialist
revolution cannot occur without "the proletariat recognis[ing] a shared
grievance".

> (c) if so, where lies the
> hope of such agreed recognition (ie. hasn't capitalism constructed such
> variations in the experiences of employees that my Vice Chancellor and I
> are unlikely to agree on our respective interests - or the interests of
> 'unskilled labourers' or unemployed people)?
> 

Well, stuff your Vice Chancellor.
He is a ( junior, peripheral ) member of the ruling class, if your college
is of any reasonable size.

>
> If it is not necessary for a factory worker to agree with me, or for me (a
> state white collar employee) to agree with my Vice Chancellor, is there a
> problem with positing the transformative potential of the proletariat as
> the central historical agent?  If so, are finer definitions needed (or have
> they already been made
> 

A revolutionary party is required which unites revolutionary workers across
any divisions which may exist in the working class. Without such a party, 
experience tells us there can be no revolution. This party must fight for
the interests of the class as a whole, not any one section of it. This
by definition includes fighting against the oppression of women, lesbians,
gays, blacks etc, whether or not it occurs in a narrowly trade union
context.

However, whether or not such a party exists, the mass of workers will not
overcome their divisions without a high level of class struggle. Revolution
is not only necessary in order to take power away from the ruling class, it
is also necessary for the working class to overcome the shit of capitalist
ideas, and make itself fit to become the ruling class in society.

In order to become a revolutionary socialist, you will have to overcome
your prejudices about factory workers, and the factory worker will have
to overcome his/her prejudices about you. You will have to learn to learn
>from each other, in order to fight your Vice Chancellor and their boss better.

In the process of these parallel struggles, as they run together as 
part of a real revolutionary movement, as the state itself becomes 
involved in the struggle on the bosses side, your colleagues at your college 
and the other factory workers will come to see themselves as part of the same
class. This is so particularly if the relationship between the linked struggles
is pointed out to each group of workers by you and a revolutionary factory worker,
particularly if you are both members of the same, revolutionary, party.


Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------








   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005